2 more slams and Rafa is officially better than Fed

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
15 slams plus the dominant head to head on every surface will put him ahead of Federer in the history books.

I can't see anyone challenging him now. Murray and Djoker have lost their mojo and Federer is only going to win 1 more major tops if at all. AO + RG and he's officially better than Fed. All he has to do is stay healthy for one more year.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
15 slams plus the dominant head to head on every surface will put him ahead of Federer in the history books.

I can't see anyone challenging him now. Murray and Djoker have lost their mojo and Federer is only going to win 1 more major tops if at all. AO + RG and he's officially better than Fed. All he has to do is stay healthy for one more year.

Tomorrow is always a new day of tennis...
 
M

monfed

Guest
At 15 slams, Ralph will still only lead Fed at RG,he aint overtaking him at AO,USO,Wim,WTFs,Weeks at #1, YE#1. That's like 3/4th of the most important events/records on tour. Nice try but seriously try harder.
 

granddog29

Banned
Don't worry because no one can argue against stats. I have all the stats for these players and will sometime post them to refresh everyone memory.

Many of your stats in an all time sense are meaningless. Weeks at #1 when there was no computer ranking before 1975 (might work for Federer vs Nadal, but Federer vs Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, Hoad, Rosewall, and many others it is pure BS) yet you post it like it is proof of the last century of tennis. Slam wins the same applies, when it also doesnt give any realistic chance to players before 1970.

The rest are only manipulated stats that YOU deem as most important- quarterfinal streak, slams played in a row. Total BS as anyone could make up a similar list and invent stats that suit them better, like for instance a Nadal or Laver fan- most years in a row winning atleast 1 slam, winning all the slams multiple times, winning multiple slams on each surface at the time, winning slams over a certain number of years, Masters or Master equivalent titles, total tournament titles (where Laver has double what Federer has), times winning the Calendar Slam. As for slam wins and time at #1 the only way to fairly compare players ALL TIME is to take the official list of number 1 players by year, first selected by a panel of experts, and later by the computer, and in that case Federer trails all of Gonzales, Tilden, Laver, Sampras. Meanwhile Rosewall and Gonzales have won more pro slams (even discounting their amateur slams) than Federer did Open Era slams, and that was without even an Australian Open Pro, and losing all their amateur slams, which in reality gives them fewer slams than they almost certainly would have even with an Open field, and still more than Federer has.

Anyway if I see you posting that nonsense list again I will make my own and post it directly after each time I see it, so have fun with that.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
At 15 slams, Ralph will still only lead Fed at RG,he aint overtaking him at AO,USO,Wim,WTFs,Weeks at #1, YE#1. That's like 3/4th of the most important events/records on tour. Nice try but seriously try harder.

In 5-6 years time people will look up who has the most slams, see that the leaders are Fed at 17 and Rafa at 15, look at their head to head and conclude Nadal is better.

Fed knows this, that's why there's no way he'll retire. His actual record could conceivably be gone in 18 months.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
In 5-6 years time people will look up who has the most slams, see that the leaders are Fed at 17 and Rafa at 15, look at their head to head and conclude Nadal is better.

Fed knows this, that's why there's no way he'll retire. His actual record could conceivably be gone in 18 months.

In 5-6 years time, Rafa will be retired. His last few years will have seen him lose to players that he formerly dominated. Everyone will have already been asking, "Was Rafa as good as we thought, or did he just have weak competition?"

And by the way, there is no way in hell Rafa is ONLY winning 15 slams. You'd pretty much guarantee him another 2 French Opens and possibly more.
 
M

monfed

Guest
In 5-6 years time people will look up who has the most slams, see that the leaders are Fed at 17 and Rafa at 15, look at their head to head and conclude Nadal is better.

Fed knows this, that's why there's no way he'll retire. His actual record could conceivably be gone in 18 months.

Only Fed haters who have never accepted him as GOAT(like you for example) in the first place will use H2H but unfortunately for you historically relevant stats like slam count, weeks at #1,YE #1,WTFs will decide who the GOAT along with ability as a player, cross-era versatility as well. Everyone and the sun knows that Ralph would come a cropper in the 80s and 90s, how can he be GOAT with such a 1D game is beyond me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bryan Swartz

Hall of Fame
There is no such thing as 'officially better'. It's a subjective question, and has no objective answer. Even though Rafa and Fed played in the same era, you still can't compare early Fed to late Rafa because those guys never played each other.
 

Midaso240

Legend
In 5-6 years time people will look up who has the most slams, see that the leaders are Fed at 17 and Rafa at 15, look at their head to head and conclude Nadal is better.

Fed knows this, that's why there's no way he'll retire. His actual record could conceivably be gone in 18 months.
Actually no one cares about H2Hs. Could the average punter tell you the H2H between Borg & McEnroe,Wilander & Lendl? H2Hs get largely forgotten and people look at career slams,titles and rankings
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Only Fed haters who have never accepted him as GOAT(like you for example) in the first place will use H2H but unfortunately for you historically relevant stats like slam count, weeks at #1,YE #1,WTFs will decide who the GOAT along with ability as a player, cross-era versatility as well. Everyone and the sun knows that Ralph would come a cropper in the 80s and 90s, how can he be GOAT with such a 1D game is beyond me.

I like them both equally to be honest. My favourite player to watch is Tsonga because he's athletic and serves and volleys and has a great running forehand.

Borg, Wilander and Lendl did great in the 80's so Nadal would have been fine. The question isn't who is the best ever, which is inanswerable really because Lendl never played Fed for example, just who is the better of the two which is easier because they have been rivals for virtually their entire careers. Fed won his first slam in 2003 and lost on outdoor hardcourt to Nadal in 2004.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Many of your stats in an all time sense are meaningless. Weeks at #1 when there was no computer ranking before 1975 (might work for Federer vs Nadal, but Federer vs Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, Hoad, Rosewall, and many others it is pure BS) yet you post it like it is proof of the last century of tennis. Slam wins the same applies, when it also doesnt give any realistic chance to players before 1970.

The rest are only manipulated stats that YOU deem as most important- quarterfinal streak, slams played in a row. Total BS as anyone could make up a similar list and invent stats that suit them better, like for instance a Nadal or Laver fan- most years in a row winning atleast 1 slam, winning all the slams multiple times, winning multiple slams on each surface at the time, winning slams over a certain number of years, Masters or Master equivalent titles, total tournament titles (where Laver has double what Federer has), times winning the Calendar Slam. As for slam wins and time at #1 the only way to fairly compare players ALL TIME is to take the official list of number 1 players by year, first selected by a panel of experts, and later by the computer, and in that case Federer trails all of Gonzales, Tilden, Laver, Sampras. Meanwhile Rosewall and Gonzales have won more pro slams (even discounting their amateur slams) than Federer did Open Era slams, and that was without even an Australian Open Pro, and losing all their amateur slams, which in reality gives them fewer slams than they almost certainly would have even with an Open field, and still more than Federer has.

Anyway if I see you posting that nonsense list again I will make my own and post it directly after each time I see it, so have fun with that.

Those stats are from the open era. It doesn't make sense to include stats from the pre-open era since they had a split-fields. I don't believe anyone consider the amateur slams, or the pro majors(8-14 men draw) are equivalent to the modern slams. Unofficial ranking can't be use as stats because they are open to interpretation. The official ranking can't be argue against because the system determine the player's ranking, whether if you're are #1 or #500.

These stats are not manipulating. You can find that anywhere on the internet including Wiki. I didn't make up these stats, they are basically available for anyone to access simply by doing a little research.
 
M

monfed

Guest
I like them both equally to be honest. My favourite player to watch is Tsonga because he's athletic and serves and volleys and has a great running forehand.

Borg, Wilander and Lendl did great in the 80's so Nadal would have been fine. The question isn't who is the best ever, which is inanswerable really because Lendl never played Fed for example, just who is the better of the two which is easier because they have been rivals for virtually their entire careers. Fed won his first slam in 2003 and lost on outdoor hardcourt to Nadal in 2004.

Borg did well in the 80s because he actually S&Ved plenty at Wimby to win, Ralph hasn't showed any of that in a big way to win any slam, not even Wimby so it's impossible to project his game out in the 80s/90s. Heck show me where Ralph employed his transition,net game, S&Ved,improvisation to win any of his slams,not just coming to the net when it's all nice n rosy.
Borg is 10 times the player Nadal is and he has only 11 slams coz he was essentially playing in a 3 slam/year era.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Borg did well in the 80s because he actually S&Ved plenty at Wimby to win, Ralph hasn't showed any of that in a big way to win any slam, not even Wimby so it's impossible to project his game out in the 80s/90s. Heck show me where Ralph employed his transition,net game, S&Ved,improvisation to win any of his slams,not just coming to the net when it's all nice n rosy.
Borg is 10 times the player Nadal is and he has only 11 slams coz he was essentially playing in a 3 slam/year era.

You might be right about Wimbledon, who knows? Nadal changed his game to win the USO when it was still lightning fast in 2010 so maybe he could have done the same at Wimbledon.

He definitely has the athleticism to blanket the net and has a very similar serve to McEnroe's and Rafter's, perfect for approaching the net. If you look at the 80's, players who were baseliner's for the rest of the year got to the final quite often. Borg twice in 80 and 81, Connors twice in 82 and 84 and Lendl twice in 86 and 87, so I think Nadal might have been able to adapt there.

As for the rest of the year, Nadal would definitely have done fine just as Lendl, Borg and Wilander did.
 

timnz

Legend
No give him credit when/if he reaches the number

Head to head is a minor criteria for GOAThood...otherwise Nadal will always be battling the hbarty factor. No IF Nadal exceeds Federer's total then he can claim the position, otherwise he isn't there.
 
well the question gets really interesting if he wins the next 3, blows out both ACLs and promptly retires. where would that put him? he retires holding all 4 GS titles simultaneously. just imagine that.
 

storypeddler

Semi-Pro
Only Fed haters who have never accepted him as GOAT(like you for example) in the first place will use H2H but unfortunately for you historically relevant stats like slam count, weeks at #1,YE #1,WTFs will decide who the GOAT along with ability as a player, cross-era versatility as well. Everyone and the sun knows that Ralph would come a cropper in the 80s and 90s, how can he be GOAT with such a 1D game is beyond me.

And only Fed-lovers like yourself refuse to see the handwriting on the wall. Rafa is not there yet. But it is entirely possible and, I believe, likely that he will end up with MORE slam titles than Fed has. When that happens, I fully expect you and the other Fed-heads to suddenly try to change the finish line for determining GOAT. Too bad. If and when Rafa ends up passing Fed in slam titles, there will be no more argument about the issue, only the resentful whining of bitter Fed-fans who refuse to admit the truth. The way Rafa is playing at the moment, it seems extremely likely that he will win at least 2 slams in 2014 and possibly more. Two more will put him at 15 and by the end of 2015, he will be at or past Roger's total.

Additionally, the people who were continually complaining that he would have to win more non-RG titles (something they deemed unlikely) to be considered GOAT are suddenly nowhere to be seen. The truth is clear. He now has multiple titles at three of the slam sites, and is almost certain to get at least another AO title if not more. By year's end, if not long before, he will have locked up the #1 position for 2013 as well. And based on the year he has had on hard courts, he will be the favorite to win the WTF title this year, too. You may think Fed's style is smoother, you may think Fed's game is prettier---that's all on you. But Rafa is better and sooner rather than later, the entire sports world will agree regarding that fact because the numbers will be undeniable, like it or not.

It's a shame people who love the game have to show such bitterness toward a player of Rafa's caliber and heart, but it doesn't matter. In the end, he will stand alone at the top of men's tennis history---and that achievement may come a lot sooner than anyone expects. He is the best---period. If you aren't yet convinced, keep watching for a couple more years. And consider being big enough to admit the truth when he makes it undeniable. Anything less is just childish.
 

powerangle

Legend
In 5-6 years time people will look up who has the most slams, see that the leaders are Fed at 17 and Rafa at 15, look at their head to head and conclude Nadal is better.

Fed knows this, that's why there's no way he'll retire. His actual record could conceivably be gone in 18 months.

How do you know that everyone will look at those stats and come to the same conclusion? How do you know some people won't look at other stats?

It is just YOUR opinion. Some share it, some won't.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
And only Fed-lovers like yourself refuse to see the handwriting on the wall. Rafa is not there yet. But it is entirely possible and, I believe, likely that he will end up with MORE slam titles than Fed has. When that happens, I fully expect you and the other Fed-heads to suddenly try to change the finish line for determining GOAT. Too bad. If and when Rafa ends up passing Fed in slam titles, there will be no more argument about the issue, only the resentful whining of bitter Fed-fans who refuse to admit the truth. The way Rafa is playing at the moment, it seems extremely likely that he will win at least 2 slams in 2014 and possibly more. Two more will put him at 15 and by the end of 2015, he will be at or past Roger's total.

Additionally, the people who were continually complaining that he would have to win more non-RG titles (something they deemed unlikely) to be considered GOAT are suddenly nowhere to be seen. The truth is clear. He now has multiple titles at three of the slam sites, and is almost certain to get at least another AO title if not more. By year's end, if not long before, he will have locked up the #1 position for 2013 as well. And based on the year he has had on hard courts, he will be the favorite to win the WTF title this year, too. You may think Fed's style is smoother, you may think Fed's game is prettier---that's all on you. But Rafa is better and sooner rather than later, the entire sports world will agree regarding that fact because the numbers will be undeniable, like it or not.

It's a shame people who love the game have to show such bitterness toward a player of Rafa's caliber and heart, but it doesn't matter. In the end, he will stand alone at the top of men's tennis history---and that achievement may come a lot sooner than anyone expects. He is the best---period. If you aren't yet convinced, keep watching for a couple more years. And consider being big enough to admit the truth when he makes it undeniable. Anything less is just childish.

You really should have ended this with

VAMOS!!!!!
 

big ted

Legend
i think rafa could be goat but first needs to -
win 3-4 more gs tournaments
be no1 for another ~150weeks
win at least a couple wtf championships
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
And only Fed-lovers like yourself refuse to see the handwriting on the wall. Rafa is not there yet. But it is entirely possible and, I believe, likely that he will end up with MORE slam titles than Fed has. When that happens, I fully expect you and the other Fed-heads to suddenly try to change the finish line for determining GOAT. Too bad. If and when Rafa ends up passing Fed in slam titles, there will be no more argument about the issue, only the resentful whining of bitter Fed-fans who refuse to admit the truth. The way Rafa is playing at the moment, it seems extremely likely that he will win at least 2 slams in 2014 and possibly more. Two more will put him at 15 and by the end of 2015, he will be at or past Roger's total.

Additionally, the people who were continually complaining that he would have to win more non-RG titles (something they deemed unlikely) to be considered GOAT are suddenly nowhere to be seen. The truth is clear. He now has multiple titles at three of the slam sites, and is almost certain to get at least another AO title if not more. By year's end, if not long before, he will have locked up the #1 position for 2013 as well. And based on the year he has had on hard courts, he will be the favorite to win the WTF title this year, too. You may think Fed's style is smoother, you may think Fed's game is prettier---that's all on you. But Rafa is better and sooner rather than later, the entire sports world will agree regarding that fact because the numbers will be undeniable, like it or not.

It's a shame people who love the game have to show such bitterness toward a player of Rafa's caliber and heart, but it doesn't matter. In the end, he will stand alone at the top of men's tennis history---and that achievement may come a lot sooner than anyone expects. He is the best---period. If you aren't yet convinced, keep watching for a couple more years. And consider being big enough to admit the truth when he makes it undeniable. Anything less is just childish.

So much good stuff in this post.
 

GoaLaSSo

Semi-Pro
If they were even in slam count, you could make the case Rafa is better than fed. However, he still may not greater when looking at the statistics.

If he can surpass feds slam count, then I think a lot of people would consider him the greatest.
 

timnz

Legend
And only Fed-lovers like yourself refuse to see the handwriting on the wall. Rafa is not there yet. But it is entirely possible and, I believe, likely that he will end up with MORE slam titles than Fed has. When that happens, I fully expect you and the other Fed-heads to suddenly try to change the finish line for determining GOAT. Too bad. If and when Rafa ends up passing Fed in slam titles, there will be no more argument about the issue, only the resentful whining of bitter Fed-fans who refuse to admit the truth. The way Rafa is playing at the moment, it seems extremely likely that he will win at least 2 slams in 2014 and possibly more. Two more will put him at 15 and by the end of 2015, he will be at or past Roger's total.

Additionally, the people who were continually complaining that he would have to win more non-RG titles (something they deemed unlikely) to be considered GOAT are suddenly nowhere to be seen. The truth is clear. He now has multiple titles at three of the slam sites, and is almost certain to get at least another AO title if not more. By year's end, if not long before, he will have locked up the #1 position for 2013 as well. And based on the year he has had on hard courts, he will be the favorite to win the WTF title this year, too. You may think Fed's style is smoother, you may think Fed's game is prettier---that's all on you. But Rafa is better and sooner rather than later, the entire sports world will agree regarding that fact because the numbers will be undeniable, like it or not.

It's a shame people who love the game have to show such bitterness toward a player of Rafa's caliber and heart, but it doesn't matter. In the end, he will stand alone at the top of men's tennis history---and that achievement may come a lot sooner than anyone expects. He is the best---period. If you aren't yet convinced, keep watching for a couple more years. And consider being big enough to admit the truth when he makes it undeniable. Anything less is just childish.

Yes, he is not there yet, so he shouldn't be given credit for it until he does (and the standard is to win more slams than Federer)
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
In 5-6 years time people will look up who has the most slams, see that the leaders are Fed at 17 and Rafa at 15, look at their head to head and conclude Nadal is better.

Fed knows this, that's why there's no way he'll retire. His actual record could conceivably be gone in 18 months.
No, no, "people" will just see the number of slams.

So whoever has more will the greatest for the general public regardless of the distribution. My opinion.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
How do you know that everyone will look at those stats and come to the same conclusion? How do you know some people won't look at other stats?

It is just YOUR opinion. Some share it, some won't.

How do we know? People are looking slam total for the last 50 years. Why do you think it will change?

Casual fans need to have some simple criteria to discuss it. And this will stay.

When I meet people who know nothing about tennis, they know who nr.1 in the world is and they know Fed is the best because he has 17.

If Nadal gets to 18, general public will consider him the best.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
How do you know that everyone will look at those stats and come to the same conclusion? How do you know some people won't look at other stats?

It is just YOUR opinion. Some share it, some won't.

Pretty much. Personally, I think he has to surpass Fed's slam count to be "better" than him.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
15 slams plus the dominant head to head on every surface will put him ahead of Federer in the history books.

I can't see anyone challenging him now. Murray and Djoker have lost their mojo and Federer is only going to win 1 more major tops if at all. AO + RG and he's officially better than Fed. All he has to do is stay healthy for one more year.

I wanted to disagree. But I guess you meant 2 more CALENDAR year grand slams.

Yes, I agree.
 

nethawkwenatchee

Professional
15 slams plus the dominant head to head on every surface will put him ahead of Federer in the history books.

I can't see anyone challenging him now. Murray and Djoker have lost their mojo and Federer is only going to win 1 more major tops if at all. AO + RG and he's officially better than Fed. All he has to do is stay healthy for one more year.

Excuse me if this has already been pointed out but Nadal currently has 13 and Federer 17 grand slams. The way Nadal looks, it's not hard to imagine him winning 5 more and taking the outright record. This would of course require him to stay healthy. I can also see Roger coming out fresh in 2014 and making a run at the Australian Open. People can be a little too quick to consider someone done. Look at Hewitt, not many people would have had him winning more that one round and he makes R16 at the US Open
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
I think it's so incredibly myopic to treat tennis as just a contest of "who can win the most majors". Yes, the majors are most important, but let's not marginalize the rest of the tour either.

Nadal really has some work to do to catch Fed. Here's how I see the matchup:

1. Major wins: Fed, 17>13
2. Major finals: Fed, 24>18
3. Weeks at No. 1: Fed 302>102
4. Masters+WTF: Fed, 27>26
5. Olympic Gold: Nadal
6. Total ATP Titles: Fed, 77>60

I don't think Nadal has a chance to catch Fed in weeks at No. 1, nor do I think Nadal has to beat Fed in every one of those categories. However, for me to say Nadal has a greater overall resume than Fed, I'd like to see the following:

1. 16+ majors, with at least 1 more AO and 1 more W/USO
2. 22+ major finals with at least 2 more hardcourt major finals
3. 200+ weeks at No. 1, with 2 more year-end No. 1 rankings (as an aside -- Fed currently leads Nadal in total weeks in the top 2 with 418 to Nadal's 347, but Nadal is very very likely to blow by him in that metric, which is a nice feather in Nadal's cap)
4. More total ATP titles than Fed
5. Assuming that Nadal will have a healthy lead in Masters titles over Fed at the end of his career, I'd like to see Nadal get one significant indoor title at either Paris or WTF. WTF is better, but not by much IMO

As it stands now, Nadal has a lot of work to do to catch Fed's overall resume.
 
Top