Candide
Hall of Fame
You're nearly right except that Nadal doesn't just have less slams than Federer. He has FIVE less slams than Federer. That's a two pretty good career's - or one stellar career's worth. That hurts.
According to Agassi logic Nadal is the goat
- Thread starter The Dark Knight
- Start date
You're nearly right except that Nadal doesn't just have less slams than Federer. He has FIVE less slams than Federer. That's a two pretty good career's - or one stellar career's worth. That hurts.
smiley_face
Rookie
Haha it's so funny. Nadal won 1 US Open and 1 Aus Open so can we call him nothing but a loser on hardcourt?
The so called GOAT match is only a comment dictated by feeling and it differs from person to person, for example to many others Djokovic - Wawrinka is the true GOAT match. We dont have a clear criteria to define which is the best match. But we all know that 17 GS is greater than something like 11 - 12 GS.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
... oh no. when The Dork Knight starts googling for articles everyone's time would be better spent checking their toaster still works using a knife.
The Dark Knight
Legend
You mean Philopusis and Roddick (same player...more like 5 Roddicks)
Nadal is also 5 years younger and missed 7.
Fed has more attempts and has built his career on being the healthiest and second best. When Nadal is not around Fed is always there.....and Nadal has not been around for at least 7 slams.....he wasn't even on the tour for some.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Both hard court . So that's 2 hard court slams .
Except Nadal is 6-0 since 2008 in slams and 6-2 lifetime in slams.
Murrayfan31
Hall of Fame
Yep Agassi still bitter that Sampras owned him in Slams. Slams are the main test for greatness.
The Dark Knight
Legend
What about Mcenroe , courier , wilander , djokovic ....and that's just to name a few.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
It will be so exciting when Nadal overtakes Sampras's slam count at RG 2014. Are you looking forward to it ?
Bukmeikara
Legend
Roddick has a not bad record against Nadal (something like 5-8) and a positive one against Djokovc.If you check Nadal has a lot more losses to Nalbandian,Davydenco , Hewitt and Roddick which are part of "Federer weak era" than combined everyone outside top 5 today.
And the health is a huge factor in the sport and should not be excluded.What if Coria,Nalbandian,Kuerten,Hewitt,Del Potro,Safin were not injured , Nadal surely wouldnt won that much titles wouldnt have that much confidence and in some paralel univerce he can have only 5 Majors ????
Nadal is what he is thanks to the fact that he push his body to the limit he would probably never won that much if he didnt do it .And you have to asc yourself how can someone be out for 7 months not touching a racket for 5 and making this kind of season in times where the tennis is at his Peak and small things make difference ?A lot of great players in the past 15 years had longer timeouts of the game and no one was even closer to return to his formerself most of them reaching max top 15 and never winning a Slam again.So you start to think "WTF is this guy were even injured , if he was not why did he lie about it" and this kind of logic
rh310
Hall of Fame
Good idea. The numbers:
Federer has been 10 consecutive GS finals, and then a second streak of 9 consecutive GS finals.
Nadal? A paltry 5.
Federer has been in the finals of all 4 GS at least 5 times each.
Nadal? Don't even bother.
What's that? Nadal has been injured while Federer has not? Then clearly Federer is the better athlete of the two.
E
Ecoplex
Guest
He also called him out for cheating in Montreal in 2005. Of course Agassi wasn't used to someone trying to freee his pace back then.
The Dark Knight
Legend
You are right. It's also weeks nr.1, career slam and olympic medals.
Really? Boris Becker was never year end number 1 .
Or lets look at some of the great number 1's like
Wozniaki , Jankovil, Marcelo Rios.....
You see rankings are based on how much you at not of your the best . Federer has been the healthiest player of all time ....never out for an injury . He plays more than anyone else and was the second best on the tour....
So when Nadal is out Federer is always there ......Feds career is based on Nadal not being there.
The Dark Knight
Legend
If being healthy means that you are the better player then by that criteria Federer is by far the goat.
I personally don't think health means if you are the best at all and I don't think that most people do. Nadal simply can beat Federer on any surface while Federer
Cannot beat Nadal on every surface .
Since 2008 Nadal is 14-1 not counting indoor . 14-4 if you count indoor. And if you take away clay and indoor Nadal is actually undefeated at 8-0.
It's complete domination on all surfaces except indoor .
Nadal is the best but Federer is the second best and the healthier of the two.
Bukmeikara
Legend
Only "Wozniaki" had been year ending number 1 and that is just one name , the womens are totally diferent story than the man.
1. Switzerland Roger Federer double-dagger 302
2. United States Pete Sampras 286
3. Czechoslovakia Ivan Lendl 270
4. United States Jimmy Connors 268
5. United States John McEnroe 170
6. Sweden Björn Borg 109
7. Spain Rafael Nadal double-dagger 102
8. United States Andre Agassi 101
9. Serbia Novak Djokovic 97 *
Weeks as number 1 are probably the most important factor to be consider the GOAT and Nadal is no even near the top 4 ,so how can you consider him the best if he cant be the best of his generation ????
FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
By the same token, if you contend that Federer is the GOAT, it's hard to penalize Nadal for being behind him in the rankings. So, truthfully his weeks at No. 1 won't really matter for any spots in the GOAT rankings except Number 1. For example, if he ends his career with 16 majors (multiple titles on the three surfaces), 75-80 titles, 30+ Masters, Olympic gold, and, say, 150 weeks ranked No. 1, he'd really have to be ahead of everyone but Federer, right?
The Dark Knight
Legend
It's the least important factor actually .....it just means your healthier
Nadal I think was ranked #5 for this years french open.
But we all know he was in reality the number 1 for the FO. It's just that he missed 7 months .
That's why guys like Marcello Rios make it to #1....Lendl
Was number one for I believe 3 years without ever winning a slam .
In fact one year Becker beat Lendl at the us open and Wimbledon the same year and yet Lendl was number 1.
Lendl was an iron horse like Federer or wozniaki and just played all the time . It has nothing to do with being the best .....
Sampras was like number 50 and won the open . He was clearly a better player than his rankings suggested ......he just sat out for a lot of matches.
Nadal and Serena Williams and Pete Sampras are smart . They sit out and rest so they can play their best tennis in the slams. They know that's what really matters.
The rankings are wrong so often that they cannot be taken seriously.
But Fed has 17 SLAMS + 302 WEEKS. He has both. He is the smartest.
Death Master
Banned
there is no such thing as goat.
there are only great players relative to the eras they played in.
stop the madness.
there are only great players relative to the eras they played in.
stop the madness.
But no doubt the slam count is the most important criteria in achievement. Experts/historians put slam count the most weight in goat evaluation. Of course there are other important criteria too like ranking, important titles, number of tennis records, etc..
By the same token, if you contend Nadal is the clay goat, you can't penalize Fed for being behind him on clay.
Ok, let's give Nadal 100+ extra weeks. But let's give Fed 4 RG and CYGS or 2.
That would mean 20 majors and 1-2 CYGS. He would have to be ahead of everyone, right?
But if we contend Fed is not the goat, Nadal doesn't get the bump vs Sampras for weeks nr.1. He also doesn't get any extra credit for the h2h, since he didn't beat the goat.
Thinks are starting to get tricky, lol.
FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
Fed IS the GOAT, at least in my opinion.
And I give him lots of credit for all of his FO finals. It's one of the main reasons why I think his record wipes the floor with Pete's.
A healthy soldier is a better soldier than an injured one.
rh310
Hall of Fame
(I've noticed an extreme over-reliance on the strawman fallacy in a lot of your posts. Is that deliberate debating tactic, or do you literally think like that?)
If one of two athletes is able to hold up better to the demands of their sport, then he's the fitter athlete of the two.
Rafa very clearly can smack Federer around the tennis court. The problem comes when we extrapolate from that fact to more general conclusions about which one is the better player in general. Supporting metrics for that include time as the #1 player in the world (Fed), winning GS percentage (Rafa, but let's re-examine that if and when he gets to 7 more finals), consecutive GS finals (Federer, two streaks of 10 and 9, which is an amazing stat), number of times in each GS final (Fed, at least 5 each, another amazing stat).
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I know. So many of these "statistics" have been drummed up by the current crop of commentators. When Nadal broke Vilas's record, Vilas didn't even know he had the record, which shows how insignificant these statistics are. It's the brainchild of JMac who used it to help bring popularity to the sport.
No tennis player has tennis immortality and that trend will continue forever. I don't understand the need to constantly compare players accomplishments. Even in the case of Nadal and Borg. Borg did some things Nadal hasn't done and vice versa. Where is the logic in trying to escalate/denigrate each person's accomplishments?
But to your post, I had never ever seen this GOAT debate with so much furor before either. Some people have to have a "best." I caution my son all the time about this mentality. He's always asking me which do I like the best? And I keep trying to explain to him that everything is different, not necessarily better.
The number of slams does not make you the greatest there are other mitigating factors as well such as level of competition, dominance against your rival, longevity, span of time you dominated, etc. No one player fits all of these criteria so no one great player trumps all, imo.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
No. Tennis marketing is the main issue in this debate. There is no way that you can weight different accomplishments as superior, or lower other criteria as inferior. Anyone coming from this perspective has a flawed argument.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I don't think technique has anything to do with it. Nadal's knee injuries are a result of the congenital bone defect in his foot. The diagnosis being given before he was to enter the 2003 Open. Other than that he has had niggling injuries like the abdominal tear and regular injuries any tour player has.
If it was about technique how does it explain, outside of the freak injuries, Haas's, Tsonga's propensity for injuries?
Sometimes people are blessed with good health. I have always watched my diet while seeing my friends eating foods laden with butter, greasy fried foods, and soda as a part of their diet, but that didn't stop me from experiencing illnesses that they don't have. Good health is a blessing that we can't credit for.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
That's not true, genetics play a huge part in health. Whether you're a tennis player or not the human body is susceptible to its own particular DNA, and technique has nothing to do with it. Pete had that blood disorder and it didn't stop him from being great, he just worked around it.
I can't think of one player with "bad" technique that is often injured where technique was viewed as a sign of weakness.
I don't think it's genetics is the reason Nadal can't keep on playing. It's his taxing style that is breaking his body down faster than a normal tennis player. Any player who try to emulate Nadal's style will surely face the same results, and probably more often than Nadal himself. One can argue that Nadal is so fit that he's the only player who can survive the brutal style.
Anyway, it's a give and take. Nadal sacrifice his body so he can win a lot. If he wants to be healthy by not killing himself, then he wouldn't have 12 slams or 26 MS. It's his choice.
Anyway, it's a give and take. Nadal sacrifice his body so he can win a lot. If he wants to be healthy by not killing himself, then he wouldn't have 12 slams or 26 MS. It's his choice.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
You are right. It's also weeks nr.1, career slam and olympic medals
So who is the GOAT?
Laver with his 2 cygs?
Federer with his total number of slams?
Borg with his limited time on tour amassing his numbers?
Rosewall, Emerson, Gonzalez, Hoad?
Good luck figuring that one out. It's a straw argument to me, which cannot be proven.
But, let me ask you this. What criteria do you think they are using to bring Nadal to the forefront? It's not a matter of just saying it, there has to be something upon which these opinions are based.
I'm just interested, because the whispers are getting louder.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi's logic is flawed. He took a lot of drugs, they are bad for you.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Nope. Historians never did. Emerson had more majors than Laver but was not considered the best. Unless you mean the experts and historians on TTW, in which case you have a point.
But, I'll ask you like I asked JG, why do you think experts are now leaning towards Nadal? What do you think they're basing it on?
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
It's based on being invited to shows and Live TV, paid for commentaries and articles. In other words people are promoting themselves by talking up the top guy of the day.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
So you don't think he has a congenital bone defect in his foot that precluded him from playing in the 2003 FO and being told he would never be able to play professional tennis? You think he made this excuse up before he became a factor on the tour? Nadall's style is no more taxing than most anyone else's on tour. Haas doesn't play a taxing style, yet he has suffered more injuries than Nadal. Same as Tsonga. That taxing style comment is straight out of the commentator's booth and carried along by others.
I don't think is not a valid defense, because it flies in the face of the facts. I.E. ignoring the effect of the bone defect and how it affects his knees.
Emerson 12 slams are from the amateur, in which everyone have conceded that the amateur was weak during the pre-open era. Even Laver managed to win the 1962 GS and wasn't the best player in the world that year. However, Federer 17 modern slam is the benchmark. Tell me what single criteria has more weight than the total slam count?
I don't think they believe Nadal is the goat. Many experts say it's possible that Nadal can be the goat if he can surpassed Roger.
But congenital bone defect isn't the reason he's suffering tendinitis. It's the immense pressure/pounding he exerted on his knees.
Using Haas isn't helping your argument. Consider Haas has smooth natural motion on his shot, yet, he gets shoulder injury. Nadal games is way more taxing than Haas, not just the movement on court but his mechanics.
I'm very surprise that Nadal continue to play physical game today when few years back many people thought that his career is going to be short.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
You said number of slams was what historians used, which wasn't totally correct. But, wasn't one of Laver's cygs done on the amateur tour? If you don't count Emerson's how can Laver's be included? Very confusing.
For me, level of competition. Wozniacki's number 1 bears little weight because the competition was off the tour. Once Serena and Maria came back her results dried up. So, a stat in and of itself can be deceiving. That's why the level of competition is key for me.
You do realize that they're not saying Nadal has to equal 17, they're saying a few more majors and they'll give him the nod. So, again they're not using the total number of slams as the benchmark.
Last edited:
Yes, but they hold open-era slams in much higher regard the amateur. Laver has 5 of his 11 in the open-era. That's why experts have Emerson behind Laver.
Level of competition is subjective. Achievements is the best and most objective metrics to evaluate one's greatness.
Who is they? You mean only a few, and that doesn't mean the entire masses.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I read an article before that explained medically how the bone affects his knees by putting more pressure on his tendons.
So now, they both have to have the same injuries? The issue concerned players getting injured. I don't expect their injuries to mirror each other. Haas has had more than shoulder injury.
Tommy Haas (GER)
All Injuries
Shoulder 32/2013 33/2013
Illness 21/2013 25/2013
Illness 8/2013 9/2013
Right knee 15/2012 18/2012
Thoracic pain 11/2012 12/2012
Calf 1/2012 3/2012
Hip 32/2011 35/2011
Back 27/2011 31/2011
Hip surgery 9/2010 27/2011
Flu 42/2009 3/2010
Shoulder 41/2009 42/2009
Blister 32/2009 35/2009
Shoulder 17/2008 24/2008
Sinus Infection 11/2008 24/2008
Right shoulder 3/2008 8/2008
Abdominal 26/2007 31/2007
Right shoulder 19/2007 26/2007
Wrist 15/2006 21/2006
Shoulder 9/2006 9/2006
Right Thigh 24/2005 29/2005
Hip 29/2004 30/2004
Unknown 1/2003 9/2004
Real injuries have nothing to do with technique.
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA)
All Injuries
Left Knee 26/2013 open
Viral infection 24/2013 26/2013
Groin 1/2013 3/2013
Back 43/2012 44/2012
Right arm (doubles) 33/2011 35/2011
Right arm 32/2011 33/2011
Fatigue (doubles) 24/2011 25/2011
Knee 44/2010 1/2011
Right leg 21/2010 25/2010
Back 19/2010 20/2010
Right groin (doubles) 15/2010 16/2010
Sprained ankle 9/2010 10/2010
Wrist 44/2009 45/2009
Back 2/2009 3/2009
Unknown 40/2008 42/2008
Knee 21/2008 35/2008
Ankle Sprain 7/2006 7/2006
Right Arm 26/2005 5/2006
Back Strain 14/2005 18/2005
Again, all parts of the body are affected when you're a professional tennis player. That's for anyone.
Last edited:
10is
Professional
That be a rhetorical question, no?
Most people considered Roger is the greatest, and Laver is second behind him. Nadal may not even considered third.
DeShaun
Banned
Time will tell. Federer finally lost to Nadal in a hard court slam when the Swiss was 27.5 y/o, no sooner. Nadal is approaching that same age. Over the past 12 months, he has devoted more time to recuperating and rejuvenating himself than actually playing.
He is on some kind of hot streak- it's incredible, but I suspect the rest of the field is uniquely down at this particular moment, and Rafa is merely making hay while the sun is shining on him, while he is as rested and healthy as he's been in years.
As I said, time will tell. But I do not see Rafa winning another non-clay slam ever again, and I see him winning RG just once more. Murray has ascended and seems to have discovered the practice of peaking only for the slams. And then there is Novak who probably will own OZ for another two years or so. Rafa has his work cut out for himself if he wants to equal 17.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Similar threads
