Can Federer ever be GOAT if he can't beat his only rival?

[samboy01]

Yeah I know, Federer beat aging Agassi, he also beat 2nd rate champions like Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Murray... However as soon as he meets another all-time great champion in Nadal, he crumbles into tears. If Federer retires without being able to turn around his rivalry with Nadal, and if Nadal continues beating him in important matches, will Federer be able to be considered GOAT? The answer is no, because he couldn't even be the best in his own era. And don't bring davydenko or whoever in this conversation, we are talking about All-time great rivalries and Grandslam finals, that's what GOAT is all about. And the last time I checked, nobody was able to "dominate" Nadal, like he's been able to do to Federer.

(this thread was inspired by the stupid thread can Nadal be considered GOAT if he never wins the USO. Last time I checked, Federer had been named GOAT even before he won the French. At least Nadal already owns a grandslam on hardcourt, ironically over Federer! In fact, Nadal has beaten Federer in grandslam meetings on clay/grass/hardcourt, while Federer only on grass).

Chew on that for a while *******s!

 

[Rippy]

Federer has had plenty of rivals - he just beats the rest of them more frequently.

You're simply using circular reasoning. The only reason you are calling Nadal Federer's only "real rival" is precisely because he has a losing H2H against him.

So of course Federer can't dominate his other "real rivals" if your very definition of a "real rival" is one that Federer has a losing H2H against.

[Chew on that *******s / insert equally immature comment]

 

[edberg505]

Yeah I know, Federer beat aging Agassi, he also beat 2nd rate champions like Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Murray... However as soon as he meets another all-time great champion in Nadal, he crumbles into tears. If Federer retires without being able to turn around his rivalry with Nadal, and if Nadal continues beating him in important matches, will Federer be able to be considered GOAT? The answer is no, because he couldn't even be the best in his own era. And don't bring davydenko or whoever in this conversation, we are talking about All-time great rivalries and Grandslam finals, that's what GOAT is all about. And the last time I checked, nobody was able to "dominate" Nadal, like he's been able to do to Federer.

(this thread was inspired by the stupid thread can Nadal be considered GOAT if he never wins the USO. Last time I checked, Federer had been named GOAT even before he won the French. At least Nadal already owns a grandslam on hardcourt, ironically over Federer! In fact, Nadal has beaten Federer in grandslam meetings on clay/grass/hardcourt, while Federer only on grass).

Chew on that for a while *******s!

So lemme see if I got this right, Nadal is the best in this era? So Nadal has 16 slams? Nadal also has 285 weeks at #1? Well, I certainly wasn't aware of this at all.

 

[samboy01]

So lemme see if I got this right, Nadal is the best in this era? So Nadal has 16 slams? Nadal also has 285 weeks at #1? Well, I certainly wasn't aware of this at all.

At 24, did Federer have 16 slams and 285 wks at no.1? Of course not, because it's illogical. Come up with something more intelligent, please...

 

[edberg505]

At 24, did Federer have 16 slams and 285 wks at no.1? Of course not, because it's illogical. Come up with something more intelligent, please...

Then how can Nadal be the best of this era? Who cares about how old Nadal is. I love how people like to claim Nadal is the greatest but then they back track with the age thing. Am I missing something here?

 

[BullDogTennis]

At 24, did Federer have 16 slams and 285 wks at no.1? Of course not, because it's illogical. Come up with something more intelligent, please...

at 24, had federer had to take close to a year off for injuries? yea..no...nadal won't make it 2 more years...

so nadal CAN'T beat nadal?

it might be a losing record, but he has beat him...the fact is, federer is better at his worst surface(clay) than nadal is at his worst surface(hard court)

 

[ledwix]

I guess Federer should have played worse on clay and purposely lost every semifinal when he knew he was gonna play Nadal in the final. That way he'd be even more skilled than he is now and would be 16 slam GOAT with a winning record over Nadal, right?

 

[Toxicmilk]

Federer overcame many rivals..nadal is just an exception, and one helluva bad matchup for federer.

 

[samboy01]

Then how can Nadal be the best of this era? Who cares about how old Nadal is. I love how people like to claim Nadal is the greatest but then they back track with the age thing. Am I missing something here?

When in my post did I say that Nadal is GOAT right now? I just talked about Federer not being GOAT.

 

[davey25]

Then how can Nadal be the best of this era? Who cares about how old Nadal is. I love how people like to claim Nadal is the greatest but then they back track with the age thing. Am I missing something here?

You seem to be missing the OP's point. Nadal is the ONLY other great player Federer had to face, unless you count a grandpa Agassi at 34 and 35 with a wobbly back. The best of the rest are just very good players, not great players, and that is all they would be in any era. So for Federer to truly prove himself as the greatest ever he certainly should be able to face down the only other great player of his own era that exists. And he hasnt been able to do this.

 

[samboy01]

Federer overcame many rivals..nadal is just an exception, and one helluva bad matchup for federer.

A champion can have a nemesis... But a GOAT has to FIND A WAY! Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon against ALL ODDS, he FOUND A WAY.

 

[davey25]

the fact is, federer is better at his worst surface(clay) than nadal is at his worst surface(hard court)

Well dont look for that fact to remain too long. Nadal already has 5 Masters titles at 3 different places on hard courts plus an Olympic singles Gold, plus an Australian Open title. Federer 5 years old has 5 Masters titles on clay and a French Open title. Federer's only advantage is more French Open finals. Nadal ultimately on hard courts should far surpass Federer's acheivements on clay. He does not not have to dominate on hard courts to do that, he just has to add anything really, as Federer is pretty much done on clay probably.

 

[ledwix]

H2H is a rather arbitrary standard that doesn't say as much about the era as tournament wins do, and I'm sure Nadal would value a US Open victory in his mind higher than a winning head-to-head over the "greatest player in the history."

 

[Netspirit]

Tennis is about winning tournaments, not beating any particular players.

 

[davey25]

There is no other GOAT candidate who was owned by a main rival including in slams. Nobody.

 

[edberg505]

You seem to be missing the OP's point. Nadal is the ONLY other great player Federer had to face, unless you count a grandpa Agassi at 34 and 35 with a wobbly back. The best of the rest are just very good players, not great players, and that is all they would be in any era. So for Federer to truly prove himself as the greatest ever he certainly should be able to face down the only other great player of his own era that exists. And he hasnt been able to do this.

I'm not missing his point at all. He has to prove to me that Nadal is the best of the era. I'm waiting for proof.

 

[edberg505]

When in my post did I say that Nadal is GOAT right now? I just talked about Federer not being GOAT.

And when did I say Nadal was the GOAT? I want you to prove that Nadal is the best of this era. It should be a pretty simple thing to do.

 

[davey25]

I'm not missing his point at all. He has to prove to me that Nadal is the best of the era. I'm waiting for proof.

Nadal isnt the best of the era yet but he is on course to be. If he wins within 2 slams of Federer he will be considered greater by virtually everyone because:

-his complete ownage of Federer
-the fact most of his other stats are going to be Worlds above other than possibly the weeks at #1
-that he is likely to achieve alot more on hard courts than Federer did on clay (especialy if he reaches those kind of slam totals)
-that he beat Federer to win so many slams, while Federer beat Nadal to win very few of his


Either way Nadal even while not yet the best of his era damages any claim of Federer being the greatest ever by his domination of Federer since he was a little boy.

 

[raiden031]

The answer is no, because he couldn't even be the best in his own era.

Fed was #1 for like 4 times as long as Nadal and has double the amount of slam titles. How does that not make him the best in his era? Is this like boxing where beating someone automatically makes you better than them despite the accumulation of their past accomplishments?

 

[edberg505]

deleted post

 

[West Coast Ace]

Funny, Roger has beaten him plenty of times. And it's not Roger's fault Rafa couldn't hang with him and get to more hardcourt finals. The 2nd week of July through November, Rafa doesn't make too many finals. Still the king of Apr - early June on clay though...

 

[edberg505]

Fed was #1 for like 4 times as long as Nadal and has double the amount of slam titles. How does that not make him the best in his era? Is this like boxing where beating someone automatically makes you better than them despite the accumulation of their past accomplishments?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is what it boils down to.

 

[TMF]

Nadal isnt the best of the era yet but he is on course to be. If he wins within 2 slams of Federer he will be considered greater by virtually everyone because:

-his complete ownage of Federer
-the fact most of his other stats are going to be Worlds above other than possibly the weeks at #1
-that he is likely to achieve alot more on hard courts than Federer did on clay (especialy if he reaches those kind of slam totals)
-that he beat Federer to win so many slams, while Federer beat Nadal to win very few of his


Either way Nadal even while not yet the best of his era damages any claim of Federer being the greatest ever by his domination of Federer since he was a little boy.

This is nothing but a wishful thinking. Much like Serena will win 8 more GS. But it's perfectly fine to dream.

 

[davey25]

Care to make a little wager on that?

Nadal will end up with many more Masters titles, more Olympic success, more Davis Cup success, more longevity at the top level, basically every remaining stat that is important except weeks at #1. Are you actually disputing that.

 

[davey25]

^^
This is nothing but a wishful thinking. Much like Serena will win 8 more GS. But it's perfectly fine to dream.

And she is already down to only 7 more, after the U.S Open possibly 6 more.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

You seem to be missing the OP's point. Nadal is the ONLY other great player Federer had to face, unless you count a grandpa Agassi at 34 and 35 with a wobbly back. The best of the rest are just very good players, not great players, and that is all they would be in any era. So for Federer to truly prove himself as the greatest ever he certainly should be able to face down the only other great player of his own era that exists. And he hasnt been able to do this.

Ohhhkay, I seriously doubt that.

Murray, Djokovic, DelPo, even Roddick would be having quite a few slams if it weren't for the Fedal total domination of the tour. Back when Sampras and Agassi were emerging in the 90's, the other greats on the tour, Edberg, Becker, Lendl had slams that you could count on one hand for each player. That's quite the different picture for these guys that are facing a:

Roger Federer : 16 grand slam titles
Rafael Nadal: 8 grand slam titles.

 

[TMF]

Nadal will end up with many more Masters titles, more Olympic success, more Davis Cup success, more longevity at the top level, basically everything that is important except weeks at #1. Are you actually disputing that.

Do you have a crsytal ball???

I give Nadal 10% chance to catch Roger. He reached his prime much earlier than Fed and more likely to fade away faster once he's at Roger's age. It's easy to gloat him now since he's at his prime and Roger has decline.

He's so far behind, not to mention he doesn't even have a Master Cup.

 

[powerangle]

Federer is only owned by Nadal on clay, where Nadal is arguably the clay GOAT.

For example, there was no clay GOAT in Sampras' generation, yet Pete failed to make even a single final at FO. Did that stop people from saying he's a GOAT candidate? No.

4 FO finals, 1 FO, and a 2-10 record against a clay GOAT > 1 FO semi (without a clay GOAT to boot)

So if Sampras can be in a GOAT discussion, Federer sure as heck can.

 

[drakulie]

Yeah I know, Federer beat aging Agassi, he also beat 2nd rate champions like Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Murray... However as soon as he meets another all-time great champion in Nadal, he crumbles into tears. If Federer retires without being able to turn around his rivalry with Nadal, and if Nadal continues beating him in important matches, will Federer be able to be considered GOAT? The answer is no, because he couldn't even be the best in his own era. And don't bring davydenko or whoever in this conversation, we are talking about All-time great rivalries and Grandslam finals, that's what GOAT is all about. And the last time I checked, nobody was able to "dominate" Nadal, like he's been able to do to Federer.

(this thread was inspired by the stupid thread can Nadal be considered GOAT if he never wins the USO. Last time I checked, Federer had been named GOAT even before he won the French. At least Nadal already owns a grandslam on hardcourt, ironically over Federer! In fact, Nadal has beaten Federer in grandslam meetings on clay/grass/hardcourt, while Federer only on grass).

Chew on that for a while *******s!

 

[TMF]

And she is already down to only 7 more, after the U.S Open possibly 6 more.

You said she will win 8 more GS on 6/29/2010, that's 4 days before Serena playing for the titles. That was the time she's a lock to win wimby b/c she's 90% there. Added to the fact Venus is out, and no one gave Vera shot in the final. Fans already handed her the trophy.

Your prediction would be much clearer had you made it BEFORE the tourney got started or AFTER the tourney. It was vagueness in your part, so it's still stand....8 more GS for Serena.

 

[edberg505]

Nadal will end up with many more Masters titles, more Olympic success, more Davis Cup success, more longevity at the top level, basically everything that is important except weeks at #1. Are you actually disputing that.

LOL, who cares about Master's titles? Those things weren't mandatory until late 80s. So that makes Agassi better than Sampras since Agassi had more than Pete? But oh wait, Pete had more slams. Olympic success? Tell me who won the gold medal in 88. Davis Cup? See Olympics. Off the top of your head I I'm willing to bet that you couldn't tell me if Rosewall won a Davis Cup title. More longevity, lol, yeahwe'll see about that.

 

[powerangle]

*******s seems to think the ONLY head-to-head of importance is against the 2nd greatest in the generation. So would you consider Federer to be greater, and to be candidate in GOAT discussion if he had a winning h-2-h against Nadal but had losing h-2-h's against the Roddicks, Hewitts, numerous other players of "very good but not great" caliber?

 

[tennis_guru]

You seem to be missing the OP's point. Nadal is the ONLY other great player Federer had to face, unless you count a grandpa Agassi at 34 and 35 with a wobbly back. The best of the rest are just very good players, not great players, and that is all they would be in any era. So for Federer to truly prove himself as the greatest ever he certainly should be able to face down the only other great player of his own era that exists. And he hasnt been able to do this.

The point YOU are missing is that the best of the rest are only considered good players because Federer is so much better than them. If it was Sampras against those guys, those best of the rest might be all time greats in the league of Agassi, but Federer prevented that.

 

[Dreamcastin]

you know what the difference between you(*******s) and your arch nemesis *******s. *******s are delusional about federer, your delusional.

 

[davey25]

You said she will win 8 more GS on 6/29/2010, that's 4 days before Serena playing for the titles. That was the time she's a lock to win wimby b/c she's 90% there. Added to the fact Venus is out, and no one gave Vera shot in the final. Fans already handed her the trophy.

Your prediction would be much clearer had you made it BEFORE the tourney got started or AFTER the tourney. It was vagueness in your part, so it's still stand....8 more GS for Serena.

What an idiot you are. I said 8 more slams and 20 total slams. At that moment Serena had 12 slams. 12 + 8 = 20 not 13 + 8. If I had already included Wimbledon I would have said 8 more slams and 21 total slams. So no you are wrong (as usual) Serena is already down to 7 more slams from my original prediction which was made BEFORE her winning this years Wimbledon, and 7 away from the 20 mark you so would hate to see her reach. Heck you would hate to see her even reach 18.

It is already hilarious how you are the one already giving Serena slams 5 days before the final, yet your mock people who assume she is going to win alot more slams, LOL!

 

[davey25]

The point YOU are missing is that the best of the rest are only considered good players because Federer is so much better than them. If it was Sampras against those guys, those best of the rest might be all time greats in the league of Agassi, but Federer prevented that.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Murray, or Djokovic in the league of Agassi!? Please. The former 3 couldnt even post a winning head to head in their primes years over a mid 30s Agassi. The latter two are inconsistent headcases who regularly go out to relative nobodies in slams as often as to Federer or Nadal.

Those guys just arent great players period. What the heck do you think Roddick would do against a prime Sampras for example when he cant even outserve him (Roddick's biggest assset), cant outbaseline him, cant outrun him, obviously cant outvolley him. Or what would he do against Agassi when he was completely owned by an old man Agassi, and when Agassi showed in all those meetings he has no real problem handing his serve (and if a good player handles Roddicks's serve he is screwed).

 

[Rippy]

Can someone please explain how Nadal is Federer's "only rival"?

(An explanation that doesn't involve the ridiculous circular logic involving Federer's losing H2H against him would be preferable.)

 

[tennis_guru]

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Murray, or Djokovic in the league of Agassi!? Please. The former 3 couldnt even post a winning head to head in their primes years over a mid 30s Agassi. The latter two are inconsistent headcases who regularly go out to relative nobodies in slams as often as to Federer or Nadal.

Those guys just arent great players period. What the heck do you think Roddick would do against a prime Sampras for example when he cant even outserve him (Roddick's biggest assset), cant outbaseline him, cant outrun him, obviously cant outvolley him. Or what would he do against Agassi when he was completely owned by an old man Agassi, and when Agassi showed in all those meetings he has no real problem handing his serve (and if a good player handles Roddicks's serve he is screwed).

You're just using your subjective meaningless interpretations of how they would do. Prime against prime, those guys would get plenty of slams in the 90s. It's because of Federer they didn't. You should read what you write some time, it has no objectivity whatsoever. I think you don't even know what that word means.

 

[davey25]

LOL, who cares about Master's titles? Those things weren't mandatory until late 80s. So that makes Agassi better than Sampras since Agassi had more than Pete? But oh wait, Pete had more slams. Olympic success? Tell me who won the gold medal in 88. Davis Cup? See Olympics. Off the top of your head I I'm willing to bet that you couldn't tell me if Rosewall won a Davis Cup title. More longevity, lol, yeahwe'll see about that.

Agassi isnt even close to Sampras in slam count. If he were closer in slams, werent owned by Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and ended more than 1 measley year at #1 (aided by a Sampras injury) many would consider him greater since his career is more balanced. However since those realities dont exist then that isnt the case.

 

[davey25]

You're just using your subjective meaningless interpretations of how they would do. Prime against prime, those guys would get plenty of slams in the 90s.

LOL and your basis for that is what exactly!?! You are the one giving a meaningless interpretation.
I actually referred to matches that did take place, such as these guys in their primes vs a grandpa slowed down Agassi. And atleast I explained why those guys wouldnt get plenty of slams in the 90s. You have given absolutely no explanation or reasoning as to why they would have at all.

 

[drakulie]

Agassi isnt even close to Sampras in slam count. If he were closer in slams, werent owned by Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and ended more than 1 measley year at #1 (aided by a Sampras injury) many would consider him greater since his career is more balanced. However since those realities dont exist then that isnt the case.

Yeah, but Agassi was "injured" every year sampras ended at #1, and every time sampras won a slam.

 

[edberg505]

And she is already down to only 7 more, after the U.S Open possibly 6 more.

Yup, just like last year when she was getting strong armed by a player coming out of retirement playing her 5th? tournament back. LOL.

 

[powerangle]

Davey, I'm awaiting your response and reasoning to these two posts of mine:

Federer is only owned by Nadal on clay, where Nadal is arguably the clay GOAT.

For example, there was no clay GOAT in Sampras' generation, yet Pete failed to make even a single final at FO. Did that stop people from saying he's a GOAT candidate? No.

4 FO finals, 1 FO, and a 2-10 record against a clay GOAT > 1 FO semi (without a clay GOAT to boot)

So if Sampras can be in a GOAT discussion, Federer sure as heck can.

*******s seems to think the ONLY head-to-head of importance is against the 2nd greatest in the generation. So would you consider Federer to be greater, and to be candidate in GOAT discussion if he had a winning h-2-h against Nadal but had losing h-2-h's against the Roddicks, Hewitts, numerous other players of "very good but not great" caliber?

What do you think?

 

[davey25]

Yup, just like last year when she was getting strong armed by a player coming out of retirement playing her 5th? tournament back. LOL.

Yeah and since then she has won 2 more slams and has now won 5 of the last 8. Your point?

 

[edberg505]

Agassi isnt even close to Sampras in slam count. If he were closer in slams, werent owned by Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open, and ended more than 1 measley year at #1 (aided by a Sampras injury) many would consider him greater since his career is more balanced. However since those realities dont exist then that isnt the case.

And Nadal is? Pete -14 Agassi 8 Federer 16 (still playing i might add) Nadal - 8. I'm not quite sure I'm following you. By the way, how many YEC titles does Nadal have?

 

[tennis_guru]

LOL and your basis for that is what exactly!?! You are the one giving a meaningless interpretation.
I actually referred to matches that did take place, such as these guys in their primes vs a grandpa slowed down Agassi. And atleast I explained why those guys wouldnt get plenty of slams in the 90s. You have given absolutely no explanation or reasoning as to why they would have at all.

I agree I'm giving you a meaningless interpretation to counter balance your stupidities. Djoker, Murray Delpo did not face Agassi when they were in their prime. Had they been in the 90s they would have won plenty of slams (yes another interpretation). Explanations or reasonings are subjective and stupid again. This you don't seem to understand.

 

[davey25]

And Nadal is? Pete -14 Agassi 8 Federer 16 (still playing i might add) Nadal - 8. I'm not quite sure I'm following you. By the way, how many YEC titles does Nadal have?

I already specified if Nadal does approach Federer in slam count he would be considered greater. Obvously he isnt there now. Are you really as stupid as you pretend to be that you need every little thing explained to you.

 

[TMF]

What an idiot you are. I said 8 more slams and 20 total slams. At that moment Serena had 12 slams. 12 + 8 = 20 not 13 + 8. If I had already included Wimbledon I would have said 8 more slams and 21 total slams. So no you are wrong (as usual) Serena is already down to 7 more slams from my original prediction which was made BEFORE her winning this years Wimbledon, and 7 away from the 20 mark you so would hate to see her reach. Heck you would hate to see her even reach 18.

It is already hilarious how you are the one already giving Serena slams 5 days before the final, yet your mock people who assume she is going to win alot more slams, LOL!

Like I said, if you have confident she will win 8 more GS, you would have made the prediction BEFORE SW19 got started, not during 4 days til the final. Apparently you still have doubt in her winning SW19, only until in the late 2nd week to find out that she was facing Vera in the final. You predict something that everyone already know. Next time don't pull this one on us.

 

[davey25]

I agree I'm giving you a meaningless interpretation to counter balance your stupidities. Djoker, Murray Delpo did not face Agassi when they were in their prime. Had they been in the 90s they would have won plenty of slams (yes another interpretation). Explanations or reasonings are subjective and stupid again. This you don't seem to understand.

Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro are not even players of the Federer era, they are players of the Nadal era which began in 2008. So if you want to build those guys up you are building up Nadal's main competition more than Federer's as those guys will all go down as the top players of the Nadal era. The only one of those guys who made a bit of impact from 2004-2007 was Djokovic in 2007, that is it. The main players of the Federer era when he was most dominant are Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian, and Davydenko, the group who even in their primes got owned by a grandpa Agassi.

 

[tennis_guru]

Like I said, if you have confident she will win 8 more GS, you would have made the prediction BEFORE SW19 got started, not during 4 days til the final. Apparently you still have doubt in her winning SW19, only until in the late 2nd week to find out that she was facing Vera in the final. You predict something that everyone already know. Next time don't pull this one on us.

Didn't he say Serena was going to win the FO too?? LOL.