Can Federer ever be GOAT if he can't beat his only rival?
- Thread starter samboy01
- Start date
thalivest
Banned
An impossible scenario. Since Federer knows he will lose most of the time when he plays Nadal how would he know which times to purposely lose and avoid Nadal. It would be impossible to guess the correct 7 out of 21 he was destined to win and choose those times to not avoid losing before reaching Nadal, but purposely lose the other 14. Instead for Federer, not knowing which days he was to have his occasional win over Nadal, to avoid his string of losses to Nadal he would have to now purposely lose before playing Nadal everytime. In which case Nadal has 4 Wimbledons and 10 slams already, and Federer is now down to 4 Wimbledons and 14 slams, but Federer now with a 1-2 or 1-3 or 1-6 head to head with Nadal depending at which point he decided to give up and purposely lose before playing Nadal (what you are proposing correct).
If by some miracle Federer were able to guess which exact 7 matches he was going to beat Nadal in the final and purposely lose every other time that Nadal reaches the final (or semis of 2005 French) besides those 7 then he would deserve to be called GOAT alright, the GOAT of lottery skills.
thalivest
Banned
So Federer is a mental midget you are saying, and that is why he loses to Nadal, not skills. Fine then. How can a mental midget be the GOAT.
Bud
Bionic Poster
Far from perfect because Federer was nowhere near his prime when he played said players (except for Nadal). Let's look closer:
Federer vs. Bruguera - 2000
Federer vs. Kafelnikov - Wimbledon 2000, Stuttgart 2001, Marseille 2001, Milan 2001, Davis Cup 2002
Federer vs. Kuerten - Hamburg 2002, Indian Wells 2003, Roland Garros 2004
Federer vs. Rafter - Miami 2001, Halle 2001 (singles), Halle 2001 (doubles)
And of course, see above for Nadal. You can't draw a trend from very limited statistics. Nobody could expect a baby Federer to defeat grand slam champions.
An impossible scenario. Since Federer knows he will lose most of the time when he plays Nadal how would he know which times to purposely lose and avoid Nadal. It would be impossible to guess the correct 7 out of 21 he was destined to win and choose those times to not avoid losing before reaching Nadal, but purposely lose the other 14. Instead for Federer, not knowing which days he was to have his occasional win over Nadal, to avoid his string of losses to Nadal he would have to now purposely lose before playing Nadal everytime. In which case Nadal has 4 Wimbledons and 10 slams already, and Federer is now down to 4 Wimbledons and 14 slams, but Federer now with a 1-2 or 1-3 or 1-6 head to head with Nadal depending at which point he decided to give up and purposely lose before playing Nadal (what you are proposing correct).
If by some miracle Federer were able to guess which exact 7 matches he was going to beat Nadal in the final and purposely lose every other time that Nadal reaches the final (or semis of 2005 French) besides those 7 then he would deserve to be called GOAT alright, the GOAT of lottery skills.
You're misunderstanding this. The second scenario doesn't involve Federer tanking certain matches, they involve him simply losing those matches for whatever reason. If you look at it from that perspective, it's pretty easy to see how the H2H argument is counterintuitive.
thalivest
Banned
Nadal wasnt in his prime from 2004-2007 when he played prime Federer either. Lets take away all of Federer's wins over Nadal these years then, take away Nadal's win over Federer this year and any in the future, and Nadal now forever leads 13-1 head to head. Isnt cherry picking fun.
even the GOAT has weaknesses. no-one is absolutely perfect.
not saying that Fed is GOAT. it's up to the slam-winners to decide.
bluescreen
Hall of Fame
these stats r inherently flawed. most of the gs winners federer has a losing record against played him when he just came on tour. when nadal bust out on the tour, most of these gs winners were gone or non-factors (as evidenced by the 20 gs winners federer has played vs. nadal's 13).
furthermore, nadal played some gs winners who were far after their prime or were never consistent threats in the first place (johansson, gaudio, etc.).
the way i see it, nadal benefits by two things, both of which result from the time he came on tour (which was out of his control, so take this as u will). nadal posted a lot of his wins against past-prime or "fluke" gs winners and by the time nadal was a real threat federer was the only guy winning grandslams consistently. a lot of grand slam winners were out of the game, so nadal never had an opportunity to play them.
i think a more accurate representation of federer and nadal's success against other gs winners is to compare their overall win/loss against gs winners. nadal has won 67 matches against gs winners, and lost 31. out of those 98 matches, he won 68%. federer has won 117 matches against gs winners, and lsot 50. that means he won 70% of his 167 matches against gs winners.
looking at these results, federer and nadal r actually very comparable in results against gs winners.
federer w/l against gs winners: 117/50 (70%)
nadal w/l against gs winners: 67/31 (68%)
Bud
Bionic Poster
no? how did he win the French a few times then?
thalivest
Banned
And what are the odds exactly of Federer not losing before playing Nadal any of the 7 times he ended up beating him, but losing before playing Nadal each of the 14 times he ended up losing? Why dont you try calculating that. Yes in the miracle "chance of winning a million dollar lottery" event that happened Federer would look alot better, but he would now officialy be the luckiest guy on the planet and it would just mean we would never know the things we know now about him (that being that the so called GOAT cant handle the only other guy from his era who is more than a 1 or 2 slam flash in the pan).
T1000
Legend
And if Nadal was good enough to get past the 4th round of RG in 2009 and good enough to make it to the finals of the AO in 06, 07, and 10 and the USO in 04, 05, 06, 07, and 08 he would have lost. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Grow up and make a logical argument for once in your life.
thalivest
Banned
Nadal doesnt need to be in hiis prime to win the French. He is a chasm above anyone else of his era on clay, including Federer. Say didnt Federer win the Australian this year, hasnt he won 4 slams in the last 2 years? Yet he is supposably so far out of his prime, but Nadal is in his prime just because he wins the French, LOL!
thalivest
Banned
Federer would never beat Nadal in a French Open final, not even an injured one. And you dont know Federer would have beaten Nadal at all those slams. It is pretty stupid to assume he would have beaten him at all those slams in fact given what a nightmare matchup Nadal has ALWAYS been for Federer, and what a tough oppponent he has been for him on every surface, chances are Nadal would have won some of those had he been in the final, Federer too would have won some, and Federer would still trail bigtime in head to head with a fairly even non clay head to head and a destructively bad clay head to head.
And you are asking Nadal to make every slam final as a teenager when Federer could barely hold his racquet straight at that age. Are you crazy. By your logic we could say whey was Federer losing in the 1st, 3rd, or 4th round at every slam in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. He would have a 10-16 head to head with Agassi otherwise.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
If anything, Fed should have benefited massively from being a mature, accomplished, vastly dominant player when Nadal was a young, inexperienced player still in the process of building up his game. The first match Fed lost to Nadal was in 2004 when Nadal was 17 and Fed was #1 AND on hard court.
Fed got pushed around and bullied by a teenager from 2004 to 2006: that's Fed's years of glorious prime. That's when he should have been able to use his confidence, experience and superior technical skills to edge out Nadal on any surface and yet that's when he lost to Nadal in Miami, Dubai, Rome and RG among others.
Fed got pushed around and bullied by a teenager from 2004 to 2006: that's Fed's years of glorious prime. That's when he should have been able to use his confidence, experience and superior technical skills to edge out Nadal on any surface and yet that's when he lost to Nadal in Miami, Dubai, Rome and RG among others.
Saying Nadal wasn't close to his prime starting in 2005 is ridiculous. He was a grand slam champion and we all know he matured very early, especially on clay. By 2007 he was already in the equation for clay GOAT, so I would expect Fed to have a losing record against Nadal in that period, especially considering 7 of those 14 matches were on clay. Even then, Nadal was a top 40 player in 2004 and firmly cemented in the top 3 by RG 2005. I would hardly call any of Fed's losses to him in that period embarrassing.
T1000
Legend
It's stupid to assume that Nadal would have beaten Federer in the 2009 and 2010 Wimby finals and all of the other finals I listed. Nadal probably would have won the majority of those finals anyway, especially at the AO, probably 06 and maybe 2010, but not 2007. The USO he would have lost the 04-07 ones but most likely would win the 08 won. I'm calling out Bud's terrible logic that he always brings to every argument. It sounds stupid both ways.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Of course he wouldn't have, which is why he didn't lose at AO 2009 and why he never lost a FO match to Fed.
thalivest
Banned
Yes prime Nadal was losing in 3rd round, 4th round, or quarterfinals of every hard court, and was owned by Berdych, Youzhny, Blake, and nearly every flat ball hitter in the top 30. Prime Nadal also lost to Waske and Muller in the same year on grass. And prime Nadal was fed a bagel in a loss to a declining Gaudio and lost in easy straight sets to Andreev in the same year on clay. All this from "close to prime" Nadal :shock: And you call me ridiculous.
So being a Grand Slam Champion is prime? OK then Federer is in his prime now according to you, he won the Australian Open this year, and if he wins any future slam he is still in his prime at that point. You made the rules, not me.
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
He was 18/19. Rafa has been so good during his whole career that people struggle to define a "prime" but unarguably his best seasons so far have been 2008 and 2010.
2005 and 2006 were superb (especially 2005) but not his best years, so not his prime.
T1000
Legend
It was a joke responding to Bud's terrible logic. Like I said before, Nadal would win the majority at the AO but not at the USO
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Exactly. 2010 Fed is in his prime then and in his prime he gets killed by Baghdatis, Montanes, Berdych and Soderling. So much for GOAT claims!!
Last edited:
The odds are irrelevant. No matter how astronomical the odds, we have to analyze the second scenario as if it actually happened because it still could have happened. I don't care if it's a miracle, Federer's the luckiest guy on the planet, etc., any further arguments about odds and probability are red herrings, so let's deal with some actual issues now.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
If Rafa has beaten Fed in the other 3 slams, odds are his domination of Fed is not surface related and he would win the 4th as well. I find nothing wrong with Bud's logic.
thalivest
Banned
OK then to answer your question Federer would indeed look MUCH better in the miracle he got lucky enough for your scenario to take place. That is what you want to hear, so yes he would look alot better if that somehow happened. It didnt take place though, so it doesnt matter, and it is too bad for him.
By your logic I could say if Evert had lost before playing Martina in every tournament from 1983 to 1986 except for the 2 French Opens and 2 other tournaments nearly everyone would probably rank her greater than Martina today. Which is true as well. The only reasons people consider Martina so superior was the constant ass whoopings she administered to Evert during Martina's peak. It doesnt change the fact that is how it played out though.
Last edited:
That was my fault for not clarifying. I was primarily referring to his clay prime which I'm sure we can all agree he was close to in 2005.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Fed, is already the GOAT.
T1000
Legend
Well Nadal isn't good enough to reach those finals consistently like Federer so he must be worse right? Odds are since Fed is more consistent he'll win more. And his h2h with Fed is a losing one on fast surfaces so obviously Federer is better there which means he always wins at the USO. I can see why this is great logic. Can't have it both ways
thalivest
Banned
Fair enough. That doesnt change that Nadal even in his pre prime state on hard courts was already posting multiple wins over prime Federer on the surface though, while Federer was instantly being dominated by Nadal on clay.
Really? Did you seriously just say that? Well can I at least see some justification for such an absurd statement beyond the simple "Fed has a losing H2H?"
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
His clay prime is when he wins the clay slam (2010) or wins RG in straight sets with bagel and breadstick galore (2008).
One could also argue that Rafa has been so remarkable on clay for his entire career, he doesn't really have a prime there.
My main response to that is that Nadal, while still a few years from his overall prime, was still no scrub on the tour. Anybody in the top 50 generally can beat anybody else in the top 50 on any given day, so while yes, Nadal did post a couple wins over Fed off clay, Fed more than balanced it out. From 2005-2007, their off-clay record was 5-2 in Federer's favor, which is more lopsided ratio than 7-14.
thalivest
Banned
You were suggesting if Federer lost to Nadal before the final of every event he lost to Nadal he would look better. I firstly pointed out such a hypothetical was essentialy absurd as the odds of him losing before playing Nadal all 14 of those times while still being the same level player essentialy, and still happening to reach the final for his 7 wins, are about 1 and a million. However after already pointing out how ridiculously far fetched that is to even use a hypothetical that yes Federer would look alot better if that happened. That is what you wanted to hear and I actually agree with you. That doesnt change the fact that as it is Federer has been exposed to a great deal with all his losses to Nadal, which yes he would look better if he avoided even by means of some earlier defeats. You obviously didnt read my Evert and Navratilova example, the same holds true there too, but it would be absurd to suggest it is wrong to hold Evert's inability to hang with a peak Martina against her all the same.
Nadal won 11 titles including a slam and 4 MS in 2005, something he never won that much after 2005. How many titles did Roger win in 2000? Roger won his first slam in 2003. The only answer to this is Roger is a late bloomer while Nadal peak early. Just b/c rafa is 19 we should automatically assumed he's not in his prime. Look at his results...without Roger he's the undispute #1 in 2005, much like early bloomer Borg, Hingis, Seles who was a beast at 19.
thalivest
Banned
So if a pre prime Nadal atleast on non clay surfaces (you arent arguing he was clearly pre prime on hard courts) can still post multiple wins over a prime Federer on his best surface and Nadal's worst, then by that logic even a past his prime Federer should be able to post multiple wins over a prime Nadal on clay to even things out, yet even a prime Federer could hardly do that.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. At Nadal's age, Federer was far from Rafa's formidable consistency in slam finals.
The reason your logic is flawed (1 of the many reasons I should say) is you're claiming that a 24 year old should have the same achievements as a 29 year old. Very sorry but that's ridiculous. Rafa is superior to 24 year old Fed in every possible category and there is no reason to believe Rafa is not gonna continue dominating in the next 3 years or so.
Omega_7000
Legend
I don't think samboy01 has enough gray cells in his brain to understand this post... :neutral:
No, not at all. The original post showed how the first scenario was obviously better, but fanboys use the H2H to trump it. The second scenario is an alternative that meet's the fanboys criterion for GOAT, but really is inferior to the first. In no way did I ever say the second scenario was better.
Omega_7000
Legend
How do you know this? and how can you be so sure Federer isn't going to come back to his old dominant self? Wasn't Nadal in a slump last year too? :?
Of course we would like to believe that could happen from looking at the H2H alone, but Nadal's game presents so horrendous a matchup against Fed especially on clay that he struggles much more to get a win over Nadal on clay than Nadal does to get a win over Fed on hard or grass.
thalivest
Banned
and here is where I am disagreeing with you then. In the extremely unlikely event Federer could happen to lose earlier each of the 70% of the times he went on to lose to Nadal, yet get far enough to face and beat Nadal in the 30% of times he actually did, he would in fact look alot better as his massive overall struggles vs Nadal, the only other great play of his overall forgettable generation of peers, would have never been discovered or exposed. That is just the reality.
Just like strangely enough if Evert retired after 1982 to have a family and was stuck on only 14 slams, while Navratilova now ended up with 20, there would probably be more people rating Evert as a greater player than Navratilova than there currently is with both having 18 slams. Without Evert people would say Navratilova dominated a total joke era, that she didnt start dominating until nearly everyone was burnt out/retired, and they would point to Evert's decisive head to head vs Martina and her greater consistency/surface versatility, etc...That is just the way it is.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
It wasn't a slump year, it was an injury year and despite the injuries, Rafa won more titles and more masters in 2009 than Fed + a slam (+ DC). So my answer to your question is: no. Fed cannot even clearly surpass Nadal during his worst year, he has 0 chance of even staying competitive in a "normal" Rafa year.
It's when Rafa was a teenager that the age difference should have been to Fed's advantage. Now that Fed is entering "old" in tennis years, his chances of outdoing Rafa are dimmer by the minute.
Last edited:
But that's precisely why the H2H argument is inherently flawed. It allows a player's greatness to be dictated by how many times they simply met another player in the draw. Nadal and Federer would still be the same players regardless of how often they met each other. It doesn't matter if Federer would have "looked" better in the second scenario, he was better in the first because he had the record to back it up.
thalivest
Banned
It just means Federer would have looked like a better player than he really is if he were lucky enough for your "one in a million" proposition of losing all those times before playing Nadal but still winning all those times he beat Nadal had in fact occured. The same reason Evert would look like an even greater player and stronger choice for greatest ever than she really is if it wasnt shown how badly overpowered she could be by a peak Martina in the mid 80s. Essentialy people would have been fooled to a certain degree, but that didnt happen and as it is we now know, which is why Evert as great as she is, is not considered GOAT by many, and why Federer shouldnt be either.
Of course head to head has it flaws which is why it is just a factor, not the only factor. However no GOAT will be owned in head to head by their biggest rival. It never has been the case before, and it shouldnt be now. It is embarassing to be called a GOAT when your biggest rival owns you both overall and in Slams.
Last edited:
So Nadal in 2005 is the dominant #1 in 2005 without Federer despite losing 2nd round of Wimbledon and 3rd round of the U.S Open? Wow people werent kidding when they say Federer dominated a rubbish era.
Have to resort to use the nonsensical weak competiton theory. Go ahead and ignore all of my points. It doesn't change the fact Nadal only won 11 titles plus 4 MS in 2005.
Here the thing....Roger was nothing at 19 in 2000, but he won 16 GS at this point(nearly 29). Rafa already won 1 slam at 19 in 2005. If you compare them on a year by year basis, Rafa should be winning well over 20 slams by the time he's nearly 29. Do you believe he's going to win that much? Hell no. And hence, Rafa is at his prime at 19 and Roger is was still a journeymen.
Similar threads
