Can Nadal even be considered the GOAT?

[iChen]

Re people saying Rafa's resume isn't diverse enough / not enough achievements off clay. Rafa's resume off clay is not average by any standards, but it can be considered a "hole" in the sense that is better in other all time greats. But the same can be said about different aspects of every other all time great really. Including Federer.

4-1-7-5 in grand slams is a bit more diverse compared to Nadal's 1-8-2-1. And quite honestly if you take out clay, the H-H between Fed/Nadal isn't as one sided. Yes clay is important and Nadal will always be the king of clay.
Nadal's definitely one of the greatest players of all time but his resume isn't as deep as Fed's at the moment.

 

[Candide]

Let's try a comic book analogy.

The existence of Kryptonite does not make Superman less of a hero but, in fact, more of one. However, the existence of Kryptonite and the fact that it can expose a weakness in Superman certainly does not make Kryptonite a hero. Does this make sense?

 

[Fiji]

TBH, only Federer, Laver and Gonzales are in the conversation.

Nobody else is.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Let's try a comic book analogy.

The existence of Kryptonite does not make Superman less of a hero but in fact more of one. However, the existence of Kryptonite and the fact that it can expose a weakness in Superman certainly does not make Kryptonite a hero. Does this make sense?

That is gold... Nice work.

 

[Fiji]

Don't think a GOAT would pick his arse.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

4-1-7-5 in grand slams is a bit more diverse compared to Nadal's 1-8-2-1. And quite honestly if you take out clay, the H-H between Fed/Nadal isn't as one sided. Yes clay is important and Nadal will always be the king of clay.
Nadal's definitely one of the greatest players of all time but his resume isn't as deep as Fed's at the moment.

You can't take out clay, it's too important a surface to take out.

What you can do is show that Roger has excellent clay results. Lost in all this discussion is how well Roger did at the FO with 5 finals (1 being a win). That to me is a big feather in his cap.

So, looking at major finals, you have Nadal at 2-8-5-2, which of course is excellent, but with Federer you have 5-5-8-6, which is just unbelievable.

 

[Mustard]

Generally no (see red text below), but especially when compared to the metrics considered most important and by which tennis players have (and can) been measured across the ages - such as majors won, weeks at #1, season ending championships etc. He has won so much more than most players who have beaten him that it's irrelevant. And so the case is between Federer and Nadal.

Some people were calling Federer the greatest before he was anywhere near Sampras' majors total. Nadal has delivered in the biggest matches against his biggest rivals more than anybody else in this era. Federer, Djokovic and Murray all have losing records to 2 of their 3 biggest rivals. Nadal has never had a losing record against any of them at any stage in his career.

H2hs are not even a blip on the radar when you compile a body of work on a player to line them up against tennis players across the ages. They never were until literally 5 years ago when Nadal fans started seeking something to show their favourite player was better than someone who was clearly the higher achiever.

I think some Federer fanatics have been concerned about the head-to-head for years, ever since Nadal won those 4 matches they had from March-June 2006 to go to 6-1 in the head-to-head against an absolute peak Federer. To say it's a "blip on the radar" is clearly false.

But, since some are so intent on using the h2h argument I'll frame it another way: what is a bigger blight on a player's career - a player losing to a #50 in the second round of a tournament and thereby protecting their h2h versus their key rivals or a player losing to the #2 or 3 ranked player in a final and having their h2h negatively affected?

The point is, Nadal has already won all 4 majors, even though his last 2 Wimbledons have been poor.

Chris Guccione, Xavier Malisse, Mikhail Youzhny, Nicolas Mahut, Juan Monaco, Carlos Moya, Joachim Johansson are the sort of people Nadal was losing to - a group of players Federer has never lost to. He has 45-0 record against that entire group and Nadal lost to all of them in less than two seasons.

On hardcourt, when Nadal was still getting to grips with the surface. Who was Federer losing to, on any surface, when he was 20?

He yet has more of the achievements that are considered most important than both of them combined. That is what matters more. Until Nadal hits 17 majors he's simply not a remotely credible GOAT candidate - he is second, third (or lower) on every major metric by which tennis players are compared - while Federer is #1 on many of them, by miles in some cases too.

What about those people who were calling Federer the GOAT as far back as 2004? They didn't seem to care about his achievements at that time in comparison to legends of the game, only about his style and level of play at that time.

 

[swordtennis]

Personally No.
Lots of strong pros. Big time cons.
So many wacko issues through the years.
Spanish Sports Machine member as well.
Also Nadal fans never seem to address them.
Straw man "haters" or "FedFan" statements thrown out.
Waiting for a cry baby Federer reference soon in this thread.....

 

[Smasher08]

You do realize Rafael has actually a better grass record than Edberg ?

2 Wimbledon titles and 3 finals, vs 2 Wimbledon titles and 1 final .

Actually this is wrong. Edberg won two AOs when it was played on grass at Kooyong. He also won all his grass titles on fast-playing pre-2002 grass.

In any event, that makes it 4 major grasscourt titles vs 2.

 

[Mustard]

Spanish Sports Machine member as well.

Nadal had his funding cut for insisting on staying in Majorca instead of going to Barcelona.

 

[swordtennis]

Nadal had his funding cut for insisting on staying in Majorca instead of going to Barcelona.

I was wondering about that.
I am on the fence with Nadal and GOAT.
He definitely is in there with the big boys.

 

[TMF]

What about those people who were calling Federer the GOAT as far back as 2004? They didn't seem to care about his achievements at that time in comparison to legends of the game, only about his style and level of play at that time.

What % would that be? Probably 1.0% of the masses. As Federer continue to rack up slams, more people lean toward him, but still the numbers are small. It wasn't until 2009 which marks the time when one can argue that most fans pick him, especially over Sampras.

I'm not saying Nadal has 0% of the masses picking him as goat, but there's a very small % out there who believe he is(especially from his fans). But overall, fans don't even consider him in goat discussion, not yet.

 

[Smasher08]

I was wondering about that.
I am on the fence with Nadal and GOAT.
He definitely is in there with the big boys.

His clay accomplishments place him among the best who have ever played the game. He is probably the ultimate surface specialist.

But nothing changes the fact that slowed-down hardcourts and post-2002 grass all helped him achieve more off of clay than he would have in any earlier era.

Another thing to consider is how many times he finished outside of YE#1. Rankings-wise, he has spent the vast majority of his career in the shadow of Fred and Nole.

 

[swordtennis]

His clay accomplishments place him among the best who have ever played the game. He is probably the ultimate surface specialist.

But nothing changes the fact that slowed-down hardcourts and post-2002 grass all helped him achieve more off of clay than he would have in any earlier era.

Another thing to consider is how many times he finished outside of YE#1. Rankings-wise, he has spent the vast majority of his career in the shadow of Fred and Nole.

Have to agree on that.
Definitely struggles on slicker surfaces with weird bounces.
But I am in the minority because I actually think he is not that bad on fast surfaces.
He just likes that time to get that big swing going.
He might actually struggle a bit on that slick green American clay.
Would definitely like to see how all the top dogs would fare if there were a wider variety of court compositions.

 

[Smasher08]

Have to agree on that.
Definitely struggles on slicker surfaces with weird bounces.
But I am in the minority because I actually think he is not that bad on fast surfaces.
He just likes that time to get that big swing going.
He might actually struggle a bit on that slick green American clay.
Would definitely like to see how all the top dogs would fare if there were a wider variety of court compositions.

It's not just his swing. It's his game style and strategy. He plays so far behind the baseline in order to have enough time to run down shots that would ordinarily be winners and send them back over the net. On a truly fast surface, he wouldn't be able to do this. He'd just get blown off the court.

His records at Bercy and WTF are probably the best supporting evidence for this point. I also think that if events were still played on old-school indoor carpet, he'd rarely even make it to the quarters. Furthermore, with his grips and swings, he'd struggle with truly low, skidding bounces.

Nadal is primarily a defensive retriever. Fast courts favour aggressive game styles. To his credit, he gives it his all during every point. He's a bit like Allen Iverson that way.

 

[Nitish]

Have to agree on that.
Definitely struggles on slicker surfaces with weird bounces.
But I am in the minority because I actually think he is not that bad on fast surfaces.
He just likes that time to get that big swing going.
He might actually struggle a bit on that slick green American clay.
Would definitely like to see how all the top dogs would fare if there were a wider variety of court compositions.

That would be interesting but some of these streaks wouldnt be there because the chances of upsets would be more on faster surfaces.I think Fed would do well in such cases,blue clay last year was a great example when everybody was slipping and falling,Fed adapted extremely well.

 

[swordtennis]

Smasher, Nitish,
What is your take on Nadal's 2010 season?
At the AO he blows his body out.
The profuse sweating and the injury was really bizzaro when he retired against Murray.
I thought he was done maybe for good.
Then he goes and blasts out the FO, Wimbledon and USO.
That is when I swore the injury thing will never again be a factor to me.

 

[Smasher08]

Smasher, Nitish,
What is your take on Nadal's 2010 season?
At the AO he blows his body out.
The profuse sweating and the injury was really bizzaro when he retired against Murray.
I thought he was done maybe for good.
Then he goes and blasts out the FO, Wimbledon and USO.
That is when I swore the injury thing will never again be a factor to me.

There's a blog called "Tennis Has a Steroid Problem" which, I think, offers a great analysis of his performances that year, as well as throughout his career. Nadal just seems to have more bizarro and contradictory health issues than anyone before in world history. It's possible that deep down he's ridiculously neurotic, hypochondriac, and something of a head case. We do know that he's definitely OCD.

To be sure, he was fortunate to have Fed go out earlier than previously during that year. Mind you, chronologically speaking, 22 is typically when someone enters their physical prime, and 26 is when someone typically begins to leave it. Fed's and Nads' career results from 2008-present are certainly consistent with this analysis, so it may actually explain a lot.

 

[kragster]

It's not just his swing. It's his game style and strategy. He plays so far behind the baseline in order to have enough time to run down shots that would ordinarily be winners and send them back over the net. On a truly fast surface, he wouldn't be able to do this. He'd just get blown off the court.

His records at Bercy and WTF are probably the best supporting evidence for this point. I also think that if events were still played on old-school indoor carpet, he'd rarely even make it to the quarters. Furthermore, with his grips and swings, he'd struggle with truly low, skidding bounces.

Nadal is primarily a defensive retriever. Fast courts favour aggressive game styles. To his credit, he gives it his all during every point. He's a bit like Allen Iverson that way.

You are assuming that Nadal would not change his game style even if surfaces were faster which is a poor assumption. Back in 05, Nadal was hitting his FH a lot flatter. He then discovered that he could be just/more successful if he stood behind the baseline and cranked up the top spin.

If surfaces had never been slowed, young Nadal would have likely switched to a more aggressive game plan rather than a high percentage one.

 

[Nitish]

Smasher, Nitish,
What is your take on Nadal's 2010 season?
At the AO he blows his body out.
The profuse sweating and the injury was really bizzaro when he retired against Murray.
I thought he was done maybe for good.
Then he goes and blasts out the FO, Wimbledon and USO.
That is when I swore the injury thing will never again be a factor to me.

It was definitely was a weird season.He absolutely owned the clay court s(3 masters and the FO),he struggled on grass and it could have easily been another case of Rosol but managed to pull through and got lot better in the second week .One thing that stands out for me in that season was his serve in the USO 2010,it seemed like a grip change but its surprising why he didnt use it against Djoker in 2011 when he was in all sorts of trouble and his usual game was not working.My final take on his season is he started getting comfortable on HC and was at his best physically.

 

[NatF]

It was definitely was a weird season.He absolutely owned the clay court s(3 masters and the FO),he struggled on grass and it could have easily been another case of Rosol but managed to pull through and got lot better in the second week .One thing that stands out for me in that season was his serve in the USO 2010,it seemed like a grip change but its surprising why he didnt use it against Djoker in 2011 when he was in all sorts of trouble and his usual game was not working.My final take on his season is he started getting comfortable on HC and was at his best physically.

I think he was hitting his serve really hard at Indian Wells in 2011, he was also serving better in the Wimbledon 2011 final than in the USO 2010 final. So yeah, he did try it and it didn't help.

 

[Nitish]

I think he was hitting his serve really hard at Indian Wells in 2011, he was also serving better in the Wimbledon 2011 final than in the USO 2010 final. So yeah, he did try it and it didn't help.

Yeah i forgot about that and IIRC he was serving pretty well against Rosol as well.

 

[Mustard]

It was definitely was a weird season.He absolutely owned the clay court s(3 masters and the FO),he struggled on grass and it could have easily been another case of Rosol but managed to pull through and got lot better in the second week .One thing that stands out for me in that season was his serve in the USO 2010,it seemed like a grip change but its surprising why he didnt use it against Djoker in 2011 when he was in all sorts of trouble and his usual game was not working.My final take on his season is he started getting comfortable on HC and was at his best physically.

Nadal used that serve at 2011 Indian Wells. It gave him shoulder trouble, and his first serve percentage collapsed to as low as 20% in the final 2 sets against Djokovic in the final.

 

[Smasher08]

You are assuming that Nadal would not change his game style even if surfaces were faster which is a poor assumption.

Actually the poor assumption is that he'd do something he's never even done at Bercy or WTF.

Good luck with that! :lol:

 

[Smasher08]

Yeah i forgot about that and IIRC he was serving pretty well against Rosol as well.

The main problem against Rosol was that he couldn't retrieve those cannon shots. Especially in the final set.

 

[NatF]

Yeah i forgot about that and IIRC he was serving pretty well against Rosol as well.

Yeah I think Nadal was bringing the hammer down with his serve against Rosol to balance out his movement issues.

 

[kragster]

Actually the poor assumption is that he'd do something he's never even done at Bercy or WTF.

Good luck with that! :lol:

You don't change your game or rather it's really hard to change your game for 2-3 tournaments in the year and then play a different game for the rest of the year. I think perhaps only Federer might be talented enough to pull that off.

Most players are only capable of designing ONE GAME STYLE that they believe will give them the best success through the year. In an environment where the majority of the surfaces are slow, Nadal and team designed this high percentage ultra top spin game plan. If 50% of surfaces were fast, I am sure they would come up with something else. Do you really think hitting a flat forehand requires more skill than hitting a top spin heavy forehand?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yeah I think Nadal was bringing the hammer down with his serve against Rosol to balance out his movement issues.

He was serving lights out in that match. He needs to do that at the USO, but along with great movement.

 

[NatF]

He was serving lights out in that match. He needs to do that at the USO, but along with great movement.

I'd rather he didn't do that

 

[Nitish]

He was serving lights out in that match. He needs to do that at the USO, but along with great movement.

I think thats tough to do cause i remember reading somewhere that the 2010 serve didnt really fit into his game and the serve was taking him far more into the court than he usually does and he was not comfortable with that.

 

[swordtennis]

There's a blog called "Tennis Has a Steroid Problem" which, I think, offers a great analysis of his performances that year, as well as throughout his career. Nadal just seems to have more bizarro and contradictory health issues than anyone before in world history. It's possible that deep down he's ridiculously neurotic, hypochondriac, and something of a head case. We do know that he's definitely OCD.

To be sure, he was fortunate to have Fed go out earlier than previously during that year. Mind you, chronologically speaking, 22 is typically when someone enters their physical prime, and 26 is when someone typically begins to leave it. Fed's and Nads' career results from 2008-present are certainly consistent with this analysis, so it may actually explain a lot.

I think I read an article from that site awhile back that was poasted about the holes in the testing system in Tennis. Def going to peruse the THASP site...

You are assuming that Nadal would not change his game style even if surfaces were faster which is a poor assumption. Back in 05, Nadal was hitting his FH a lot flatter. He then discovered that he could be just/more successful if he stood behind the baseline and cranked up the top spin.

If surfaces had never been slowed, young Nadal would have likely switched to a more aggressive game plan rather than a high percentage one.

But might this have diminished his results in general? He is not built like Sampras or Federer with the "classic" tennis build.
Dirtballing endless stamina might be his way of getting those double digit major numbers.

That would be interesting but some of these streaks wouldnt be there because the chances of upsets would be more on faster surfaces.I think Fed would do well in such cases,blue clay last year was a great example when everybody was slipping and falling,Fed adapted extremely well.

Something with Federers feet. Might be the most adaptable feet and legs in the history of modern tennis. Can just deal with the court compositions on the fly. He did have that fall at the french that was an uncharacteristic fall.

It was definitely was a weird season.He absolutely owned the clay court s(3 masters and the FO),he struggled on grass and it could have easily been another case of Rosol but managed to pull through and got lot better in the second week .One thing that stands out for me in that season was his serve in the USO 2010,it seemed like a grip change but its surprising why he didnt use it against Djoker in 2011 when he was in all sorts of trouble and his usual game was not working.My final take on his season is he started getting comfortable on HC and was at his best physically.

Forgot about that serve! Just very strange the sweat, injury and "grip change" bombing serve.
I think there are valid questions regarding Nadal and the GOAT debate.

Personally there is not GOAT to me. All the greats have awesome stuff about them!

 

[Smasher08]

If 50% of surfaces were fast, I am sure they would come up with something else.

Do you actually play tennis, by any chance? Above, say, NTRP 4.5? Doesn't look like it by your paint-by-numbers analysis.

Nads has never been an attacking player. It's not his thing. He retrieves and gets his opponents to press for too much. It's enabled him to have the career he's had, and if he was ever going to change his style, he would have done it this year.

And he didn't.

 

[kragster]

Do you actually play tennis, by any chance? Above, say, NTRP 4.5? Doesn't look like it by your paint-by-numbers analysis.

Nads has never been an attacking player. It's not his thing. He retrieves and gets his opponents to press for too much. It's enabled him to have the career he's had, and if he was ever going to change his style, he would have done it this year.

And he didn't.

Is NTRP 4.5+ something that makes your opinion much more valid? In which case Mcenroe (4.5+) must be right when he calls Nadal GOAT no?

When you say Nadal has never been an attacking player, are you basing this on his childhood videos or Nadal as we know now? My whole point is that surfaces were slowed down quite a while ago when Nadal was just a teenager and at a point where his game could still have been modified. 26 is not the age at which you change your game but 17 certainly is. The fact that he is not an attacking player today is irrelevant to the question of whether he COULD have been an attacking player had surfaces been different.

 

[Nitish]

I think I read an article from that site awhile back that was poasted about the holes in the testing system in Tennis. Def going to peruse the THASP site...



But might this have diminished his results in general? He is not built like Sampras or Federer with the "classic" tennis build.
Dirtballing endless stamina might be his way of getting those double digit major numbers.



Something with Federers feet. Might be the most adaptable feet and legs in the history of modern tennis. Can just deal with the court compositions on the fly. He did have that fall at the french that was an uncharacteristic fall.




Forgot about that serve! Just very strange the sweat, injury and "grip change" bombing serve.
I think there are valid questions regarding Nadal and the GOAT debate.

Personally there is not GOAT to me. All the greats have awesome stuff about them!

Federers movement and footwork is sometimes overlooked and under estimated but i havent seen a player with the kind of balance Fed has when he plays his shots.Rarely do you see him in an awkward position while executing a shot.

Pretty much how I feel as well,no GOAT just enjoy their tennis while they are still around.

 

[Smasher08]

Oh, and here's another fact: Federer has finished the year in the top 3 for 10 consecutive years.

Nadal, 7. And his streak ended with a #4 finish last year.

 

[swordtennis]

Federers movement and footwork is sometimes overlooked and under estimated but i havent seen a player with the kind of balance Fed has when he plays his shots.Rarely do you see him in an awkward position while executing a shot.

Pretty much how I feel as well,no GOAT just enjoy their tennis while they are still around.

Absolutely.
Talking about Nadal and GOAT....
Watched the Coria vs Nadal Rome 2005 final highlights today.

Smasher is right. Nadal has never been an offensive player in the classic sense.
He goes offensive in spots usually when he gets that extra ball over the net after a long rally......

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Nadal is on PEDS.
Nadal cheats.
Nadal only wins on clay (forget his 4 off clay slams, which is more than most players on the tour besides Federer and Novak).
Nadal abuses other players.
Nadal is Tony's robot.
Nadal style is ugly.
Nadal is destroying tennis.
Nadal is the devil.

isn't this the truth ?

 

[Smasher08]

isn't this the truth ?

I just thought the last line was hyperbole.

 

[zagor]

Do you actually play tennis, by any chance? Above, say, NTRP 4.5? Doesn't look like it by your paint-by-numbers analysis.

Nads has never been an attacking player. It's not his thing. He retrieves and gets his opponents to press for too much. It's enabled him to have the career he's had, and if he was ever going to change his style, he would have done it this year.

And he didn't.

Dude, McEnroe and Wilander are multiple slam winners and even at their age would be dealing golden sets without breaking a sweat to 99,99% of this forum yet they both have a habit of saying some of the dumbest things I've ever heard regarding tennis.

Or do you seriously believe that Nadal is the best volleyer on tour and/or that Fed is playing his best tennis ever at this point in his career? Do you believe Novak's footwork is better than Fed's (or Nadal's)?

I bet you could take a guy who never watched tennis before in his life, show him any random Fed match from 2005-2006 and 2013 and he'll arrive to a far more logical conclusion than Wilander with all his tennis expertise.

Kragster is right, every player is a product of his era, it may be a cliche statement but it definitely holds true, especially for all-time tennis greats like Nadal.

 

[kalyan4fedever]

I like the word Nadochist lol

 

[zagor]

Absolutely.
Talking about Nadal and GOAT....
Watched the Coria vs Nadal Rome 2005 final highlights today.

Smasher is right. Nadal has never been an offensive player in the classic sense.
He goes offensive in spots usually when he gets that extra ball over the net after a long rally......

Well it's clay, try this match for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kphXqRLvn1o

 

[Mustard]

I like the word Nadochist lol

Except it's an absolute pleasure to watch Nadal, not painful.

 

[Crisstti]

Nadal can be and is attacking when he needs to be. Just see USO 2011 fourth set or RG fifth set this year.

In fact, he's said he plays much more aggressively in practise so he feels more confident to do it in tough moments in matches.

Oh dear. All those Nadal wins over Federer torment you? :razz:

He probably can't sleep at night

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He's the clay GOAT, but is also versatile on other surfaces, but cannot use them on his resume because he only has 2 Wimbledons, 1 Australian Open and 1 US Open.

 

[Crisstti]

He's the clay GOAT, but is also versatile on other surfaces, but cannot use them on his resume because he only has 2 Wimbledons, 1 Australian Open and 1 US Open.

Uhm, what do you mean he "cannot use them"?.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Uhm, what do you mean he "cannot use them"?.

What I meant is he cannot be considered an all time great on other surfaces.

 

[Crisstti]

What I meant is he cannot be considered an all time great on other surfaces.

If Fed can on clay, then Rafa can on grass.

He may not be an all time great on hc, but all considered together, he is overall.

 

[Mustard]

He's the clay GOAT, but is also versatile on other surfaces, but cannot use them on his resume because he only has 2 Wimbledons, 1 Australian Open and 1 US Open.

Only??????

 

[rosewallGOAT]

If Fed can on clay, then Rafa can on grass.

He may not be an all time great on hc, but all considered together, he is overall.

Nadal is far better on grass than Federer on clay. He is a multi slam champ of the biggest grass event, and beat Federer head on to win it. Federer is neither at the French. Probably if there were 3 grass Masters a year during Nadal`s days as a top grass courter from 2007-2011, Nadal would have won quite a few as well, and not just been limited to only one he could ever win like Federer was on clay. So yes in a funny World where Federer is an all time great on clay, Nadal would have to be on grass as well.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Can Nadal even be considered the GOAT?

Ofcourse Yes. That doesnt mean he is the GOAT. He still needs a few slams and couple other results. Can he do it? I think he can.