Can you be the GOAT if you have a losing record to a rival 5 years younger than you?

Can you be the GOAT if you have a losing record to a rival 5 years younger than you?


  • Total voters
    81

Feather

Legend
Agree, which is why Fed's win over Sampras at Wimbledon was so impressive (beating him at his own game, in his own backyard), not to mention the beatdowns Hewitt and Safin put on Pete in USO finals, amazing feats all of them.

Till now I was confused who was better at Wimbledon. Helloworld, a die hard Pete Sampras fan finally convinced me that Roger is better than Pete since age doesn't matter.

Now my doubt is whether Bastl is better than Sampras or not?
 

jean pierre

Professional
This is how experts/historians/commentators and all the fans in the future will judge the players by....

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Dkokovic
= Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
= Rafael Nadal 16*
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8

3. Rafael Nadal 5
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 33*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
= Rafael Nadal 16*

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Novak Djokovic 9*
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
8. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4
= Andy Murray 4

GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 39*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
8. Boris Becker 23
= Rafael Nadal 23*
9. Novak Djokovic 22*
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 14*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7
9. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007

Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009

Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009

Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40

4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Stefan Edberg 54
3. Roger Federer 53*
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
2. Roger Federer 252*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 76*
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Sampras 6
= Rafael Nadal 50*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

The consecutive match win streak belongs to Vilas, with 46 matches in 1977. In 1978, Borg won only 31 matches, because he lost 2 matches by WO, in Rootterdam and Dallas, and we have to take these two WO into consideration. And from Tokyo 1979 to Dusseldorf 1980, Borg won 41 matches, but he was beaten by Vilas in Dusseldorf. So, the real record belongs to Vilas.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
again, pit Rod against prime Rafa on clay, you really think he does any better? In two separate years he was one mere match away from the slam, only to run into the indisputed greatest single-surface player of all time. Those are two matches that Rod certainly would have lost. Isn't it only logical to put him in Fed's shoes, since we're comparing the two and you use Fed's inability to conquer R.N on clay against him?

Have to somewhat disagree (not that I agree with Thundervolley's utter nonsense about Fed being a complete failure at the FO), while 2008 Nadal for example was an unbeatable machine at the FO, 2006 and 2007 Nadal for example wasn't (Fed was just way too nervous in both matches) and while I would favour Nadal I wouldn't completely count out Laver (if he grew up in modern era, with modern sticks).
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Till now I was confused who was better at Wimbledon. Helloworld, a die hard Pete Sampras fan finally convinced me that Roger is better than Pete since age doesn't matter.

Yes, same number of titles, Fed has an extra final and more importantly a deciding win against Sampras when they met, since a win is a win that puts him clearly ahead.

Now my doubt is whether Bastl is better than Sampras or not?

He has to be up there, certainly better than anyone Pete faced at Wimbledon in the 90s save Krajicek, afterall he managed to beat him at Wimbledon which is something all those supposedly great 90s grasscourt specialists couldn't do.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
again, pit Rod against prime Rafa on clay, you really think he does any better?

What makes you think he would not? Laver's "on" mode remains unmatched in the open era, so to entertain your hypothetical battle, I do think Laver (who in real history already proved his ability to achieve concentrated dominance) would do what Federer could not--defeat Nadal in a FO final.

Aside from this, I hope you are not operating off of the fact Nadal owned the false GOAT Federer at the FO as some measure of his chances against Laver...

Federer's inability to overcome Nadal has no bearing on someone who already proved he could elevate his game to the ultimate level.
 

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
What makes you think he would not? Laver's "on" mode remains unmatched in the open era, so to entertain your hypothetical battle, I do think Laver (who in real history already proved his ability to achieve concentrated dominance) would do what Federer could not--defeat Nadal in a FO final.

Aside from this, I hope you are not operating off of the fact Nadal owned the false GOAT Federer at the FO as some measure of his chances against Laver...

Federer's inability to overcome Nadal has no bearing on someone who already proved he could elevate his game to the ultimate level.

Debating the GOAT no matter what player is favored always ends up a subjective argument. Until Rafa or Nola accumulate the same number of GS titles as Federer then you don't have a leg to stand on.

A google search and Wikipedia about the Rod the Rocket vs Gonzales rivalry? Not really, not even a fair comparison really:

"During the span of seven years that they faced each other, Laver was 26–32 and Gonzales was 36–42 years old. While the peak of Laver was in the late 60s, the peak of Gonzales was in the middle 50s. Gonzales had a great longevity that made possible that this rivalry was competitive. However, the overall record could be biassed in favor of Laver because of the difference of 10 years between them."

In todays game Laver would have been in the top 20, a David Ferrer, a James Blake, possibly a Leyton Hewitt. Laver could maybe would have won one Grand Slam with a little luck two. Otherwise Laver would have been soundly thrashed by most of the top 10 in todays game.

Gonzales at same age would have owned Laver. In fact with his size and athleticism, Gonzales is one of the few players from the by-gone days of tennis that could have dominated in todays tennis, much like Sampras did with serve/volley in todays game.

But, I digress. The evidence I point to for GOAT are the Grand Slam titles and 302 weeks at number one and that is Federer!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The consecutive match win streak belongs to Vilas, with 46 matches in 1977. In 1978, Borg won only 31 matches, because he lost 2 matches by WO, in Rootterdam and Dallas, and we have to take these two WO into consideration. And from Tokyo 1979 to Dusseldorf 1980, Borg won 41 matches, but he was beaten by Vilas in Dusseldorf. So, the real record belongs to Vilas.

Thanks jean. I don't know why wiki didn't include Borg's WO in 1978 and 1979/80. You seem to have your own resource that doesn't match their. Could it be those events are not ATP, an exhibition? I don't know. However I'll be glad to update that stat if we know exactly who holds the record.
 

90's Clay

Banned
A little off topic but why do we always have to transport guys from previous eras to the most recent one?


Why is it never the other way around?
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Just any random top 15 player 5 years younger than you perhaps, but a fellow top 5 player all time and by far your biggest rival in your own era who is 5 years younger than you, and trailing that player 2-8 in slams. Definitely not. I still rate Federer over Nadal all time for now (Federer somewhere from 3rd to 5th, and Nadal somewhere around 5th or 6th), but no way can Federer be considered the GOAT over people like Laver and Gonzales who were the undisputed Kings of their era, and of all their rivals for many years, when he is by far his biggest rivals pet donkey. Sampras, Tilden, Budge, all have clear winning records vs all their biggest rivals too, and even Nadal has a clear winning overall and slam record vs all his biggest rivals of his era.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Just any random top 15 player 5 years younger than you perhaps, but a fellow top 5 player all time and by far your biggest rival in your own era who is 5 years younger than you, and trailing that player 2-8 in slam finals. Definitely not. I still rate Federer over Nadal all time for now (Federer somewhere from 3rd to 5th, and Nadal somewhere around 5th or 6th), but no way can Federer be considered the GOAT over people like Laver and Gonzales who were the undisputed Kings of their era, and of all their rivals for many years, when he is by far his biggest rivals pet donkey. Sampras, Tilden, Budge, all have clear winning records vs all their biggest rivals too, and even Nadal has a clear winning overall and slam record vs all his biggest rivals of his era.

Ahh.. A voice of sanity after my house touched down in the Land of ****
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Just any random top 15 player 5 years younger than you perhaps, but a fellow top 5 player all time and by far your biggest rival in your own era who is 5 years younger than you, and trailing that player 2-8 in slams. Definitely not. I still rate Federer over Nadal all time for now (Federer somewhere from 3rd to 5th, and Nadal somewhere around 5th or 6th), but no way can Federer be considered the GOAT over people like Laver and Gonzales who were the undisputed Kings of their era, and of all their rivals for many years, when he is by far his biggest rivals pet donkey. Sampras, Tilden, Budge, all have clear winning records vs all their biggest rivals too, and even Nadal has a clear winning overall and slam record vs all his biggest rivals of his era.

Do you even know who were Tilden's and Budge's biggest rivals?
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Ahh.. A voice of sanity after my house touched down in the Land of ****

If you're stifling so much here why do you even bother to show up? Go make a new forum, name it Anti-Land-of-Federer and post there.

That applies to NadalAgassi as well, if you guys have such a big problem with Federer fans being by far the biggest group here then you can either accept the fact that you're in the minority or G***.
 
Last edited:

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Yes, if he'd been worse on clay, he'd have met Nadal less often, and would have a better H2H. It is completely illogical that some people would then actually consider him a better player.
 

jrs

Professional
TennisDwag - you convinced me - Gonzales is GOAT!

Debating the GOAT no matter what player is favored always ends up a subjective argument. Until Rafa or Nola accumulate the same number of GS titles as Federer then you don't have a leg to stand on.

A google search and Wikipedia about the Rod the Rocket vs Gonzales rivalry? Not really, not even a fair comparison really:

"During the span of seven years that they faced each other, Laver was 26–32 and Gonzales was 36–42 years old. While the peak of Laver was in the late 60s, the peak of Gonzales was in the middle 50s. Gonzales had a great longevity that made possible that this rivalry was competitive. However, the overall record could be biassed in favor of Laver because of the difference of 10 years between them."

In todays game Laver would have been in the top 20, a David Ferrer, a James Blake, possibly a Leyton Hewitt. Laver could maybe would have won one Grand Slam with a little luck two. Otherwise Laver would have been soundly thrashed by most of the top 10 in todays game.

Gonzales at same age would have owned Laver. In fact with his size and athleticism, Gonzales is one of the few players from the by-gone days of tennis that could have dominated in todays tennis, much like Sampras did with serve/volley in todays game.

But, I digress. The evidence I point to for GOAT are the Grand Slam titles and 302 weeks at number one and that is Federer!
After reading your post - did some reading on Gonzales - I'm convinced he is the true GOAT! Not based on records or #1 but by the fact they changed the rules of tennis to stop the man from winning!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
After reading your post - did some reading on Gonzales - I'm convinced he is the true GOAT! Not based on records or #1 but by the fact they changed the rules of tennis to stop the man from winning!

Who changed the rule?
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
Sampras, Tilden, Budge, all have clear winning records vs all their biggest rivals too, QUOTE]

Who are Sampras's biggest rivals? If you choose to include Krajicek in that group, your claim is bogus, because during Pete's best years, from 1993 to 1999, he was 1-6 versus Krajicek. He managed to salvage some respectability by winning the final two matches to finish at 4-6. My guess is that Krajicek won't be considered to be one of those biggest rivals.
 

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
Who changed the rule?

This would have been in the pre-Open era. The best players liked Gonzales played on a professional tour, the amateurs played the Grand Slams, they were more or less the scrubs. in 1968 tennis made it Open Tennis for all pros and amateurs.

Anyway as I understand Gonzales was winning so easily with serve and volley it was not entertaining the fans on the pro-tour so they changed the rule so the server had to wait for the ball to bounce before approaching the net. That's just how good Gonzales was!
 

TennisDawg

Hall of Fame
This further shows just how poor the competition was back then and why the so called GOAT from that era would have been destroyed in todays tennis. Imagine, if the same rule had been changed when Pete was dominating with his serve/volley game, so others could win more tournaments, ridiculous!
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Nice post and fairly objective..

I once picked up an argument with you and addressed you a hater. I realize my big mistake and how silly I was. I hope you really have forgotten that. I am really sorry about that and it happens when we get carried by debates :)

It's ok mate, it is long forgotten. Thanks for rethinking your stance on me, it is much appreciated. Cheers.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Who are Sampras's biggest rivals? If you choose to include Krajicek in that group, your claim is bogus, because during Pete's best years, from 1993 to 1999, he was 1-6 versus Krajicek. He managed to salvage some respectability by winning the final two matches to finish at 4-6. My guess is that Krajicek won't be considered to be one of those biggest rivals.

Of course he wasnt. Krajicek won only 1 slam and reached no other slam finals. He isnt even one of the 15 most important players of the Sampras era so of course not one of his biggest rivals. That is like talking about Graf's losing head to head with Jo Durie, and saying Durie is one of the most important players of the Graf era, LOL! Furthermore Krajicek is 1-1 vs Sampras where it really counts, the slams, that isnt ownage by any measure, and as Sampras is by FAR the better big match player one can safely assume he would have a huge lead in the slam H2H if they met more often. Your overall H2H is totally wrong as well, but that is already irrelevant at this point. By contrast Federer has an abysmal 2-8 record vs Nadal in slams, 0-5 on clay, 2-3 even off clay, and only played 2 of those 10 matches when he was older than 27.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheFifthSet

Legend
What makes you think he would not? Laver's "on" mode remains unmatched in the open era, so to entertain your hypothetical battle, .

Because Nadal is better on clay than any player has ever been on any surface. That's a pretty good reason to think so. Just because it's theoretically possible, doesn't mean it's reasonable. Federer in theory could have won one of the two matches in '06-'07. He had his chances. But he didn't win. He was very much in both matches, however. Laver could have his way against Nadal on other surfaces, but clay? It's a severe mismatch. Don't interpret that as a dig against Laver. That applies to virtually everyone in tennis history sans Borg.


I do think Laver (who in real history already proved his ability to achieve concentrated dominance) would do what Federer could not--defeat Nadal in a FO final.

Aside from this, I hope you are not operating off of the fact Nadal owned the false GOAT Federer at the FO as some measure of his chances against Laver...
Federer's inability to overcome Nadal has no bearing on someone who already proved he could elevate his game to the ultimate level

I don't understand this though. Will all due respect, it just sounds like hero worshipping. You say Laver "would" have found a way to beat prime Nadal at RG, as if he'd be the odds-on favourite. But we both know if he ever played Nadal in a BO5 on clay, he would be the heavy underdog. Everyone and their cousin knows Laver would have little more than a puncher's chance.

Furthermore, I don't think anything Laver has done 'proved' he could hold a candle to Nadal at RG. Nadal on the dirt is like player X, a wholly foreign phenomenon. There's never been anything like him on clay. The only safe bet here is that he'd be likely to eviscerate Laver on the surface (who I believe is a top 3 player of all time and possibly the greatest, and I hold his 2 slams in high regard. But come on.)
 

MonkeyBoy

Hall of Fame
Of course he wasnt. Krajicek won only 1 slam and reached no other slam finals. He isnt even one of the 15 most important players of the Sampras era so of course not one of his biggest rivals. That is like talking about Graf's losing head to head with Jo Durie, and saying Durie is one of the most important players of the Graf era, LOL! Furthermore Krajicek is 1-1 vs Sampras where it really counts, the slams, that isnt ownage by any measure, and as Sampras is by FAR the better big match player one can safely assume he would have a huge lead in the slam H2H if they met more often. Your overall H2H is totally wrong as well, but that is already irrelevant at this point. By contrast Federer has an abysmal 2-8 record vs Nadal in slams, 0-5 on clay, 2-3 even off clay, and only played 2 of those 10 matches when he was older than 27.

People always talk about 'the field' as being more important than a single player, but this is the thing: Nadal isn't some mediocre journeyman that just so happens to have a game that matches up really well against Fed's and just so happens to run into Fed every now and again, and thus has just so happened to have garnered a winning record. Nadal is a significant part of 'the field' that Federer is competing against, and has a chance of meeting with him at virtually every major tournament. And that is why it matters.
 

Atherton2003

Hall of Fame
I would say Federer is great - but can't be considered the greatest of all time if he can't beat his main rival. Nadal is the better player - he owns Fed and Fed knows that. Additionally, Fed admitted he had no rivals or challenges prior to Nadal...and that enabled him to keep winning...so he was lucky to start out by playing in a weak field. Not the greatest of all time, in my opinion.
 
I would say Federer is great - but can't be considered the greatest of all time if he can't beat his main rival. Nadal is the better player - he owns Fed and Fed knows that. Additionally, Fed admitted he had no rivals or challenges prior to Nadal...and that enabled him to keep winning...so he was lucky to start out by playing in a weak field. Not the greatest of all time, in my opinion.
Having a loosing record against a surface goat is not a hindrance to be the overall goat.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
I would say Federer is great - but can't be considered the greatest of all time if he can't beat his main rival. Nadal is the better player - he owns Fed and Fed knows that. Additionally, Fed admitted he had no rivals or challenges prior to Nadal...and that enabled him to keep winning...so he was lucky to start out by playing in a weak field. Not the greatest of all time, in my opinion.

When Federer beats all other players conclusively = can't be the GOAT since it must be a weak era

When Federer has a losing record to one player = can't be the GOAT since he is dominated by another player

Yep, nothing contradictory or illogical there whatsoever.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Were they up against a surface goat? Were they nr 2 of their era on their weakest surface?

This clay excuse doesnt cut it. Federer is 2-3 in slams and 7-6 overall outside of clay, meaning he is at best only equal to Nadal in the H2H off clay, in addition to being totally dominated on clay, thus overall vastly inferior and owned (when it comes to the H2H) no matter how you slice it. ****s say take away clay, and in that case someone could easily counter take away indoors (where Nadal sucks royally, and basically their H2H shows Federer needs a place where Nadal completely sucks to have any success, even on grass he probably would have lost all encounters had they played each year since ekeing out their 07 Wimbledon match somehow) and Federer would be down 19-4, or take away indoors and give them only 4 matches on clay (vs a whopping 8 still on outdoor hard courts where Federer has 9 slams to Nadals 2 and should be owning) and Nadal is still up 11-4, lol! As for the people you mentioned they generally dominated all their biggest rivals all around. A World apart from Federers record and performance against Nadal.

Again this topic isnt about Nadal being the GOAT which nobody would seriously argue at this point, but about why Federer isnt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Anomalies to principles always exist. That's why to take everything into account you integrate across the whole universe from negative infinity to infinity.

In a way, Federer is an "underachiever" to win only 17 or 18 slams, since he was dominated by his biggest rival in slam finals. But being an underachiever who achieved so much in itself is a sign of greatness. For Nadal, Federer is an easy match-up compared his base level of play, but if Nadal wins at least 16 slams I'd say he is the probably greatest ever.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
People always talk about 'the field' as being more important than a single player, but this is the thing: Nadal isn't some mediocre journeyman that just so happens to have a game that matches up really well against Fed's and just so happens to run into Fed every now and again, and thus has just so happened to have garnered a winning record. Nadal is a significant part of 'the field' that Federer is competing against, and has a chance of meeting with him at virtually every major tournament. And that is why it matters.

Exactly. It is really pretty simple.
 

jrs

Professional
There can be no justification for a GOAT - if the name is mentioned and people argue - then it means not GOAT.

When a true GOAT arrives - there will be no arguments. Federer unfortunately had problems with 1 player on 1 surface and no Olympic singles gold.
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
Your overall H2H is totally wrong as well,.

Unless there are some exhibition matches that you're including, there is nothing "totally wrong" about my statement. It was 6-4 in Krajicek's favor. What do you have it as, and if it's different, what's your source?
 
This is how experts/historians/commentators and all the fans in the future will judge the players by....

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Dkokovic
= Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
= Rafael Nadal 16*
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8

3. Rafael Nadal 5
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 33*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
= Rafael Nadal 16*

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Novak Djokovic 9*
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
8. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4
= Andy Murray 4

GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 39*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
8. Boris Becker 23
= Rafael Nadal 23*
9. Novak Djokovic 22*
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 14*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7
9. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007

Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009

Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009

Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40

4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Stefan Edberg 54
3. Roger Federer 53*
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
2. Roger Federer 252*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 76*
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Sampras 6
= Rafael Nadal 50*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

holy f(_)k, I'm saving this on my computer.
well done bro.
need we reply more when we have this epic quick reply?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Having a loosing record against a surface goat is not a hindrance to be the overall goat.

What matter is Roger is the 2nd best cc in 2000s. He's already the best player on grass, hc and indoor. Expect him to be also the best ccc too is like expecting him to be a PERFECT player, which there's no such thing.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Unless there are some exhibition matches that you're including, there is nothing "totally wrong" about my statement. It was 6-4 in Krajicek's favor. What do you have it as, and if it's different, what's your source?

Krajicek is Sampras's rival, and they are exactly the same age. Sampras does have a losing record against him just like Fed vs. Nadal, but at least Nadal is one of all time great and a goat on clay.
 

Mick3391

Professional
Can you be the GOAT if you have a losing record to a rival 5 years younger than you?

Ali is considered the greatest, Norton would hardly be ranked in the top 30, yet styles make fights, and Norton had Ali's number, beat him 66% of the time if you judge the fights right.

Same deal Fed/Nadal. Nadal has his number, doesn't mean Nadal can achieve what Fed has.
 
This clay excuse doesnt cut it. Federer is 2-3 in slams and 7-6 overall outside of clay, meaning he is at best only equal to Nadal in the H2H off clay, in addition to being totally dominated on clay, thus overall vastly inferior and owned (when it comes to the H2H) no matter how you slice it. ****s say take away clay, and in that case someone could easily counter take away indoors (where Nadal sucks royally, and basically their H2H shows Federer needs a place where Nadal completely sucks to have any success, even on grass he probably would have lost all encounters had they played each year since ekeing out their 07 Wimbledon match somehow) and Federer would be down 19-4, or take away indoors and give them only 4 matches on clay (vs a whopping 8 still on outdoor hard courts where Federer has 9 slams to Nadals 2 and should be owning) and Nadal is still up 11-4, lol! As for the people you mentioned they generally dominated all their biggest rivals all around. A World apart from Federers record and performance against Nadal.

Again this topic isnt about Nadal being the GOAT which nobody would seriously argue at this point, but about why Federer isnt.
Federer has the totally superior record on the other surfaces/majors. What would happen if Nadal could match that, and they had met more often is totally hypothetical.
 

Gonzo_style

Hall of Fame
Sampras, Tilden, Budge, all have clear winning records vs all their biggest rivals too, QUOTE]

Who are Sampras's biggest rivals? If you choose to include Krajicek in that group, your claim is bogus, because during Pete's best years, from 1993 to 1999, he was 1-6 versus Krajicek. He managed to salvage some respectability by winning the final two matches to finish at 4-6. My guess is that Krajicek won't be considered to be one of those biggest rivals.

must agree with POB
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
The problem is...if Federer isn't the GOAT, who is?

Not Nadal. The only real plus he has over Fed is the H2H. As far as achievements after that, Federer trumps almost universally. And, I think Federer's WTF's and Nadal's lack off more than offsets the gold medal.

And, if you go outside of these two guys, Federer trumps everyone else in achievements, and doesn't have a bad H2H to help make an argument for them.

It is Federer. Nadal has positioned himself to claim that mantle if he can win enough slams in the future, but until he does, he isn't.

In the short term, get over it. In the long term, Rafa might get there.
 
Top