Does having poor h2h's against his rivals Hurt Fed's resume as GOAT?

[veroniquem]

To answer the OP's question, I don't think poor head to head makes any difference whatsoever to the GOAT issue. As long as a player keeps winning tournaments and slams, who cares about his bad head to heads, all players have some. It's only significant in so far as those poor head to head prevent the potential GOAT from winning majors. That's the relevance of Nadal in Fed's career: he doesn't hold a FO title (and didn't break Borg's record at W). Imagine that Murray beat Fed 20 times but never beat him in a major, then the poor head to head would have very little impact on Fed's status in the game.

 

[veroniquem]

That was indeed one-sided, way more than the 2006 Wimbly final. Still, if you watch that final again, it was Federer who really dominated the match.
The last set was pretty one-sided too.

OK we can say parts of the match were one-sided but still the match as a whole was not because Nadal grabbed a set.

 

[Zaragoza]

Come on - Fed didn't even play very well in the 2006 Wimbeldon, and still bageled Nadal. What more do you want? I still believe that an in form Federer is a way better grass court player than an in form Nadal. In 2007 Fed played like crap and barely got the win, but in 2006 it was pretty one-sided for most of the match.

And how well did Nadal play in the 2006 Wimbledon final? As well as he did in 2008? Some Federer fans really enjoy this "Federer didn't play well/played like crap and still beat Nadal" thing. Do you think Nadal played his best against Federer in Wimbledon 2006, Miami 2005, the Masters Cup, Hamburg and Monte Carlo this year? Do you think Murray and Djokovic always play their best against Federer? So when Nadal beats Federer or plays a close match with him you say Federer didn't play well or played like crap but when Federer beats Nadal full credit goes to Federer because Nadal always plays his best even if he plays back to back tournaments, that's how some Federer fans think here.
And the 2006 Wimbledon final went to 4 sets, that's the best Federer has done against Nadal in 4 years at Roland Garros.
Nadal and Federer have played 16 outdoor matches and Federer has never beaten Nadal in straight sets (grass, hardcourts or clay).

 

[tennis-hero]

in 08 Fed was declining

before then the Rafa Fed h2h was 8-6

 

[ESP#1]

take away the clay and fed has a winning record against nadal, the reason why its not more even is because nadal has trouble making the finals on hard court surfaces.

As far as murray, Feds beat em where it counts most, A grand slam final, but i think the 5 straight wimbys and the 5 straight us opens speak for themselves

enough said Fed is the undisputed greatest of all time.

 

[lambielspins]

To say take away cleay is kind of stupid. That is like saying clay isnt even relevant. I am a Federer fan but Zaragoza is right here. Nadal has played Federer closer on every surface than Federer has Nadal on clay. The lopsidedness of the head to head may be skewed by so many matches on clay, but Nadal has more than earned the lead in the head to head.

 

[edberg505]

To say take away cleay is kind of stupid. That is like saying clay isnt even relevant. I am a Federer fan but Zaragoza is right here. Nadal has played Federer closer on every surface than Federer has Nadal on clay. The lopsidedness of the head to head may be skewed by so many matches on clay, but Nadal has more than earned the lead in the head to head.

I've said this before on another thread, it's unfortunate they don't hand out slams for the leaders in H2H. It's clear what the OP is trying to do here as many have already said in the post before me. It's a never ending agenda of his.

 

[lambielspins]

I've said this before on another thread, it's unfortunate they don't hand out slams for the leaders in H2H. It's clear what the OP is trying to do here as many have already said in the post before me. It's a never ending agenda of his.

The OP isnt saying Nadal deserves to rank as a great player than Federer however. He is saying Nadal and now Murray's dominance over Federer is an argument against him when it comes to comparing him to other greatest players of all time like Sampras, Laver, or Borg, and an argument against him being the best player ever. He has a valid point on that.

 

[NamRanger]

And how well did Nadal play in the 2006 Wimbledon final? As well as he did in 2008? Some Federer fans really enjoy this "Federer didn't play well/played like crap and still beat Nadal" thing. Do you think Nadal played his best against Federer in Wimbledon 2006, Miami 2005, the Masters Cup, Hamburg and Monte Carlo this year? Do you think Murray and Djokovic always play their best against Federer? So when Nadal beats Federer or plays a close match with him you say Federer didn't play well or played like crap but when Federer beats Nadal full credit goes to Federer because Nadal always plays his best even if he plays back to back tournaments, that's how some Federer fans think here.
And the 2006 Wimbledon final went to 4 sets, that's the best Federer has done against Nadal in 4 years at Roland Garros.
Nadal and Federer have played 16 outdoor matches and Federer has never beaten Nadal in straight sets (grass, hardcourts or clay).

Federer was playing absolutely craptacular in the Miami 2005 final, and Nadal was playing extremely well, better than he even does today. I think you should be a little more objective. In the first 2 sets, Federer had some ridiculous number of unforced errors, like 35+ or something to that extent. That is not normal for Federer in 2005. Federer turned it around despite having a pretty bad day for his standards, and flipped the switch and beat Nadal, fair and square.


Also, you fail to realize that Nadal does not make it deep enough to reach Federer in HC tournaments. The one surface that he is capable of doing it on, is grass, which isn't really what we would like to call "grass." It's more of some sort of synthetic abomination.

 

[edberg505]

The OP isnt saying Nadal deserves to rank as a great player than Federer however. He is saying Nadal and now Murray's dominance over Federer is an argument against him when it comes to comparing him to other greatest players of all time like Sampras, Laver, or Borg, and an argument against him being the best player ever. He has a valid point on that.

Exactly. About the point being valid, well I dunno about that. Richard Krajicek and Lleyton Hewitt anyone?

 

[NamRanger]

To say take away cleay is kind of stupid. That is like saying clay isnt even relevant. I am a Federer fan but Zaragoza is right here. Nadal has played Federer closer on every surface than Federer has Nadal on clay. The lopsidedness of the head to head may be skewed by so many matches on clay, but Nadal has more than earned the lead in the head to head.

No, he actually hasn't. The two indoor matches they played were demolition derby for Federer, and the Miami 2005 final was a really bad day for Federer (53 errors in 3 sets) and he still managed to beat an onfire Nadal. Wimbledon 2006 and 2007 were both convincing wins for Federer, with Federer pretty much in control of the 06 final, and putting away Nadal convincingly in the 5th set of the 2007 final, 6-2.


Alot of matches on the clay were close, especially in the period of Federer's prime. Federer has managed to take most of the matches to 3 sets in a best of 3 format, and has taken Nadal to 5 in Rome. Even when he loses in two sets, he has had monumental leads before and pulls a massive epic choke to somehow lose the set. Let's also not forget in the 06 and 07 finals, Federer had plenty of opportunities to win each of those matches. He was up a break in the 4th set of the 06 final, and he had bajillions of breakpoints in both finals.


The only REAL lopsided match was the 08 final. That's kind of countered by the fact that Federer has dominated Nadal a few times, such as the TMC 07 where he beat Nadal 6-4, 6-1, Hamburg where he blew Nadal away 6-0 in the 3rd, and Wimbledon 06 where he won the first set 6-0.

 

[lambielspins]

Exactly. About the point being valid, well I dunno about that. Richard Krajicek and Lleyton Hewitt anyone?

- 6-4 as Krajicek is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- 5-4 as Hewitt is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- Hewitt and Sampras didnt even play in each others primes. Sampras had his wins vs younger Hewitt, Hewitt his vs older slowing Sampras. Nearly impossible to tell how they really match up.
-Krajicek and Hewitt are not main rivals to Sampras who were at the top of the game at the same time. Krajicek was never long in the top 4 or 5, and Hewitt was never in the top 4 or 5 at the same time as Sampras. Nadal is Federer's biggest rival by far to date, and Murray is now one of them. Big difference how you fare vs your biggest rivals.

 

[NamRanger]

Exactly. About the point being valid, well I dunno about that. Richard Krajicek and Lleyton Hewitt anyone?

How bout that Wayne Ferrira (sp) guy? Or Federer? Or how bout that time Safin gave Sampras a beatdown in the USO final (literally)?

 

[NamRanger]

- 6-4 as Krajicek is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- 5-4 as Hewitt is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- Hewitt and Sampras didnt even play in each others primes. Sampras had his wins vs younger Hewitt, Hewitt his vs older slowing Sampras. Nearly impossible to tell how they really match up.
-Krajicek and Hewitt are not main rivals to Sampras who were at the top of the game at the same time. Krajicek was never long in the top 4 or 5, and Hewitt was never in the top 4 or 5 at the same time as Sampras. Nadal is Federer's biggest rival by far to date, and Murray is now one of them. Big difference how you fare vs your biggest rivals.

6-12, when 9 of your matches were on clay, against possibly the greatest clay court player in the history of the sport is not bad either. How many guys can take even 1 match off of Nadal out of 10 (with Nadal healthy, trying, etc.) matches on clay? Not that many.

 

[edberg505]

- 6-4 as Krajicek is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- 5-4 as Hewitt is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- Hewitt and Sampras didnt even play in each others primes. Sampras had his wins vs younger Hewitt, Hewitt his vs older slowing Sampras. Nearly impossible to tell how they really match up.
-Krajicek and Hewitt are not main rivals to Sampras who were at the top of the game at the same time. Krajicek was never long in the top 4 or 5, and Hewitt was never in the top 4 or 5 at the same time as Sampras. Nadal is Federer's biggest rival by far to date, and Murray is now one of them. Big difference how you fare vs your biggest rivals.

His biggest rival? Then why have they not played one single time on a hardcourt slam. If Federer sucked in clay then, kinda like Sampras did, then the H2H between Federer and Nadal would look more like the Sampras vs Hewitt or Krajcek H2H. But I'm probably beating a dead horse here as it sounds like you might be a big Sampras fan as well.

 

[veroniquem]

His biggest rival? Then why have they not played one single time on a hardcourt slam. If Federer sucked in clay then, kinda like Sampras did, then the H2H between Federer and Nadal would look more like the Sampras vs Hewitt or Krajcek H2H. But I'm probably beating a dead horse here as it sounds like you might be a big Sampras fan as well.

You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

 

[egn]

You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

If they had met more on hard and grass from the years 2004-2007 Federer would have a head to head probably close to equal. Nadal would score a win but Federer would probably have taken it for those 3 years. I will admit Nadal would still probably have the better but I imagine it being more like 11-14 or something. not 6-12.

Second Sampras never made runs in clay, never had to face the top clay court players on clay too often. Everyone seems to forget you take away clay they are quite even. I think that can help the case, but still Nadal's record will hurt him severly. You can't be GOAT if you lose consistently on a surface to a single player. If they were more like 3-7 the case would be better (note than the head to head would be equal..) However Sampras would soley have a better head to head against Nadal, because he would probably avoid a lot of matches against Nadal due to his bad clay court ability..

What will save Federer is the fact that he actually was able to dominate the circuit even with Nadal being a pest. Nadal's 2005-2007 years were all strong years..even if for some reason people discredit this and claims 2008 to be Nadal finally being a threat. Nadal's 05 and 07 season could have put him in number 1 in some eras. So Fed will get credit for dominating the circuit which might help out the poor h2h

 

[abmk]

To say take away cleay is kind of stupid. That is like saying clay isnt even relevant. I am a Federer fan but Zaragoza is right here. Nadal has played Federer closer on every surface than Federer has Nadal on clay. The lopsidedness of the head to head may be skewed by so many matches on clay, but Nadal has more than earned the lead in the head to head.

The OP isnt saying Nadal deserves to rank as a great player than Federer however. He is saying Nadal and now Murray's dominance over Federer is an argument against him when it comes to comparing him to other greatest players of all time like Sampras, Laver, or Borg, and an argument against him being the best player ever. He has a valid point on that.

Agree on both counts, but I would wait to see how murray performs against federer in the slams in future.

Edit: And yeah fed-murray have met only on HCs , not even once on grass/clay , something that needs to be considered as well !

 

[abmk]

You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

LOL !

If they had met more on HC, federer would have won the majority of their matches on HC which would give him more confidence while playing against nadal anywhere and perhaps he wouldn't be choking away as many BPs as he did against him in so many matches .....

 

[ksbh]

As regards winning 5 straight, Bjorn Borg did that. Pete Sampras won 7 in 8 years! Rafa has 4 straight at Roland Garros and will likely make it 5 this year. Federer hasn't achieved anything unique that makes him the undisputed GOAT.

Only in a Federer lover's mind is Federer the 'undisputed' GOAT. In reality, he's not even close.

As far as murray, Feds beat em where it counts most, A grand slam final, but i think the 5 straight wimbys and the 5 straight us opens speak for themselves

enough said Fed is the undisputed greatest of all time.

 

[bluetrain4]

I'd stop short of saying it's doesn't matter at all. Clearly, you would like a GOAT who had the upperhand against their main rivals.

But, I don't think it matters that much. With Nadal, I mean, is it even that big of a deal considering the surface? His H2H on clay against Nadal is horrible, but then again, Nadal is one of the best clay-courters of all time. Murray, it really doesn't matter until Murray starts beating him in Slams.

I actually think Fed gets penalized in the GOAT discussion for getting so close winning the French, but coming up short. I mean, the guy has been in 3 finals and a semi, and a couple of those finals were competitive (obviously, the last one was a disaster). Yet, a lot of people insist that we must win it to be GOAT, unless he surpasses Sampras' total by 2 or 3. I'm not picking one or the other, I just think it's an interesting point.

 

[ksbh]

Awesome post, Lamb! When seen in proper perspective, Sampras' losing H2H against some of his rivals is nowhere as bad as Federer's vs Nadal.

It's rare to see a Federer fan being as objective as you are!

- 6-4 as Krajicek is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- 5-4 as Hewitt is vs Sampras is not ownership.
- Hewitt and Sampras didnt even play in each others primes. Sampras had his wins vs younger Hewitt, Hewitt his vs older slowing Sampras. Nearly impossible to tell how they really match up.
-Krajicek and Hewitt are not main rivals to Sampras who were at the top of the game at the same time. Krajicek was never long in the top 4 or 5, and Hewitt was never in the top 4 or 5 at the same time as Sampras. Nadal is Federer's biggest rival by far to date, and Murray is now one of them. Big difference how you fare vs your biggest rivals.

 

[abmk]

Federer hasn't achieved anything unique that makes him the undisputed GOAT.

5 consecutive U.S Open titles - no one has done that in the open era.

5 consecutive wimbledon and 5 consecutive U.S open* titles - no one else in history has any such sort of double distinction ( meaning 5 consecutive at 2 diffferent slams )

18 consecutive times - SFs or better at slams* - something that I don't think will be surpassed .

* - streak still going on !

Only in a Federer lover's mind is Federer the 'undisputed' GOAT. In reality, he's not even close.

He is not the undisputed GOAT. It would be be illogical to say that just as it is illogical to say he's not even close.

 

[veroniquem]

If they had met more on hard and grass from the years 2004-2007 Federer would have a head to head probably close to equal. Nadal would score a win but Federer would probably have taken it for those 3 years. I will admit Nadal would still probably have the better but I imagine it being more like 11-14 or something. not 6-12.

Second Sampras never made runs in clay, never had to face the top clay court players on clay too often. Everyone seems to forget you take away clay they are quite even. I think that can help the case, but still Nadal's record will hurt him severly. You can't be GOAT if you lose consistently on a surface to a single player. If they were more like 3-7 the case would be better (note than the head to head would be equal..) However Sampras would soley have a better head to head against Nadal, because he would probably avoid a lot of matches against Nadal due to his bad clay court ability..

What will save Federer is the fact that he actually was able to dominate the circuit even with Nadal being a pest. Nadal's 2005-2007 years were all strong years..even if for some reason people discredit this and claims 2008 to be Nadal finally being a threat. Nadal's 05 and 07 season could have put him in number 1 in some eras. So Fed will get credit for dominating the circuit which might help out the poor h2h

I hope you're joking about the pest part, I'm sure you meant Nadal being an extraordinary or remarkable clay player (and player in general). "Pest" is way off mark and very unwarranted + what do you mean by "save" Federer, I don't think the guy needs to be saved by anything, he's doing very well for himself as it is.

 

[veroniquem]

LOL !

If they had met more on HC, federer would have won the majority of their matches on HC which would give him more confidence while playing against nadal anywhere and perhaps he wouldn't be choking away as many BPs as he did against him in so many matches .....

Well we'll never know anyway but my hypothesis is as likely as yours.

 

[edberg505]

You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

Considering how Federer laid the smack down on Nadal the last couple of times they played on hard courts I'm going to have to say I strongly disagree.

 

[edberg505]

5 consecutive U.S Open titles - no one has done that in the open era.

5 consecutive wimbledon and 5 consecutive U.S open* titles - no one else in history has any such sort of double distinction ( meaning 5 consecutive at 2 diffferent slams )

18 consecutive times - SFs or better at slams* - something that I don't think will be surpassed .

* - streak still going on !



He is not the undisputed GOAT. It would be be illogical to say that just as it is illogical to say he's not even close.

That streak is unreal and no one has ever come remotely close to reaching it. I think Lendl was the closest and I think he had 2 streaks 7 and 8 respectively. He'll most likely break the record of slam final appearances this year as well. You also forgot to add that he has the record for the number of most consecutive slam finals too.

 

[abmk]

Well we'll never know anyway but my hypothesis is as likely as yours.

Its not because federer would be winning more of their HC encounters from 2005-07 which would give him more confidence against rafa and which in turn would further lessen rafa's chances of winning more against him on any surface. It could've been very late by the time rafa figured out fed on HC in that case.

 

[veroniquem]

5 consecutive U.S Open titles - no one has done that in the open era.

5 consecutive wimbledon and 5 consecutive U.S open* titles - no one else in history has any such sort of double distinction ( meaning 5 consecutive at 2 diffferent slams )

18 consecutive times - SFs or better at slams* - something that I don't think will be surpassed .

* - streak still going on !



He is not the undisputed GOAT. It would be be illogical to say that just as it is illogical to say he's not even close.

Consecutive maybe not, but both Connors and Sampras have won USO 5 times, Borg has won W 5 times in a row and RG 6 times. Sampras has won W 7 times. Also surely in the perspective of picking a goat total # of slams should override the consecutive thing, we're talking long term here, not short term domination. That semi-final business is so ridiculous, why not count the quarters while you're at it!! It's titles that make a player prestigious. Absolutely nobody would give a fig about who the semi-finalists were!!

 

[abmk]

That streak is unreal and no one has ever come remotely close to reaching it.

Seconded !

You also forgot to add that he has the record for the number of most consecutive slam finals too.

Oh yeah, that was broken by djoko at the aussie open in 2008.

He'll most likely break the record of slam final appearances this year as well.

Hope so ..

 

[veroniquem]

Considering how Federer laid the smack down on Nadal the last couple of times they played on hard courts I'm going to have to say I strongly disagree.

The couple of times you're talking about were both at Master Cup on indoor hard. On outdoor hard Nadal beat Fed 2 times out of 3. I'll stick with my version, Fed is VERY lucky that he didn't have to play Rafa more often on hard courts.

 

[edberg505]

Consecutive maybe not, but both Connors and Sampras have won USO 5 times, Borg has won W 5 times in a row and RG 6 times. Sampras has won W 7 times. Also surely in the perspective of picking a goat total # of slams should override the consecutive thing, we're talking long term here, not short term domination. That semi-final business is so ridiculous, why not count the quarters while you're at it!! It's titles that make a player prestigious. Absolutely nobody would give a fig about who the semi-finalists were!!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if Nadal someohow managed to equal or break that streak you would be praising it.

 

[edberg505]

The couple of times you're talking about were both at Master Cup on indoor hard. On outdoor hard Nadal beat Fed 2 times out of 3. I'll stick with my version, Fed is VERY lucky that he didn't have to play Rafa more often on hard courts.

LOL, what's the difference? Outdoor/indoor, they are both played on hardcourts, that fact doesn't change. Is there some magical difference between the two? Doesn't he(Federer) hold some insane record for number of consecutive hardcourt wins?

 

[abmk]

The couple of times you're talking about were both at Master Cup on indoor hard. On outdoor hard Nadal beat Fed 2 times out of 3. I'll stick with my version, Fed is VERY lucky that he didn't have to play Rafa more often on hard courts.

I thought I had already contradicted that !

 

[veroniquem]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that if Nadal someohow managed to equal or break that streak you would be praising it.

You have a very low opinion of me I see. I repeat: I couldn't give a fig about either quarter-finalists or semi-finalists (you can keep it for prosperity!) It's winners that make GOATS!

 

[veroniquem]

I thought I had already contradicted that !

You did but you haven't convinced me :twisted:

 

[abmk]

Consecutive maybe not, but both Connors and Sampras have won USO 5 times, Borg has won W 5 times in a row and RG 6 times. Sampras has won W 7 times. Also surely in the perspective of picking a goat total # of slams should override the consecutive thing, we're talking long term here, not short term domination. That semi-final business is so ridiculous, why not count the quarters while you're at it!! It's titles that make a player prestigious. Absolutely nobody would give a fig about who the semi-finalists were!!

Its not just about prestige . Its about consistency at peak ( and at the slams ) which shows how good an all-surface player he is/how well he plays at the slams . Making to the SF or better 18 times consecutively while winning 11 out of those is a very good indication of that.

Btw those were just the slam ones, he has some other ridiculous streaks too - record no of consec. grass wins, record no of consec. hard court wins and record no of consec. finals ( not just @ the slams ) which was broken by nalbandian in TMC 2005 F.

 

[edberg505]

You have a very low opinion of me I see. I repeat: I couldn't give a fig about either quarter-finalists or semi-finalists (you can keep it for prosperity!) It's winners that make GOATS!

I was going to reply to this but it appears that "abmk" has already responded to this. It goes to show how amazingly consistent the guy is. Even the great Pete Sampras wasn't even able to do that. Now in no way am I putting down Sampras, I loved watching the guy play. He's one of my all time favourites but some of these jokers, like the OP, try to raise him to deity like status and it's becoming quite annoying. If Federer were to somehow break Pete's record that doesn't make Pete any less of a player, that's just a ridiculous assumption. I loved watching Pete play too. Why isn't it possible to like them both?

The one positive thing about his chances of winning is that he has improved his results every year so far:
In 2004 he made 3rd round
in 2005 he made 4th round
in 2007 he made quarters (didn't play in 2006 because of a foot problem)
in 2008 he made semis
If the logic continues, 2009 should be final or win!!

Apparently you lend some sort of credence to a semi-final appearance.

 

[GameSampras]

We cant necessarily consider Nadal a "Prime Nadal". Prior to his past year either can we? The best may be yet to come from Nadal. Or it happened last year. Certainly not years prior to last. His game improved just about everywheres. So theoretically, You can argue that Fed was losing to Nadal BEFORE his prime while Fed was in his

 

[P_Agony]

The couple of times you're talking about were both at Master Cup on indoor hard. On outdoor hard Nadal beat Fed 2 times out of 3. I'll stick with my version, Fed is VERY lucky that he didn't have to play Rafa more often on hard courts.

I respect your opinon, but I disagree. I believe it depends on the court, and quite frankly even though both the AO and USO are outdoor courts, I think Nadal would not stand a chance against prime Fed in one of those. Fed brought his best tennis to Australia and New York year after year (IMO better than he plays in Wimbeldon) and gave guys who usually give Nadal problems on HC quite the beating on a regular basis. In the meantime, Nadal was never able to go far in any of those events, and only last year was able to get to the semis of both. The only guy since 2004, prior to 2008 (Fed's worst year) that was able to beat him in one of those events was Safin in one of the most intense 5-set matches in history (and a match that could have gone either way with the quality of play there). Nobody else could, Fed was just too good on hard courts, way better than Murray, Djokovic and Nadal are good on hard courts today.

How can you underestimate Federer HC play after so many HC grand slams?

 

[P_Agony]

You know what, I actually think that if Nadal had met Federer on hard more often, he would have found a way to beat him there too, so it may actually have worked to Fed's advantage that they didn't meet on hard too often, particularly in 2008 when Fed was less than stellar on hard courts.

Exactly, Fed was less than stellar in 2008 and I bet Nadal would have beat him on most hard courts as well. But how can you compare the guys who is having his best year to a guy who's having the worst of his? Wouldn't you want to compare prime Fed to prime Nadal? Wouldn't that make more sense?

 

[Aabye]

I respect your opinon, but I disagree. I believe it depends on the court, and quite frankly even though both the AO and USO are outdoor courts, I think Nadal would not stand a chance against prime Fed in one of those. Fed brought his best tennis to Australia and New York year after year (IMO better than he plays in Wimbeldon) and gave guys who usually give Nadal problems on HC quite the beating on a regular basis. In the meantime, Nadal was never able to go far in any of those events, and only last year was able to get to the semis of both. The only guy since 2004, prior to 2008 (Fed's worst year) that was able to beat him in one of those events was Safin in one of the most intense 5-set matches in history (and a match that could have gone either way with the quality of play there). Nobody else could, Fed was just too good on hard courts, way better than Murray, Djokovic and Nadal are good on hard courts today.

How can you underestimate Federer HC play after so many HC grand slams?

You can't really, but you also cannot say that because Federer beat all those people who gave Nadal trouble quite easily, that he would necessarily have done the same to Nadal. Nadal's game has always been troublesome for Federer on any court, and even when Federer was in his "prime".

 

[abmk]

We cant necessarily consider Nadal a "Prime Nadal". Prior to his past year either can we? The best may be yet to come from Nadal. Or it happened last year. Certainly not years prior to last. His game improved just about everywheres. So theoretically, You can argue that Fed was losing to Nadal BEFORE his prime while Fed was in his

Good, very convenient,except that a 'non-prime' nadal was able to win @ more than 80% * those 3 years and was a monster on clay right from his 1st RG .

Theoretically you can also argue -> nadal rose to no1 because of federer's slump **

* Something which your fav's biggest rival was able to do only twice when your fav was in his prime

** while not giving any credit to nadal for improving.

 

[veroniquem]

Its not just about prestige . Its about consistency at peak ( and at the slams ) which shows how good an all-surface player he is/how well he plays at the slams . Making to the SF or better 18 times consecutively while winning 11 out of those is a very good indication of that.

Btw those were just the slam ones, he has some other ridiculous streaks too - record no of consec. grass wins, record no of consec. hard court wins and record no of consec. finals ( not just @ the slams ) which was broken by nalbandian in TMC 2005 F.

All this is well and good but doesn't override most slams won or most titles won IMO.

 

[veroniquem]

Good, very convenient,except that a 'non-prime' nadal was able to win @ more than 80% * those 3 years and was a monster on clay right from his 1st RG .

Theoretically you can also argue -> nadal rose to no1 because of federer's slump **

* Something which your fav's biggest rival was able to do only twice when your fav was in his prime

** while not giving any credit to nadal for improving.

Nadal was "prime" from the start, that's why he 's a phenomenon (unlike Fed who sucked for quite some time before metamorphosing into Mr Hyde!)

 

[veroniquem]

I was going to reply to this but it appears that "abmk" has already responded to this. It goes to show how amazingly consistent the guy is. Even the great Pete Sampras wasn't even able to do that. Now in no way am I putting down Sampras, I loved watching the guy play. He's one of my all time favourites but some of these jokers, like the OP, try to raise him to deity like status and it's becoming quite annoying. If Federer were to somehow break Pete's record that doesn't make Pete any less of a player, that's just a ridiculous assumption. I loved watching Pete play too. Why isn't it possible to like them both?



Apparently you lend some sort of credence to a semi-final appearance.

Not at all! The post you quoted was only meant to indicate the positive evolution of Nadal at AO, it wasn't a discussion about GOAT. My opinion about GOAT is that noone can be a GOAT without winning all 4 slams on top of other considerations. So to me Laver is the GOAT and Agassi could have been if he had been more serious and consistent about his career. Sampras is a kind of "SEMI-GOAT" because even though he hasn't won all 4 he has the absolute record in # of slams and weeks at #1, which are records one simply cannot ignore but he'll never really be a GOAT because he never won FO. Federer is not in the conversation as long as he doesnt EITHER break Sampras's records OR win the FO.

 

[egn]

I hope you're joking about the pest part, I'm sure you meant Nadal being an extraordinary or remarkable clay player (and player in general). "Pest" is way off mark and very unwarranted + what do you mean by "save" Federer, I don't think the guy needs to be saved by anything, he's doing very well for himself as it is.

Pest as in from 2005 to 2007 Federer actually had to try to get his number one ranking, it was a sarcastic statement. Should have put it in italics. Pest as in Nadal was taking titles from Federer and giving him a run for his money in both 2005 and 2007. And by saving it was what saves his criticism of the bad h2h was he still was about to dominate. If you want to use bad h2h even then he was still able to hold on to the top spot. So it really is a bad h2h vs. 1 player through his prime, but he was on top of him in the rankings for those years. I was joking about pest, he was far more than a pest his 2005 season could have put him number 1 some years.

 

[edberg505]

Not at all! The post you quoted was only meant to indicate the positive evolution of Nadal at AO, it wasn't a discussion about GOAT. My opinion about GOAT is that noone can be a GOAT without winning all 4 slams on top of other considerations. So to me Laver is the GOAT and Agassi could have been if he had been more serious and consistent about his career. Sampras is a kind of "HALF-GOAT" because even though he hasn't won all 4 he has the absolute record in # of slams and weeks at #1, which are records one simply cannot ignore but he'll never really be a GOAT because he never won FO. Federer is not in the conversation as long as he doesnt EITHER break Sampras's records OR win the FO.

And the post that "abmk" was replying to said that Federer had never done anything that hasn't been done before so I was replying to that fact. And to be honest all of this GOAT talk is kinda absurd. I willing to bet that even if Federer were to break some of those records that people still wouldn't consider him the so called "GOAT". They'll just come up with some other reason to say why he isn't.

 

[veroniquem]

Pest as in from 2005 to 2007 Federer actually had to try to get his number one ranking, it was a sarcastic statement. Should have put it in italics. Pest as in Nadal was taking titles from Federer and giving him a run for his money in both 2005 and 2007. And by saving it was what saves his criticism of the bad h2h was he still was about to dominate. If you want to use bad h2h even then he was still able to hold on to the top spot. So it really is a bad h2h vs. 1 player through his prime, but he was on top of him in the rankings for those years. I was joking about pest, he was far more than a pest his 2005 season could have put him number 1 some years.

OK, I understand. About the head to head BTW my opinion from the start was that it CAN'T tarnish a player's reputation by itself. If Federer ends up winning the French one day, his head to head with Nadal won't diminish his achievement in the slightest. So on that particular point I guess we agree.

 

[egn]

And the post that "abmk" was replying to said that Federer had never done anything that hasn't been done before so I was replying to that fact. And to be honest all of this GOAT talk is kinda absurd. I willing to bet that even if Federer were to break some of those records that people still wouldn't consider him the so called "GOAT". They'll just come up with some other reason to say why he isn't.

Federer wins one french open it will be well he only won one. Though that would probably be enough, the problem is just everyone wants greatness where they dominate all the surfaces but you don't get that easily in mens tennis. It comes more often in womens tennis, mens tennis for some reason it is not as often. I guess it is mroe dedicated and higher level playing...I have no idea.