Fed missed a golden opportunity to even out the score

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
No. In his place as debatably the best player ever.
And that's a remarkably pitiful place to be, isn't it?
Without Nadal and the damage he caused Federer, he would have 25+ slams, which would make it a no contest.
Without Federer and the damage he caused Nadal, Nadal would have 17 Slams (which would put him above Federer and hand him the Slam count record), a WTF title, and at least 5 YE#1s, making him the widely proclaimed GOAT.

So, tell me, who proved the bigger precipice? The guy who diminished Nadal from being the widely proclaimed GOAT to an afterthought in the GOAT debate, or the guy who diminished Federer from being the undisputed GOAT to the widely proclaimed GOAT?
 

AceSalvo

Legend
The media was hyping it up to no end. Brad Gilbert already had a GOAT list planned and the winner of that match would have gone on top.
Both rightly so. Simply because, the scenario where NAdal got his #15 thereby DCGS and subsequent LA Decima which is #16 and subsequent YE#1 would have put him on top of Fed.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
The funny thing is that Fed is playing his best tennis in 8 years, and Nadal was that close to beating him again. .
I see your opinion and raise you facts. Federer is 35 years old, and Nadal is nearly 5 years younger. Those are facts. They're beyond dispute, unlike your claim about Federer playing his best Tennis in 8 years. Nadal couldn't beat a 35-year-old in a best-of-5 Tennis match. Let that sink in.
On a sped-up AO HC, non the less.
Good thing for Nadal, really. We saw the pounding Federer handed Nadal on the slower hardcourts within the next few weeks.
 
It's precisely the fact that it was a final that makes it important, so you can't just set that aside. What you're saying is about as illogical as saying Trump isn't a politician, besides the fact that he's the president.
That analogy isn't correct. Trump would be a politician even if he weren't the president. That match was important because it was a final. Hadn't it been a final, its importance would have been greatly diminished.
 
And that's a remarkably pitiful place to be, isn't it?
Without Federer and the damage he caused Nadal, Nadal would have 17 Slams (which would put him above Federer and hand him the Slam count record), a WTF title, and at least 5 YE#1s, making him the widely proclaimed GOAT.

So, tell me, who proved the bigger precipice? The guy who diminished Nadal from being the widely proclaimed GOAT to an afterthought in the GOAT debate, or the guy who diminished Federer from being the undisputed GOAT to the widely proclaimed GOAT?
Nadal is an afterthought? Nadal has been beating the so-called GOAT in slams for 10 years without losing a single time. And he beat the so-called GOAT in his home turf, and both on grass and HC. Fed wasn't good enough to beat Nadal at RG however.

I guess that's why so many Fed fans consider RG a poor slam. :D
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
That analogy isn't correct. Trump would be a politician even if he weren't the president.
Conjecture. He may well have quit politics, making him just a businessman (and whatever else he moonlights as).
That match was important because it was a final.
Ah, so you agree that it was important, implicitly admitting that a match doesn't have to be good to be important.
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
Appreciate the insight from @Rusty Shackleford here. Sewretch has missed a golden opportunity to even the score with Nadal too. He's like an upgraded version of Fed with a smootherer backhand, nastier passing shots and superhuman spray. Responsible and targeted spraying on the dirt would have hampered the Spaniard's footing at Roland Garros. Peak Bull would have finally been vanquished and the Wretch could celebrate afterwards on the streets of Paris with a gaggle of blondes wearing Sharapova masks.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Nadal is an afterthought? Nadal has been beating the so-called GOAT in slams for 10 years without losing a single time.
False. Federer beat Nadal at Wimbledon in July of 2007, and again at the Australian Open in January of 2017. Less than 10 years separates those two wins.

And he beat the so-called GOAT in his home turf, and both on grass and HC. Fed wasn't good enough to beat Nadal at RG however.
Djokovic beat the so-called clay GOAT on his home turf, and both on grasscourts and hardcourts. Nadal wasn't good enough to beat Djokovic at the Australian Open, however. See, I can do it too!

The fact remains that Federer is so far ahead of Nadal in overall accomplishments that Nadal is an afterthought in the GOAT debate, no matter how much the ************* might try to argue otherwise.

I guess that's why so many Fed fans consider RG a poor slam. :D
This doesn't follow anything I said. I think all Slams are great tournaments, and the French Open is probably the second or third most important tournament in Tennis history, so this comment is misdirected.
 
Conjecture. He may well have quit politics, making him just a businessman (and whatever else he moonlights as).
Ah, so you agree that it was important, implicitly admitting that a match doesn't have to be good to be important.
Not a conjecture. The moment he ran for office he became a politician. Simple enough.

I said that the only thing which made that match important was the fact it was a final. Hadn't it been a final, it wouldn't have been important. The circumstances surrounding the mach, the context, is what makes it a match worthwhile commenting on. The quality just wasn't there.

I said the Nadal-Dimitrov match was much better.

Nadal has a way of producing epic memorable matches, whether it's Federer, Djokovic, or Dimitrov on the other side of the net.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Not a conjecture. The moment he ran for office he became a politician. Simple enough.
But he wouldn't be a politician any longer if he happened to quit politics. Just like you're not a baby anymore after you've grown up. Simple enough.

I said that the only thing which made that match important was the fact it was a final. Hadn't it been a final, it wouldn't have been important. The circumstances surrounding the mach, the context, is what makes it a match worthwhile commenting on. The quality just wasn't there.
So you agree with me that a match doesn't have to be good to be important? Good.

I said the Nadal-Dimitrov match was much better.
So?

Nadal has a way of producing epic memorable matches, whether it's Federer, Djokovic, or Dimitrov on the other side of the net.
And for all his ways, he's still lower than Federer on the totem pole of Tennis greats.
 
I see your opinion and raise you facts. Federer is 35 years old, and Nadal is nearly 5 years younger. Those are facts. They're beyond dispute, unlike your claim about Federer playing his best Tennis in 8 years. Nadal couldn't beat a 35-year-old in a best-of-5 Tennis match. Let that sink in.
Good thing for Nadal, really. We saw the pounding Federer handed Nadal on the slower hardcourts within the next few weeks.
Nadal has caused Fed's career much more damage than the damage Fed has caused Nadal's career. I am actually happy for Fed that he managed to beat Nadal. But the overall balance is very negative for Federer. Primacy and recency are very powerful things, and in sports recency is the most powerful of the two.

But remember that Fed struggled with Nadal in Wimbledon when Nadal was younger than Thiem is now, and he actually lost to him.
Nadal never capitulated to Fed in RG. He is the rightful King of Clay, never conquered (and rarely defeated).

Let that sink in.
 
But he wouldn't be a politician any longer if he happened to quit politics. Just like you're not a baby anymore after you've grown up. Simple enough.

So you agree with me that a match doesn't have to be good to be important? Good.

So?

And for all his ways, he's still lower than Federer on the totem pole of Tennis greats.
Isn't Arnold Palmer a golf player, even though he quit golf and passed away (RIP Arnie)?

Boy, you must be a lawyer with all these objections you are raising.

I never said a match can't be important despite poor quality. I said the match wasn't important but for the fact it was a final. Isn't that understandable enough? Enough crusades have been started due to misunderstandings. ;)

Nadal is below Federer at this point, yes. Who said he wasn't? Rivalry-wise, Nadal is way ahead of Federer though. There is no point in denying the obvious truth unless you want to risk looking like an idiot.
 

Legend of Borg

G.O.A.T.
everyone talks about how great fedal is but let's face it, the mythical "fedal fan" is an urban legend

you either back fed or nadal or you have a heavy preference for one over the other

you don't back both players equally

i'm tired of people "celebrating fedal" when they really mean "i'm glad fed/nadal is winning everything in sight again"
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Nadal has caused Fed's career much more damage than the damage Fed has caused Nadal's career. I am actually happy for Fed that he managed to beat Nadal. But the overall balance is very negative for Federer. Primacy and recency are very powerful things, and in sports recency is the most powerful of the two.
For all the damage Nadal has caused, Federer is still widely considered the greatest Tennis player of all time. For the little damage Federer has caused, Nadal is not widely considered the greatest Tennis player of all time. And them's the breaks.

But remember that Fed struggled with Nadal in Wimbledon when Nadal was younger than Thiem is now, and he actually lost to him.
Federer, a 7-time Wimbledon champion, is 2-1 against Nadal, a 2-time Wimbledon champion. I don't see how that's any more egregious than Nadal, a 9-time French Open champion, being 3-1 against Soderling, a 0-time French Open champion.

Nadal never capitulated to Fed in RG. He is the rightful King of Clay, never conquered (and rarely defeated).
You can lay on all the fancy talk you want, but Djokovic beat Nadal at the French Open, while Nadal didn't manage to beat Djokovic at the Australian Open. I don't think that matters, but you do, so I'd like to see you twist your way out of that one.

Let that sink in.
It doesn't sink in, because it's immaterial.
 

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
Isn't Arnold Palmer a golf player, even though he quit golf and passed away (RIP Arnie)?
He's dead, so I don't think he is anything. He was a golf player.

Boy, you must be a lawyer with all these objections you are raising.
Boy, you must not be a lawyer with all these simplicities you're not grasping.

I never said a match can't be important despite poor quality.
So why even mention the quality of the Federer-Nadal AO2017 match when all I said was that the "experts" called it the most important match of all time?

I said the match wasn't important but for the fact it was a final. Isn't that understandable enough?
It's understandable enough, but it's just a weird thing to say. What's next, you're not a guy but for the fact that you have a penis?

Nadal is below Federer at this point, yes. Who said he wasn't? Rivalry-wise, Nadal is way ahead of Federer though. There is no point in denying the obvious truth unless you want to risk looking like an idiot.
Davydenko is below Nadal at this point, yes. Rivalry-wise, Davydenko is ahead of Nadal though. There is no point in denying the obvious truth unless you want to risk looking like even more an idiot than you already are.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The fact remains that Federer is so far ahead of Nadal in overall accomplishments that Nadal is an afterthought in the GOAT debate, no matter how much the ************* might try to argue otherwise.
Without a doubt Federer is better and greater than Nadal.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 18(career slam)
2. Pete Sampras 14
= Rafael Nadal 14(career slam)
4. Novak Djokovic 12(career slam)
5. Björn Borg 11
6. Andre Agassi 8(career slam)
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Jimmy Connors 8
9. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
11. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 28
2. Novak Djokovic 21

= Rafael Nadal 21
4. Ivan Lendl 19
5. Pete Sampras 18
6. Björn Borg 16
7. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
9. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
= Andy Murray 11

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
= Novak Djokovic 5
5. 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. Novak Djokovic 223
6. John McEnroe 170
7. Rafael Nadal 141
8. Björn Borg 109
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Nadal 3

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 91*
4. John McEnroe 77
5. Rafael Nadal 72*
6. Novak Djokovic 67*
7. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
9. Guillermo Vilas 62
10. Andre Agassi 60
11. Boris Becker 49
 
Last edited:

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
Most important because it was the 18th slam? It wasn't a great match though. The Nadal-Dimitrov SF was way better.
Aus Open 2017 men's final - record setting historically significant event, in fact massively significant

Nad-dimi sf - insignificant in every respect I can think of
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Aus Open 2017 men's final - record setting historically significant event, in fact massively significant

Nad-dimi sf - insignificant in every respect I can think of
The men's final had 4.4 million viewers in Australia, double that of a year ago. ESPN had 80% viewership increase over last year's final. In Europe, 11 million viewers on Eurosport and affiliated channels. 800,000 watched in Britain, making it the second-most-watched Australian Open final in the country. The Spanish broadcast had as many as 1.3 million viewers, making it the second-most-watched Grand Slam final in the network’s history.

The epic Australian Open showdown between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal has scored Channel Seven its highest TV ratings for a men’s final tennis match in a decade and third most-watched ever.

 

Hitman's Gurl

Professional
The men's final had 4.4 million viewers in Australia, double that of a year ago. ESPN had 80% viewership increase over last year's final. In Europe, 11 million viewers on Eurosport and affiliated channels. 800,000 watched in Britain, making it the second-most-watched Australian Open final in the country. The Spanish broadcast had as many as 1.3 million viewers, making it the second-most-watched Grand Slam final in the network’s history.

The epic Australian Open showdown between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal has scored Channel Seven its highest TV ratings for a men’s final tennis match in a decade and third most-watched ever.

I could have added to the ratings if I had the courage to watch it live. Even the recording one week later was giving me anxiety. :oops::oops::oops:
 
I see your opinion and raise you facts. Federer is 35 years old, and Nadal is nearly 5 years younger. Those are facts. They're beyond dispute, unlike your claim about Federer playing his best Tennis in 8 years. Nadal couldn't beat a 35-year-old in a best-of-5 Tennis match. Let that sink in.
Good thing for Nadal, really. We saw the pounding Federer handed Nadal on the slower hardcourts within the next few weeks.
Dude get over Nadal and deal with fact that both Nadal and Djokovic are widely considered ahead of Federer.

Since 2007 Federer has won less than either and has an inferior h2h. How can Federer be goat?

As for relying on ao 2017 if you think that was bigger or more important than W2008 then you need to see a psychiatrist. Tge world still talks about W2008 today..ao2017 already largely forgotten.

Sorry but Rusty is giving you a beatdown.
 
For all the damage Nadal has caused, Federer is still widely considered the greatest Tennis player of all time. For the little damage Federer has caused, Nadal is not widely considered the greatest Tennis player of all time. And them's the breaks.
You don't have a point. I say: "The surface of the sun is hot." And you say: "Yes, but the sky is blue."

I feel increasingly like I'm talking to a lawyer. A very immature lawyer. :D

Federer, a 7-time Wimbledon champion, is 2-1 against Nadal, a 2-time Wimbledon champion. I don't see how that's any more egregious than Nadal, a 9-time French Open champion, being 3-1 against Soderling, a 0-time French Open champion.
The point is that Soderling beat Nadal in a one-off. It was an anomaly, in a rather inconsequential rivalry. The Fedal rivalry has established some very noticeable patterns, and it is one of the mythical rivalries of the sport. What is remarkable about the AO 17 final is that it bucked the trend, and it was itself an anomaly given the established previous trend.

You like to argue with stupid anecdotes. Again: Are you a lawyer? :D

You can lay on all the fancy talk you want, but Djokovic beat Nadal at the French Open, while Nadal didn't manage to beat Djokovic at the Australian Open. I don't think that matters, but you do, so I'd like to see you twist your way out of that one.
Nadal didn't manage to beat Djokovic, but he was damn close. He was infinitely closer to beating Djokovic at Djokovic's peak in 2012 than Fed has ever been of beating Nadal at RG.

It doesn't sink in, because it's immaterial.
Immaterial for you, yes.
 
Boy, you must not be a lawyer with all these simplicities you're not grasping.
I am not a lawyer, no. I actually use my brain for the betterment of mankind.

So why even mention the quality of the Federer-Nadal AO2017 match when all I said was that the "experts" called it the most important match of all time?
The AO 17 Final was an important match in that it was a final which allowed Fed to win his 18th Slam and beat Nadal against the forecasts. It wasn't a high quality match.

It's understandable enough, but it's just a weird thing to say. What's next, you're not a guy but for the fact that you have a penis?
That's incorrect. What makes someone a guy is DNA, not a penis. If you lose your penis through an accident, does that cause you to not be a guy? Hermaphrodites are not men either, are they?

Davydenko is below Nadal at this point, yes. Rivalry-wise, Davydenko is ahead of Nadal though. There is no point in denying the obvious truth unless you want to risk looking like even more an idiot than you already are.
There you go spouting silly anecdotes which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The Davydenko/Nadal rivalry is inconsequential, first because it can't really be considered a rivalry, and second (although not completely unrelated from the previous point) because very few matches were played, the H2H is almost even, and I don't think they even played a single match in a slam. Try harder next time (or better yet, give up already and avoid any further embarrassment, son).
 
Without a doubt Federer is greater than Nadal.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 18(career slam)
2. Pete Sampras 14
= Rafael Nadal 14(career slam)
4. Novak Djokovic 12(career slam)
5. Björn Borg 11
6. Andre Agassi 8(career slam)
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Jimmy Connors 8
9. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
11. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 28
2. Novak Djokovic 21

= Rafael Nadal 21
4. Ivan Lendl 19
5. Pete Sampras 18
6. Björn Borg 16
7. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
9. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
= Andy Murray 11

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
= Novak Djokovic 5
5. 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. Novak Djokovic 223
6. John McEnroe 170
7. Rafael Nadal 141
8. Björn Borg 109
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Nadal 3

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 91*
4. John McEnroe 77
5. Rafael Nadal 72*
6. Novak Djokovic 67*
7. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
9. Guillermo Vilas 62
10. Andre Agassi 60
11. Boris Becker 49
Why not add H2H and Masters Titles to your list?

BTW, the first list is for the most part the only one that counts, or at least counts for 99%.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Dude get over Nadal and deal with fact that both Nadal and Djokovic are widely considered ahead of Federer.

Since 2007 Federer has won less than either and has an inferior h2h. How can Federer be goat?

As for relying on ao 2017 if you think that was bigger or more important than W2008 then you need to see a psychiatrist. Tge world still talks about W2008 today..ao2017 already largely forgotten.
Nadal/Nole are ahead of Federer in the 2nd half of Federer's career. Not unusual since they are a lot younger than Federer. However, career wise, Federer is way ahead of them in achievements.

Majority of the public agree Federer is the greatest base on his immense scale of achievement, especially his 18 slam titles.

AO 2017 was one of the most watched slam final(see post #227). An epic battle between two greatest rivals of time in tennis. It will be remembered forever.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Why not add H2H and Masters Titles to your list?

BTW, the first list is for the most part the only one that counts, or at least counts for 99%.
H2H doesn't reward a player any titles. Davydenko, or Roddick doesn't get any extra titles just because they were able to beat Nadal and Nole respectively.

Of course MS count too, but it isn't as significant as other achievements. If it is, then Nadal should be considered well ahead of Sampras since he won 30 MS to Sampras 11. Yet, many fans still has Sampras ahead. And despite Federer won 26 MS himself, I don't overhype the MS just because I'm his fan.

Tennis isn't just about slam count alone, or a be-all-end-all debate(and I'm a Federer fan). There are more to tennis achievements than just the 4 slam tournaments.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
everyone talks about how great fedal is but let's face it, the mythical "fedal fan" is an urban legend

you either back fed or nadal or you have a heavy preference for one over the other

you don't back both players equally

i'm tired of people "celebrating fedal" when they really mean "i'm glad fed/nadal is winning everything in sight again"
That's completely incorrect. I prefer Federer but I also really like Nadal. I'm definitely a Fedal fan. There are plenty of fans of tennis who like or appreciate both players and why wouldn't they? It doesn't have to be one or the other at all. That's a short-sighted outlook IMO.
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
I think he had a good chance of beating Nadal in RG, but now he will never be able to erase the stain from the 2008 Wimbledon Final.
Fed is more interested in his GOAT status of overal title wins I think. He has no in-roads for toppling Nadal for anything clay really, so even if he won the RG it would just be a footnote on a Nadal owned stat sheet. So why waste the effort and time is what I think he was thinking. He practices on clay, he saw Nadal playing, pretty much said, no thanks.

Prep and rest for grass season and see if he can dominate another leg of the tour for the year. Seems like a decent strategy.
 

TheMusicLover

G.O.A.T.
That's completely incorrect. I prefer Federer but I also really like Nadal. I'm definitely a Fedal fan. There are plenty of fans of tennis who like or appreciate both players and why wouldn't they? It doesn't have to be one or the other at all. That's a short-sighted outlook IMO.
And here's another one. ;)

For the rest of this thread: trollâge superièure. Douze points!
 
H2H doesn't reward a player any titles. Davydenko, or Roddick doesn't get any extra titles just because they were able to beat Nadal and Nole respectively.
How many titles do Weeks at #1 and Year End #1 give a player? But you included those stats.

Of course MS count too, but it isn't as significant as other achievements. If it is, then Nadal should be considered well ahead of Sampras since he won 30 MS to Sampras 11. Yet, many fans still has Sampras ahead. And despite Federer won 26 MS himself, I don't overhype the MS just because I'm his fan.
That is wrong. Masters 1000 is the second most important competition in the tour. Most of the season is comprised of MS competition. Also, MS wins give a player real titles (unlike the Weeks at #1 or Year End #1, which don't). Yet, you decided to include those two, and leave out Masters titles, because it furthers your agenda. Your list is very biased. Don't try to convince me it isn't. My IQ is in the three digits.

Tennis isn't just about slam count alone, or a be-all-end-all debate(and I'm a Federer fan). There are more to tennis achievements than just the 4 slam tournaments.
Yes. Masters titles is the next most important achievement. But you omitted it.

Most players have a bigger percentage of their points coming from MS competition than from anything else. That means Masters title wins contribute to a player's ability to be #1. Chew on that for a bit.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
That's completely incorrect. I prefer Federer but I also really like Nadal. I'm definitely a Fedal fan. There are plenty of fans of tennis who like or appreciate both players and why wouldn't they? It doesn't have to be one or the other at all. That's a short-sighted outlook IMO.
You've made @Legend of Borg's point for him right here though. You can like both and there are a select few on this forum that do, but as soon as you say you prefer Federer it basically means that when push comes to shove you're a Federer fan first and a Nadal fan second. And I'm also sure there are others that might identify as Fedal fans that are technically Nadal fans first and Federer fans second.

But of course this is just my opinion. It's the way I am. I find it hard/impossible to "equally" root for 2 people especially if they're playing each other. Rooting primarily for 1 person makes me care more about the outcome and if I'm going to watch a sporting event I want to care about the outcome. If I don't care I'll probably turn it off.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Without a doubt Federer is greater than Nadal.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 18(career slam)
2. Pete Sampras 14
= Rafael Nadal 14(career slam)
4. Novak Djokovic 12(career slam)
5. Björn Borg 11
6. Andre Agassi 8(career slam)
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Jimmy Connors 8
9. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
11. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 28
2. Novak Djokovic 21

= Rafael Nadal 21
4. Ivan Lendl 19
5. Pete Sampras 18
6. Björn Borg 16
7. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
9. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
= Andy Murray 11

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
= Novak Djokovic 5
5. 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. Novak Djokovic 223
6. John McEnroe 170
7. Rafael Nadal 141
8. Björn Borg 109
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5
= Connors 5
4. McEnroe 4
= Lendl 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Nadal 3

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 91*
4. John McEnroe 77
5. Rafael Nadal 72*
6. Novak Djokovic 67*
7. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
9. Guillermo Vilas 62
10. Andre Agassi 60
11. Boris Becker 49
This would be my preferred order

Most GS titles

Year End #1 - Rusty forgot that the YE#1 player gets a trophy.

Year-End Championships


Most ATP Titles (M1000's, 500's, 250's) - Rusty cares about only M1000's since that is the only way to get Nadal ahead of Fed. He did mention the not so relevant H2H so that would another category where Nadal is ahead of Fed.

Most Weeks at #1

GS finals
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Dude get over Nadal and deal with fact that both Nadal and Djokovic are widely considered ahead of Federer.

Since 2007 Federer has won less than either and has an inferior h2h. How can Federer be goat?

As for relying on ao 2017 if you think that was bigger or more important than W2008 then you need to see a psychiatrist. Tge world still talks about W2008 today..ao2017 already largely forgotten.

Sorry but Rusty is giving you a beatdown.
It isn't rocket science to figure out that Nadal and Djokovic are younger than Federer so therefore it's no shock that they acquired more titles than him, given that Federer was in his 30's for most of their primes/peaks.

But if you want it this way, how can Nadal be the GOAT if he has a losing H2H vs Djokovic since 2011 and has won much less slams than him and acquired much less weeks at no.1 than him + WTF titles?

At least Nadal and Djokovic are both younger than Federer. Nadal let a guy from his own generation win more than him and beat him most of the time in the last 7 years.
 

Legend of Borg

G.O.A.T.
You've made @Legend of Borg's point for him right here though. You can like both and there are a select few on this forum that do, but as soon as you say you prefer Federer it basically means that when push comes to shove you're a Federer fan first and a Nadal fan second. And I'm also sure there are others that might identify as Fedal fans that are technically Nadal fans first and Federer fans second.

But of course this is just my opinion. It's the way I am. I find it hard/impossible to "equally" root for 2 people especially if they're playing each other. Rooting primarily for 1 person makes me care more about the outcome and if I'm going to watch a sporting event I want to care about the outcome. If I don't care I'll probably turn it off.
it's really really simple for any fedal fans

just put fed and nadal in a brutal GS final match where they play for all the marbles and observe where your loyalties lie

i GUARANTEE you won't have a 50/50 split between them

a part of you will either want fed to be raising the trophy in the end or nadal, but it can never be both
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
it's really really simple for any fedal fans

just put fed and nadal in a brutal GS final match where they play for all the marbles and observe where your loyalties lie

i GUARANTEE you won't have a 50/50 split between them

a part of you will either want fed to be raising the trophy in the end or nadal, but it can never be both
In a way I agree that there is no silver lining. You are either a Fed fan or a Nadal fan, but you can't be both.
 
This would be my preferred order

Most GS titles

Year End #1 - Rusty forgot that the YE#1 player gets a trophy.

Year-End Championships

Most Weeks at #1

Most ATP Titles (M1000's, 500's, 250's) -
Rusty cares about only M1000's since that is the only way to get Nadal ahead of Fed. He did mention the not so relevant H2H so that would another category where Nadal is ahead of Fed.

GS finals


I guess the Olympic titles are not real titles though.
 
Top