Fed still GOAT, Nadal may be on his way but not there yet

[asifallasleep]

A champs legacy is not based on his head to head against any singular player. It is based on his number of grand slams, the duration he has held on to the number one ranking and his total win loss record. There are numerous former champs who had dismal records against certain players but amassed numerous slams while destroying everyone else. Nadal being compared to Fed's career achievements is too premature and can't truly be a proper comparison until the end of Rafa's career. Fed was consistently the top player in the world longer than anyone in the modern tennis era. If Nadal can equal or surpass the achievements mentioned only then can he be in he same category as Roger. The interesting thing is that Nadal knows this which is why he holds such reverence for Fed. He knows the Fed is at the end of his career while he himself is peaking. Nadal is a true gentleman and student of the game. I'm not sure why so many feel it's necessary to bash and make fun of Roger in order to support Nadal. I like both players and I believe these guys have the utmost respect for each other and may even be friends. I think they would cringe at the negative comments made by some fans about the other. Enjoy both these players as they both are very rare and very special.

 

[joe sch]

Let me start out by claiming Im a big Federer fan and love his game. I also really think you need to discuss GOATs by era. This has been discussed many times over the years on these boards. As another reminder:

Federer is the GOAT of the last decade.

For any unified GOAT talk, the Federer competition during the last decade would provide a big "*" next to his open era records.

The last statement is being proven more true as the current decade plays out and Nadal, Djokovich and others start dominating the last proclaimed GOAT.

 

[dominikk1985]

nadal is not even in the top5 all time.

not only federer but also sampras, laver, borg and maybe connors have to be ranked above him at this point. he still has a lot to doo to catch those guys which I doubt a little considering his injury history.

 

[Fiji]

No, man.

Roger will always be the GOAT.

Even if at the end of their careers:

Roger 16 slams

Nadal 13 slams

Roger will remain the GOAT.

 

[sureshs]

Federer managed to sneak in his wins in the weak era between two great champions - Sampras and Nadal.

 

[kishnabe]

6 slams is a high hill to climb for Nadal...I know he can get half of them at the French. The funny thing there is Wimbledon.....we wil see. I rather see Federer and Nadal as co-goats. Both with the same slams.....that would just supplement their rivarly. Then pundits will say Nadal is the greatest one because of the H2H....LOL why you slams as a measuring stick if H2H matters in the end.

 

[powerangle]

A champs legacy is not based on his head to head against any singular player. It is based on his number of grand slams, the duration he has held on to the number one ranking and his total win loss record. There are numerous former champs who had dismal records against certain players but amassed numerous slams while destroying everyone else. Nadal being compared to Fed's career achievements is too premature and can't truly be a proper comparison until the end of Rafa's career. Fed was consistently the top player in the world longer than anyone in the modern tennis era. If Nadal can equal or surpass the achievements mentioned only then can he be in he same category as Roger. The interesting thing is that Nadal knows this which is why he holds such reverence for Fed. He knows the Fed is at the end of his career while he himself is peaking. Nadal is a true gentleman and student of the game. I'm not sure why so many feel it's necessary to bash and make fun of Roger in order to support Nadal. I like both players and I believe these guys have the utmost respect for each other and may even be friends. I think they would cringe at the negative comments made by some fans about the other. Enjoy both these players as they both are very rare and very special.

You're just beating a dead horse, man. While I agree with you in your "objective" analysis of players through their records, you won't change the minds of people on either side of the fence.

 

[Tennisworld]

Federer managed to sneak in his wins in the weak era between two great champions - Sampras and Nadal.

There is no logic in your argument, because Federer has managed to win 12 GS AFTER Nadals first French Open success.

 

[powerangle]

There is no logic in your argument, because Federer has managed to win 12 GS AFTER Nadals first French Open success.

This is true.

ESPN showed some of the stats yesterday. Even after 2005 French Open, where Nadal won his maiden slam, and started his own flourish of tournament successes (and also therefore discounting Federer's previous accomplishments in 2003 and 2004)....Federer has won more slams and total titles than Nadal.

Up to this point, Fed has still outdone Nadal even if you use Mid 2005 as the starting point.

That may and probably will change very soon of course.

 

[miyagi]

I think you can make a very good argument that Roger is the GOAT I'm not convinced but I definitely understand anyone claiming this.

I don't think Rafa is there just yet I hope he can do it and he has suprised me many times before so I wouldn't put it beyond him.

However if when both men retire there is only one or two slams separating them I believe many experts will pick Nadal over FEDERER solely down to the skewed h2h.

The way Nadal has challenged Federer you have to admire and I don't think it would be right to hold it against him.

 

[ibbi]

A champs legacy is not based on his head to head against any singular player. It is based on his number of grand slams, the duration he has held on to the number one ranking and his total win loss record. There are numerous former champs who had dismal records against certain players but amassed numerous slams while destroying everyone else.

If there is an argument to be made for Federer over Nadal, this is not it. Head to head doesn't matter towards the legacy? You can win grand slams, stay at number 1, and amass a monster win-loss record against ants, but when you are faced with a true great, someone at the top of his game, who is going to come at you again and again with everything that he has, how you react to that, that actually means something, that actually proves something.

 

[xRain]

Federer has achieved things that Nadal hasn't and Nadal has achieved things that Federer hasn't. There is no specific criteria to use which will completely determine who is the GOAT so it is purely down to opinion.

 

[Rippy]

If there is an argument to be made for Federer over Nadal, this is not it. Head to head doesn't matter towards the legacy? You can win grand slams, stay at number 1, and amass a monster win-loss record against ants, but when you are faced with a true great, someone at the top of his game, who is going to come at you again and again with everything that he has, how you react to that, that actually means something, that actually proves something.

Federer has amassed monster win-loss records against lots of players. You can't just look at one of the few losing records he has and say, "This is the only great player he played against".

 

[Sentinel]

Federer managed to sneak in his wins in the weak era between two great champions - Sampras and Nadal.

Yeah, just like Nadal managed to sneak in his wins between Federer and The Great Goatovic.

 

[ibbi]

Federer has amassed monster win-loss records against lots of players. You can't just look at one of the few losing records he has and say, "This is the only great player he played against".

Its not the losing record that I'm looking at so much as it is the player himself. Noone has ever gone after Federer in the way Nadal has, not this long, this hard. You get occasional instances - Safin in Australia in 2005, Agassi in New York that same year, Roddick at Wimbledon in 2009, but none of these guys have ever fought and fought in the way Nadal has. 3 years running as world number 2 speaks for itself, he was unwavering in his determination to be the best. Yes, his game matches up very well to Federer's, but that's another part of it. There are a number of guys against whom Nadal's game is tasty, those big power hitters who take the ball on the rise, for whom the height he gets is no problem, and he's found ways to beat them. He works at it till he overcomes the obstacles. Why has Federer never found the key to well and truly unlock Nadal? Surely the greatest player that ever lived should be able to do that?

Arguments of being past prime carry no water. Did everybody miss his matches with Haas and Del Potro at Roland Garros in 2009? His match with Soderling at the US Open last year where EVERYONE was complaining about the wind, and he went out and played one of the greatest, flawless matches of his life? Or the 2009 Wimbledon final where he showed the fitness and unwavering nerve of a lifetime to outlast Roddick? Nobody? This guy is still more than capable of getting it done, of producing his magic, but now the competition is getting well and truly tough he is entirely unable to do it on a regular basis.

 

[mcr619619]

FED for me is GOAT, Nadal can surpass him if he wins another 6 or 7 GS...im a Fed fan you know..but we have to admit that Nadal can surpass roger, he's only 24...but the problem is , injury, nadal always become injure due to his playing stlye, while roger is always healthy, with a little back pain and some viruses...GOAT doesn't mean to have better h2h record to someone(nadal to fed) but being enable to win a lot of championships, against different players, consistency .

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Federer managed to sneak in his wins in the weak era between two great champions - Sampras and Nadal.

Suresh managed to sneak his trollery between two greats, GJ011 and Beats of Mallorca!

so his "Cincy real slam" and "WTA player more athletic" threads are absolute flukes!!!

 

[Sentinel]

Suresh managed to sneak his trollery between two greats, GJ011 and Beats of Mallorca!

so his "Cincy real slam" and "WTA player more athletic" threads are absolute flukes!!!

I beg to disagree. Breakpoint always maintained a winning H2H against suresh. It's like 100-0. suresh had limited talent and zero variety. So he never was in GOAT consideration.

 

[sureshs]

Yeah, just like Nadal managed to sneak in his wins between Federer and The Great Goatovic.

That is true

 

[sureshs]

I beg to disagree. Breakpoint always maintained a winning H2H against suresh. It's like 100-0. suresh had limited talent and zero variety. So he never was in GOAT consideration.

No one beats Breakpoint, no one.

 

[jackson vile]

Yeah, just like Nadal managed to sneak in his wins between Federer and The Great Goatovic.

Except Nadal was beating Roger at his best. LOL

 

[nikdom]

Except Nadal was beating Roger at his best. LOL

On clay that is. LOL. Why couldn't Nadal get to one USO final to challenge Roger? How many times has Nadal beaten Roger in hard court masters when Roger was at his best? What about year end masters?

 

[jackson vile]

On clay that is. LOL. Why couldn't Nadal get to one USO final to challenge Roger? How many times has Nadal beaten Roger in hard court masters when Roger was at his best? What about year end masters?

Why can't Roger make the finals on those same hard court tournaments now and grass LOL

Nadal was beating Roger at his best on this best surface ie hard courts, you must be ignoring those wins.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Laver and Sampras are the GOATs.

 

[Talker]

Nadal may be on his way but the emergence of Djokovic may take away a few slams from Rafa.

No telling how well Djokovic will play on clay but his game is definitely upgraded from last year so should be a threat at least for titles there.

If Djokovic does take away a few slams from Nadal he's helping those ahead of Rafa on the GOAT list.

 

[NadalAgassi]

The only place I could see Djokovic possibly taking any slams from Nadal at this point is on hard courts, and Nadal was never going to dominate hard courts anyway. Djokovic will not take a French away from Nadal ever probably since Nadal is just too good there, and not take a Wimbledon from Nadal since Djokovic just isnt good enough there.

 

[Talker]

This year Nadal wil have at least 2 legitimate threats on hards, Djokovic and Del Potro.
If Fed hits a good streak he can take one too.

Then there's a few upstarts in Dolgo and Roanic, either one can have a very good game.

The hard courts have become much more tricky for Nadal but he still has a decent chance.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

If there is an argument to be made for Federer over Nadal, this is not it. Head to head doesn't matter towards the legacy? You can win grand slams, stay at number 1, and amass a monster win-loss record against ants, but when you are faced with a true great, someone at the top of his game, who is going to come at you again and again with everything that he has, how you react to that, that actually means something, that actually proves something.

Ofcourse overall records are more important than head to head in goat respect, which is why Nadal is not a goat contender as of now, and Federer is.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Federer has achieved things that Nadal hasn't and Nadal has achieved things that Federer hasn't. There is no specific criteria to use which will completely determine who is the GOAT so it is purely down to opinion.

But Federer has achieved so much more than Nadal.

 

[Agassifan]

Federer managed to sneak in his wins in the weak era between two great champions - Sampras and Nadal.

I am convinced this idiot has difficulty sleeping at night because of the number 16. Suck it.

 

[NadalAgassi]

This year Nadal wil have at least 2 legitimate threats on hards, Djokovic and Del Potro.
If Fed hits a good streak he can take one too.

Then there's a few upstarts in Dolgo and Roanic, either one can have a very good game.

The hard courts have become much more tricky for Nadal but he still has a decent chance.

I agree, hence my point.

On hard courts Djokovic might prove to be the toughest hurdle of all for Nadal. However Nadal has multiple potential hurdles on hard courts anyway. So in the grand scheme it doesnt even change much, Nadal could well win another slam or two on hard courts (more if things go really well but probably unlikely) but would never dominate on that surface anyway with or without Djokovic. For all we know they might never play in a hard court slam again as Nadal usually loses in the semis or earlier of them anyway, and Djokovic himself will have other challengers, or if they do Nadal might win again once he reaches that stage even if Djokovic does better overall on the surface.

On clay Djokovic might come closer to beating Nadal than anyone else, but ultimately will he ever have enough to do it at Roland Garros while Nadal is still in his prime? Possible but doubtful.

And Wimbledon seems very unlikely since this is Djokovic's worst surface by far.

So while I expect Djokovic to win multiple more slams, probably atleast several more on hard courts, maybe atleast 1 on clay if he is lucky, I dont see it having much or any effect on Nadal's slam count either when you break it down.

 

[pc1]

But Federer has achieved so much more than Nadal.

There is a different in age of five years between the two. Let's be fair here.

 

[TMF]

There is a different in age of five years between the two. Let's be fair here.

Their age are less than five years apart. And Fed join the atp tour only 3 yrs before Nadal.

Let's be fair.

 

[jackson vile]

Their age are less than five years apart. And Fed join the atp tour only 3 yrs before Nadal.

Let's be fair.

Fair and balanced = ****s LOL:lol:

 

[timnz]

Wider mastery needed for Nadal

Nadal definitely is a great player. No doubt about that. However, I do think that he needs a wider mastery of the key events. He really has only dominated Roland Garros. Most of the other people in the GOAT discussion have dominated multiple championships out of the top 5 events. And by dominated I mean have won it at least 4 times.

Of the top 5 events (4 Slams plus year end finals):

Borg (Roland Garros (6) and Wimbledon (5))
Sampras (Wimbledon (7), US Open (5) & Year end Championship (5))
Federer (Australian Open (4), Wimbledon (6), US Open (5), Year end Championship (5) - and counting)

Nadal's record of the other 4 main events are:

Australian Open (1)
Wimbledon (2)
US Open (1)
Year end Championship (0)

Now he is only 24 (25 in a couple of months) so he has time still to make inroads, so he could be definitely up there with the aforementioned guys - but as of yet he isn't in the discussion of who is at the very peak of tennis.

 

[Chopin]

Wait, what has Nadal won this year?

 

[nikdom]

Why can't Roger make the finals on those same hard court tournaments now and grass LOL

Nadal was beating Roger at his best on this best surface ie hard courts, you must be ignoring those wins.

Are you like 5 years old? You are the one who said Roger in his prime. Roger is not winning now cos he's old.

 

[Sentinel]

Nadal was on his way to becoming GOAT. But then there was a sudden twist in the plot.

I'd like to see what happens on this board if Joker wins RG -- maybe this year is too soon, could be next. I already see a couple of vocal Nadfans changing their tune to save face whenever Rafa is about to lose.

 

[Borrelli]

Borg never played the Australian open more than once and if Laver was allowed to play for the 8 years (of his prime) that he missed I think the record books would look quite different than they do today.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Federer managed to sneak in his wins in the weak era between two great champions - Sampras and Nadal.

If that is the case then, likewise, most of Nadal's slams to date were won in a similar scenario - against lack of real competition. He was playing the same fields as Federer.

I can see the argument for and against but don't fully agree Federer had it as easy as some people make out. By Wilander's definition, for every slam less Federer had won it would have made his competition/era better by comparison and therefore give his own achievements more merit (relatively).

Imagine if Roddick had won one of Fed's Aussie Opens and Murray had won one of his Wimbledons... Fed would be on 14 slams - equal with Sampras - and the argument would then be "does his career slam make him better than Pete or does Pete's longer reign at #1 trump that?". Even ignoring that Federer would be considered a better player because he'd have lost two more slams - with the winners including another multiple slam winner in Roddick and England's greatest player since Fred Perry.

(taken to the nth this logic demonstrates that Richard Krajicek is the actual GOAT because he only won a single slam in the most talent-rich era. If he had won more it would not be because he was better, but simply evidence that everyone else was worse and the wins were 'soft' and thus don't count... Go figure! :lol

Adjust ratios ad nauseum for a never-ending closed-loop debate which can never be resolved.