FEDAL-Try to be Objective

[weakera]

UPDATE
As someone has bumped this thread for some reason I thought I should update the facts.

(In order to be truly objective the age of ATG finalists is placed in brackets as Federer fans so often use HIS age as an argument against Djokovic)

If posters could try and put their tribal loyalty to one side and just try and discuss this just as tennis fans it would be great. What do we think is the more impressive record in slam finals, and why?

FEDERER
1.Philippoussis
2.Safin
3.Roddick
4.Hewitt
5.Roddick
6.Agassi (age 35)
7.Baghdatis
8.Nadal (age 20)
9.Roddick
10.Gonzalez
11.Nadal (age 21)
12.Djokovic (age 20)
13.Murray
14.Soderling
15.Roddick
16.Murray
17.Murray
18.Nadal (age30)
19.Cilic
20.Cilic

NADAL
1.Puerta
2.Federer (age 25)
3.Federer (age 26)
4.Federer (age 27)
5.Federer (age27)
6.Federer (age 28)
7.Soderling
8.Berdych
9.Djokovic (age 23)
10.Federer (age 29)
11.Djokovic (age 25)
12.Ferrer
13.Djokovic (age 26)
14.Djokovic (age 26)
15.Wawrinka
16.Anderson
17.Thiem
18.Thiem
19.Medvedev
20.Djokovic (age 33)
21.Medvedev
22. Ruud

Another excellent thread, thank you.

 

[RS]

I think there’s no doubt that

1. Nadal won his slams against harder competition in terms of slam finalists than Federer, and
2. It’s stupid to argue that Nadal “failed” by not reaching slam finals on HC from 05-08, when Federer at an equivalent age won jack **** at HC slams from 00-03

But my issue with this is that there’s nothing Fed himself could really do to change this and it is not a reflection of his level at all. He would have had more wins against prime Nadal and Djoker at slams on HC and grass had their ages coincided, but they didn’t (could you imagine 03-07 Fed against prime Novak on grass? Would have been brutal)

There was no player of the calibre of “Clay Federer aged 24-28” (who Nadal got to play at RG) for him to play on HC in his prime (maybe Safin once).

No need to make players any younger or older we don't know how they develop to me.

They win 0 slams or win 25 slams if they are the same age or younger or older doesn't go for me.

 

[jl809]

No need to make players any younger or older we don't know how they develop imo.

The they win 0-5 or 5-10 slams or wins 25-30 slams if they are the same age doesn't go for me.

Oh for sure, it’s just that Fed beating a useless Roddick at Wimbledon in 2005 (for example) is not a bad reflection on him, because the level he displayed in that tournament would have smoked the post-1999 ATGs, regardless of what version or age of those ATGs you pick (Djoker 2015, Nadal 08 etc). It’s not his “fault” that those guys were still years away from their best in 05

Another thing here is Nadal being such a genius on clay that for 10 years in a row he handled 2 separate prime versions of 2 of the greatest CC players of all time and didn’t lose to them once at RG. And that is something he has over Fed on grass (for example) tbh.

 

[Razer]

Oh for sure, it’s just that Fed beating a useless Roddick at Wimbledon in 2005 (for example) is not a bad reflection on him, because the level he displayed in that tournament would have smoked the post-1999 ATGs, regardless of what version or age of those ATGs you pick (Djoker 2015, Nadal 08 etc). It’s not his “fault” that those guys were still years away from their best in 05

Another thing here is Nadal being such a genius on clay that for 10 years in a row he handled 2 separate prime versions of 2 of the greatest CC players of all time and didn’t lose to them once at RG. And that is something he has over Fed on grass (for example) tbh.

The fact that the Greatest Grass Courter of all time (arguably) is being touted as one of the greatest CC players of all time as well suggests that there is something wrong with the playing conditions in this era, the Grass courts are not supposed to bounce high and neither were the clay courts supposed to have had 0 competition for Rafa outside of Roger in 2000s, so there is some problem here. Roger is many things but he is not one of the best CC players ever, certainly not in the top 5 and possibly not even in the top 10. He owes Soderling his lone french open. Clay is essentially a surface which should always favor a guy with a strong double handed backhand return that returns a high ball hard. Grass is supposed to be a surface where guys with no lethal serves should lose. That is how it should have been.

 

[RS]

Can't believe this thread got dug out again it's over 5 years old

 

[ffw2]

Can't believe this thread got dug out again it's over 5 years old

Who exhumed it this time?

Bump up?

 

[NatF]

Oh for sure, it’s just that Fed beating a useless Roddick at Wimbledon in 2005 (for example) is not a bad reflection on him, because the level he displayed in that tournament would have smoked the post-1999 ATGs, regardless of what version or age of those ATGs you pick (Djoker 2015, Nadal 08 etc). It’s not his “fault” that those guys were still years away from their best in 05

Another thing here is Nadal being such a genius on clay that for 10 years in a row he handled 2 separate prime versions of 2 of the greatest CC players of all time and didn’t lose to them once at RG. And that is something he has over Fed on grass (for example) tbh.

And who would those be?

 

[RS]

Who exhumed it this time?

That was a year ago

 

[jl809]

The fact that the Greatest Grass Courter of all time (arguably) is being touted as one of the greatest CC players of all time as well suggests that there is something wrong with the playing conditions in this era, the Grass courts are not supposed to bounce high and neither were the clay courts supposed to have had 0 competition for Rafa outside of Roger in 2000s, so there is some problem here. Roger is many things but he is not one of the best CC players ever, certainly not in the top 5 and possibly not even in the top 10. He owes Soderling his lone french open. Clay is essentially a surface which should always favor a guy with a strong double handed backhand return that returns a high ball hard. Grass is supposed to be a surface where guys with no lethal serves should lose. That is how it should have been.

Or it just means he’s as adaptable as someone like Borg or (to a lesser extent) Agassi?

 

[ffw2]

That was a year ago

Back when the thread was four years old?

 

[RS]

Back when the thread was four years old?

I thought it was 2021 I lasted bumped you got me then.

 

[Razer]

Or it just means he’s as adaptable as someone like Borg or (to a lesser extent) Agassi?

Sure, Roger is super adaptable, no doubt there, but would he reach the final for 4 straight years in an era of specialists playing on surfaces that are very diverse and only 2-3 weeks apart them? That raises some valid doubts. and that is 5 finals in 6 years excluding the semi final of 05 which was also like a final, so it is abnormal.

90s era had specialist Grass Courts and specalist Clay courters, so if someone had to be the best clay/grass courter then they would pay the price on the other surface. Debts had to be paid for being strong on 1 surface, but the 21st century was beyond any debts for the legends, they were great everywhere.

 

[RS]

Gosh time goes quick. I can remember 2017 like nothing.

 

[NatF]

Gosh time goes quick. I can remember 2017 like nothing.

Yes and fast forward 6 years and even after 8 slam wins with weak or mediocre at best opponents people are still hyping Nadal's competition

 

[jl809]

And who would those be?

Federer and Djokovic.

If any moron wants to dispute them being 2 of the greatest CC players of all time

1. Federer has reached 5 RG finals (plus a de facto final vs Nadal in 05) and won 6 clay M1000s, reaching 10 other M1000 finals. He lost almost all of them to a prime version of the greatest CC player ever.
2. Djokovic has the 4th highest match win % of all time (only behind Nadal, Borg and Lendl) on clay and has reached 6 RG finals (plus a de facto final in 2013 vs Nadal) and won 11 clay M1000s, reaching I think 9? other M1000 finals, almost all of which he lost to the prime version of the greatest CC player ever

If someone wants to tell me that these guys are below people like Muster, Nastase etc, I’m not even going to bother replying. They are both at minimum top 10 and in Djoker’s case top 5 for sure on CC ever, hence my comment

 

[RS]

Federer and Djokovic.

If any moron wants to dispute them being 2 of the greatest CC players of all time

1. Federer has reached 5 RG finals (plus a de facto final vs Nadal in 05) and won 6 clay M1000s, reaching 10 other M1000 finals. He lost almost all of them to a prime version of the greatest CC player ever.
2. Djokovic has the 4th highest match win % of all time (only behind Nadal, Borg and Lendl) on clay and has reached 6 RG finals (plus a de facto final in 2013 vs Nadal) and won 11 clay M1000s, reaching I think 9? other M1000 finals, almost all of which he lost to the prime version of the greatest CC player ever

If someone wants to tell me that these guys are below people like Muster, Nastase etc, I’m not even going to bother replying. They are both at minimum top 10 and in Djoker’s case top 5 for sure on CC ever, hence my comment

I expect that Fed fans will eventually dominate here like everwhere but Djokovic has a case for 3rd best in open era on clay imo

 

[NatF]

Federer and Djokovic.

If any moron wants to dispute them being 2 of the greatest CC players of all time

1. Federer has reached 5 RG finals (plus a de facto final vs Nadal in 05) and won 6 clay M1000s, reaching 10 other M1000 finals. He lost almost all of them to a prime version of the greatest CC player ever.
2. Djokovic has the 4th highest match win % of all time (only behind Nadal, Borg and Lendl) on clay and has reached 6 RG finals (plus a de facto final in 2013 vs Nadal) and won 11 clay M1000s, reaching I think 9? other M1000 finals, almost all of which he lost to the prime version of the greatest CC player ever

If someone wants to tell me that these guys are below people like Muster, Nastase etc, I’m not even going to bother replying. They are both at minimum top 10 and in Djoker’s case top 5 for sure on CC ever, hence my comment

Depends how you define greatest yes? Considering how hot you're getting under the collar perhaps you shouldn't bother replying

Consistency and longevity are two areas where Federer and Djokovic basically trump nearly all players in history, that doesn't mean that individual finals appearance were great showings from them or better than other less accomplished or shorter lived players on clay. It's important to evaluate the matches as they happened.

I would also hope that a non-moron could recognise that Nadal's trio of Wimbledon finals in 06-08 were of higher quality than Federer's FO finals but apparently there was no player the caliber of clay Fed in those years...

Edit: see you said on HC.

Most of Fed's FO matches against Nadal have been rather topsy-turvy in terms of quality regardless. A more threatening opponent than Federer's HC opponents? On the whole yes probably but it's quite overstated...

 

[jl809]

Depends how you define greatest yes? Considering how hot you're getting under the collar perhaps you shouldn't bother replying

Consistency and longevity are two areas where Federer and Djokovic basically trump nearly all players in history, that doesn't mean that individual finals appearance were great showings from them or better than other less accomplished or shorter lived players on clay. It's important to evaluate the matches as they happened.

I would also hope that a non-moron could recognise that Nadal's trio of Wimbledon finals in 06-08 were of higher quality than Federer's FO finals but apparently there was no player the caliber of clay Fed in those years...

In my original comment I deliberately specified HC and excluded grass, because I agree that Nadal on grass > Fed on clay in those finals (and Fed DID play that version of Nadal)

That’s fine, there are multiple ways of defining it as with so many concepts, but cmon, barely anyone ever uses one-match, one-tournament or even one-season showings to define Overall greatness on a surface. Far more common is a definition that factors in the consistency and longevity side of things. Otherwise people like Cilic might be ATGs for USO 14 or stuff like that, idk.
And yes I’m getting frustrated lol, I continue to be surprised by the extent to which things I thought were pretty much academic can be undermined

 

[RS]

Yes and fast forward 6 years and even after 8 slam wins with weak or mediocre at best opponents people are still hyping Nadal's competition

Was going to defend position and maybe play a bit of devil's advocate but too drained these days

 

[NatF]

In my original comment I deliberately specified HC and excluded grass, because I agree that Nadal on grass > Fed on clay in those finals (and Fed DID play that version of Nadal)

That’s fine, there are multiple ways of defining it as with so many concepts, but cmon, barely anyone ever uses one-match, one-tournament or even one-season showings to define Overall greatness on a surface. Far more common is a definition that factors in the consistency and longevity side of things. Otherwise people like Cilic might be ATGs for USO 14 or stuff like that, idk.
And yes I’m getting frustrated lol, I continue to be surprised by the extent to which things I thought were pretty much academic can be undermined

I edited my reply.

Yes no one uses one match to define greatness but when talking competition how they played in the finals is most important surely? I rewatched the 2006 FO final recently and Federer's backhand was laughably bad. Would say several players on HC Fed faced were better in terms of quality on the day. Now obviously Fed has certain intangibles that compensate for that and he can win ugly against many opponents but if you're trying to argue the strength of competition all these factors should be considered...

 

[NatF]

Was going to defend position and maybe play a bit of devil's advocate but too drained these days

Defend it if you can. His best opponent in his last 8 slam wins is 2019 Med? Come @ me lol.

 

[jl809]

I edited my reply.

Yes no one uses one match to define greatness but when talking competition how they played in the finals is most important surely? I rewatched the 2006 FO final recently and Federer's backhand was laughably bad. Would say several players on HC Fed faced were better in terms of quality on the day. Now obviously Fed has certain intangibles that compensate for that and he can win ugly against many opponents but if you're trying to argue the strength of competition all these factors should be considered...

Agree about 06. I think there’s a couple of things to explore here. Firstly this kinda reminds me of Djoker at Wimbledon. I wouldn’t say his level across all his Wimbledon finals has been particularly great, 15 is the only one that holds up for me really and I think he would have been ****ed up by Federer had their primes overlapped more. I think guys like Goran had multiple Wimbledons where they would have hypothetically blown prime Djoker off the court. But I think there’s an intangible threshold after which that stuff becomes more irrelevant, as Djoker now has 7 Wimbledons so kinda has to be considered one of the greatest grass players of all time now. Same for Feddy on clay (who was just more unlucky than Djoker to be facing PrimeDal in his RGs rather than OldDal, OldFed or a bunch of mugs in Djoker’s Wimbledons).

And I do think for Fed the fact that Nadal is a lefty really makes it tough, because I doubt anyone else could have shown up that BH the way Nadal did. Fed went something like 6 clay tournaments in a row from mid 05-07 losing only to Nadal in that period, against the rest of the field he was fine. Even Coria when he was still good in 05 got handled nicely by Fed

 

[RS]

Defend it if you can. His best opponent in his last 8 slam wins is 2019 Med? Come @ me lol.

Chip off shoulder a bit

Anyway many Nadal fans have said it's got weaker and I agree and your fanbase has it's share

 

[NatF]

Agree about 06. I think there’s a couple of things to explore here. Firstly this kinda reminds me of Djoker at Wimbledon. I wouldn’t say his level across all his Wimbledon finals has been particularly great, 15 is the only one that holds up for me really and I think he would have been ****ed up by Federer had their primes overlapped more. I think guys like Goran have multiple Wimbledons where they would have blown prime Djoker off the court. But I think there’s an intangible threshold after which that stuff becomes more irrelevant, as Djoker now has 7 Wimbledons so kinda has to be considered one of the greatest grass players of all time. Same for Feddy on clay, who was just more unlucky than Djoker to be facing PrimeDal in his RGs rather than OldDal, OldFed or a bunch of mugs in Djoker’s Wimbledons

And I do think for Fed the fact that Nadal is a lefty really makes it tough, because I doubt anyone else could have shown up that BH the way Nadal did. He went something like 6 clay tournaments in a row from mid 05-07 losing only to Nadal in that period

My issue wasn't necessarily with the statement "two of the greatest clay court players of all time" (I was being a bit cheeky) but more with the context. To use an extreme example Federer was still one of the greatest grass court players of all time in 2010, 2013, 2016, 2018 etc...but that sort of qualifier is meaningless if he was out of form/played badly. Like I said those are extreme examples as Fed was better than that but I think it frames Nadal's competition in a very flattering light compared to actually watching the matches themselves. Likewise with Djokovic, he's been great on clay across his career but not really brought his best to the FO very often for one reason or another.

To put it succinctly I don't really draw too much distinction between losing to Fed in relatively competitive four on HC and losing to Nadal in a relatively competitive four setter on clay. Fed did grab a set from 2007 Nadal on clay which is probably a performance probably only equalled by 2004 Agassi and 2005 Safin but 2005 and 2006? I don't think they belong in different tier much less 2008.

Another point is that Fed and Djokovic being top 10 clay courters is partly due to grass and HC being more prolific surfaces for the best players of the 70's to 80's, the majority of ATG's in that period outside of a few (Borg, Lendl, Wilander) had clay as their worst surface. That leaves the top 10 a bit thin compared to HC and grass.

 

[NatF]

Chip off shoulder a bit

Anyway many Nadal fans have said it's got weaker and I agree and your fanbase has it's share

Many more still claim Nadal has had the toughest competition. Anyway I was hoping for a rise and I didn't get one so nevermind lol.

 

[RS]

Many more still claim Nadal has had the toughest competition. Anyway I was hoping for a rise and I didn't get one so nevermind lol.

I haven't read much recently on that topic I have tamed down on here a bit so can't comment on everything that has been said more recently.

 

[duaneeo]

To the thread-bump brigade, are there any threads left to bump?

 

[jl809]

My issue wasn't necessarily with the statement "two of the greatest clay court players of all time" (I was being a bit cheeky) but more with the context. To use an extreme example Federer was still one of the greatest grass court players of all time in 2010, 2013, 2016, 2018 etc...but that sort of qualifier is meaningless if he was out of form/played badly. Like I said those are extreme examples as Fed was better than that but I think it frames Nadal's competition in a very flattering light compared to actually watching the matches themselves. Likewise with Djokovic, he's been great on clay across his career but not really brought his best to the FO very often for one reason or another.

To put it succinctly I don't really draw too much distinction between losing to Fed in relatively competitive four on HC and losing to Nadal in a relatively competitive four setter on clay. Fed did grab a set from 2007 Nadal on clay which is probably a performance probably only equalled by 2004 Agassi and 2005 Safin but 2005 and 2006? I don't think they belong in different tier much less 2008.

Another point is that Fed and Djokovic being top 10 clay courters is partly due to grass and HC being more prolific surfaces for the best players of the 70's to 80's, the majority of ATG's in that period outside of a few (Borg, Lendl, Wilander) had clay as their worst surface. That leaves the top 10 a bit thin compared to HC and grass.

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree RE level that you’re talking about, but it’s more that once you get to 5 slam finals (or more) at RG, I think you kinda have to be in discussions as an ATG on clay, regardless of the level*, especially if you then win 1 or 2. At Wimbledon I’d say the bar is possibly even higher because I think lots of people still don’t consider Nadal an ATG on grass (possibly because of recency bias a bit too) despite his 5 finals

*I’d also say the extra thing for Fed and Djoker’s favour is that Nadal is literally the clay GOAT, as opposed to, say, a tier or 2 down like Courier, Moya etc. It’s no wonder they could barely land a punch, especially considering that Nadal was consistently at least 8.5/10 in all his RG finals except maybe 2011 or 2014? Which even then I think are underrated

Out of interest, other than Safin, which Fed HC slam final opponents do you think were better than Fed himself at RG from 05-08? (There’s obviously a bunch better than 08 lol). Agassi and Djokovic come to mind generally as tough opponents in that time

 

[RS]

I should look at the FO 06 F again.......

 

[Herald]

To the thread-bump brigade, are there any threads left to bump?

Kindly respond to the thread without flaming.

 

[duaneeo]

Kindly respond to the thread without flaming.

I did after the 3rd bump...or maybe the 4th.

 

[Fabresque]

Too clay skewed for Nadal. Can never be considered true GOAT. Sorry bull fans.

 

[NoleFam]

Too clay skewed for Nadal. Can never be considered true GOAT. Sorry bull fans.

The weeks at #1 differential is one thing, but the fact that Nadal has won 14 more Slams since July 2010, essentially the career of Sampras, but no more at Wimbledon on grass makes it hard for a lot of people to say he's the outright GOAT.

 

[Razer]

The weeks at #1 differential is one thing, but the fact that Nadal has won 14 more Slams since July 2010, essentially the career of Sampras, but no more at Wimbledon on grass makes it hard for a lot of people to say he's the outright GOAT.

Why does Nadal need even 1 wimbledon if he has 14 slams since July 2010? Slams are Slams, all slams are valued same even though Wimbledon is more prestigious but that is a subjective affair.

If Bulls ends up with more slams then he will have his own case for being the best of the era. Wimbledons won't be needed.

Weeks at 1 also won't be useful if one has less slams.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Federer beat Djokovic in Ao07 , W12 and USO08 in route to Final. Just because Federer beat someone else in final - you can't devalue those wins..

 

[NoleFam]

Why does Nadal need even 1 wimbledon if he has 14 slams since July 2010? Slams are Slams, all slams are valued same even though Wimbledon is more prestigious but that is a subjective affair.

If Bulls ends up with more slams then he will have his own case for being the best of the era. Wimbledons won't be needed.

Weeks at 1 also won't be useful if one has less slams.

How can you be the outright GOAT if you haven't mastered the grass Slam in that many years, while racking up Slam after Slam elsewhere? The overall GOAT shouldn't just be mastering clay and hardcourt. He should be mastering everything and leave little doubt that he was not only the best over his era but a strong argument that he's the greatest of all the champions.

 

[Fabresque]

Why does Nadal need even 1 wimbledon if he has 14 slams since July 2010? Slams are Slams, all slams are valued same even though Wimbledon is more prestigious but that is a subjective affair.

If Bulls ends up with more slams then he will have his own case for being the best of the era. Wimbledons won't be needed.

Weeks at 1 also won't be useful if one has less slams.

Outright GOAT but he legitimately can’t play on an entire surface. Try again.

 

[Razer]

How can you be the outright GOAT if you haven't mastered the grass Slam in that many years, while racking up Slam after Slam elsewhere? The overall GOAT shouldn't just be mastering clay and hardcourt. He should be mastering everything and leave little doubt that he was not only the best over his era but a strong argument that he's the greatest of all the champions.

Outright GOAT but he legitimately can’t play on an entire surface. Try again.

Ok I will explain my POV in detail :

If you are more versatile then you should have more slams overall, otherwise what is the use of being versatile ?

To classify feats in Tennis in terms of difficulty to do, I would give them Card Values as we do in a Card Game.

JOKER- Winning 12-15 slams of a single slam
Ace - Winning 7-10 Slams of a single slam
King - Winning 4-6 slams of a single slam
Queen - Winning 2-3 slams of a single slam
Jack - Winning 1 slam of a single slam
Number Cards - Finalists, SFs, QFs and so on.

Nadal = 1 JOKER + 1 KING + 2 QUEENS
Djokovic = 2 ACES + 2 QUEENS
FEDERER = 1 ACE + 2 KING + 1 JACK

The JOKER Card is so powerful that is able to even be ahead of 2 ACES, at the same time Roger being KING or better on 3 slams does not help him win the game. Winning 14 slams on French/Wimbledon/USO/AO would require you to hold on at least 2 or maybe even 3 generations of athletes who will clash with you, so this is a much more difficult feat than wininng 8 slams @ 1 and 6 on another during the same period. Thats why a higher card JOKER has been given to Rafa and you see the JOKER did help Rafa reach 22, didn't it ? Thats why I told you, if you are more versatile then why don't you have more slams? This means being a freak is more powerful than being versatile, thats why Andre Agassi despite wining all slams and olympics was rated lesser than Sampras who was a freak at W without ever winning french or olympics.

 

[NoleFam]

Ok I will explain my POV in detail :

If you are more versatile then you should have more slams overall, otherwise what is the use of being versatile ?

To classify feats in Tennis in terms of difficulty to do, I would give them Card Values as we do in a Card Game.

JOKER- Winning 12-15 slams of a single slam
Ace - Winning 7-10 Slams of a single slam
King - Winning 4-6 slams of a single slam
Queen - Winning 2-3 slams of a single slam
Jack - Winning 1 slam of a single slam
Number Cards - Finalists, SFs, QFs and so on.

Nadal = 1 JOKER + 1 KING + 2 QUEENS
Djokovic = 2 ACES + 2 QUEENS
FEDERER = 1 ACE + 2 KING + 1 JACK

The JOKER Card is so powerful that is able to even be ahead of 2 ACES, at the same time Roger being KING or better on 3 slams does not help him win the game. Winning 14 slams on French/Wimbledon/USO/AO would require you to hold on at least 2 or maybe even 3 generations of athletes who will clash with you, so this is a much more difficult feat than wininng 8 slams @ 1 and 6 on another during the same period. Thats why a higher card JOKER has been given to Rafa and you see the JOKER did help Rafa reach 22, didn't it ? Thats why I told you, if you are more versatile then why don't you have more slams? This means being a freak is more powerful than being versatile, thats why Andre Agassi despite wining all slams and olympics was rated lesser than Sampras who was a freak at W without ever winning french or olympics.

All 3 are close at 20-21-22 so it's not like it's a huge difference between them. Also, covid threw a wrench into the whole Slam race including 2020 Wimbledon being canceled. With that said, many just won't agree with this point of view and we can see it because when these GOAT lists come out from different sources, where is Nadal placed? Have you ever seen him ranked over Djokovic and Federer in these lists?

We know Nadal is a master on clay. Not just a master but the master and his dominance on clay is the most extreme dominance on a single surface, but tennis is a game of different surfaces and different conditions. The GOAT has to be very versatile because he should be owning the game everywhere and mastering everything. If not, then why call him the GOAT? That's why Laver often is listed as the greatest ever. And to be clear Sampras could have never truly been the outright GOAT either because of his deficiency on clay. It had to have always have been Laver all along.

So that's why many people don't have Nadal ranked over them now and then when you delve into the weeks at #1 or ATP Finals, it gets even more muddier. So most accomplished at the Slam level Nadal is right now definitely because he has the most but many aren't calling him the greatest.

Also, my correction on your scale of cards would be:

JOKER- Winning 10+ slams of a single slam
Ace - Winning 7-9 Slams of a single slam
King - Winning 5-6 slams of a single slam
Queen - Winning 3-4 slams of a single slam
Jack - Winning 1-2 slams of a single slam

 

[Razer]

All 3 are close at 20-21-22 so it's not like it's a huge difference between them. Also, covid threw a wrench into the whole Slam race including 2020 Wimbledon being canceled. With that said, many just won't agree with this point of view and we can see it because when these GOAT lists come out from different sources, where is Nadal placed? Have you ever seen him ranked over Djokovic and Federer in these lists?

We know Nadal is a master on clay. Not just a master but the master and his dominance on clay is the most extreme dominance on a single surface, but tennis is a game of different surfaces and different conditions. The GOAT has to be very versatile because he should be owning the game everywhere and mastering everything. If not, then why call him the GOAT? That's why Laver often is listed as the greatest ever. And to be clear Sampras could have never truly been the outright GOAT either because of his deficiency on clay. It had to have always have been Laver all along.

So that's why many people don't have Nadal ranked over them now and then when you delve into the weeks at #1 or ATP Finals, it gets even more muddier. So most accomplished at the Slam level Nadal is right now definitely because he has the most but many aren't calling him the greatest.

Also, my correction on your scale of cards would be:

JOKER- Winning 10+ slams of a single slam
Ace - Winning 7-9 Slams of a single slam
King - Winning 5-6 slams of a single slam
Queen - Winning 3-4 slams of a single slam
Jack - Winning 1-2 slams of a single slam

I am a big Novak fan but c'mon, 10 is not enough to be eqauted to 14 which might soon become 15. Minimum 12+ needed to be a JOKER card IMO.

You are right, they are equal, 21-22 and even 20 is in the same ballpark. But if someone tries to undermine 22 because it lacks some balance then it is wrong, that was my point.

ATP finals is important, I agree there.

Sampras was known as GOAT in the media for all our childhood and teen years, it was a big news in the papers when he crossed Emerson. Can't ignore that.

 

[NoleFam]

I am a big Novak but c'mon, 10 is not enough to be eqauted to 14 which might soon become 15. Minimum 12+ needed to be a JOKER card IMO.

You are right, they are equal, 21-22 and even 20 is in the same ballpark. But if someone tries to undermine 22 because it lacks some balance then it is wrong, that was my point.

ATP finals is important, I agree there.

Sampras was known as GOAT in the media for all our childhood and teen years, it was a big news in the papers when he crossed Emerson. Can't ignore that.

10 isn't equal to 14 but once someone wins 10 at a Slam, which is double digits and basically unheard of until Nadal, they have reached a level ownage
from out of this world. Pretty much why Nadal's #10 was celebrated as la decima.

The Wimbledon titles, or the lesser amount that he has compard to the other 2, will always be brought up. There is just no way around it especially considering what Wimbledon means in tennis.

Yes Sampras was called GOAT and they were wrong, and Bud Collins said it straight out that he wasn't the GOAT and looking back on it, he was right. It was just media overhype which is still happening today.

 

[NatF]

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree RE level that you’re talking about, but it’s more that once you get to 5 slam finals (or more) at RG, I think you kinda have to be in discussions as an ATG on clay, regardless of the level*, especially if you then win 1 or 2. At Wimbledon I’d say the bar is possibly even higher because I think lots of people still don’t consider Nadal an ATG on grass (possibly because of recency bias a bit too) despite his 5 finals

*I’d also say the extra thing for Fed and Djoker’s favour is that Nadal is literally the clay GOAT, as opposed to, say, a tier or 2 down like Courier, Moya etc. It’s no wonder they could barely land a punch, especially considering that Nadal was consistently at least 8.5/10 in all his RG finals except maybe 2011 or 2014? Which even then I think are underrated

Out of interest, other than Safin, which Fed HC slam final opponents do you think were better than Fed himself at RG from 05-08? (There’s obviously a bunch better than 08 lol). Agassi and Djokovic come to mind generally as tough opponents in that time

Do you mean just finals? Because Fed 05 and Safin 05 were both SF's. Like I said my issue is less with calling them greats on clay, more with the connotation that statement brings in terms of how well they actually played in those finals. The bar at Wimbledon is higher because as I mentioned a longer list of former greats have prioritised and been great at Wimbledon. Nadal's status at Wimbledon is hurt by his struggles from 12-15 as well.

Sure Nadal is the clay GOAT but I happen to think Fed is the greatest of the modern era on grass and HC which should be considered for his opponents too? I would think Fed was at least an 8.5 in all his non-clay finals in 03-09 (except perhaps USO 2009).

Going back to finals opponents, better than 2008 Fed is a long list, better than 2007 Fed in the final on HC? No one. I would say 2006 has several opponents in a similar tier such as 05 USO Agassi, 06 USO Roddick and 07 USO Djokovic (with several opponents in the SF and QF at similar levels), I can understand rating Fed higher due to intangibles as I mentioned before but they're in the same sort of tier.

 

[RS]

Ratings of 10 back

 

[Azure]

The fact that the Greatest Grass Courter of all time (arguably) is being touted as one of the greatest CC players of all time as well suggests that there is something wrong with the playing conditions in this era, the Grass courts are not supposed to bounce high and neither were the clay courts supposed to have had 0 competition for Rafa outside of Roger in 2000s, so there is some problem here. Roger is many things but he is not one of the best CC players ever, certainly not in the top 5 and possibly not even in the top 10. He owes Soderling his lone french open. Clay is essentially a surface which should always favor a guy with a strong double handed backhand return that returns a high ball hard. Grass is supposed to be a surface where guys with no lethal serves should lose. That is how it should have been.

Guga says hi…

 

[DSH]

I think there’s no doubt that

1. Nadal won his slams against harder competition in terms of slam finalists than Federer, and
2. It’s stupid to argue that Nadal “failed” by not reaching slam finals on HC from 05-08, when Federer at an equivalent age won jack **** at HC slams from 00-03

But my issue with this is that there’s nothing Fed himself could really do to change this and it is not a reflection of his level at all. He would have had more wins against prime Nadal and Djoker at slams on HC and grass had their ages coincided, but they didn’t (could you imagine 03-07 Fed against prime Novak on grass? Would have been brutal)

There was no player of the calibre of “Clay Federer aged 24-28” (who Nadal got to play at RG) for him to play on HC in his prime (maybe Safin once).

There are not only ********** but also a lot of Fedr-bots!

The fact that the Greatest Grass Courter of all time (arguably) is being touted as one of the greatest CC players of all time as well suggests that there is something wrong with the playing conditions in this era, the Grass courts are not supposed to bounce high and neither were the clay courts supposed to have had 0 competition for Rafa outside of Roger in 2000s, so there is some problem here. Roger is many things but he is not one of the best CC players ever, certainly not in the top 5 and possibly not even in the top 10. He owes Soderling his lone french open. Clay is essentially a surface which should always favor a guy with a strong double handed backhand return that returns a high ball hard. Grass is supposed to be a surface where guys with no lethal serves should lose. That is how it should have been.

Borg had a lethal serve, just like Agassi?

 

[Spencer Gore]

Some people claim Nadal had a much harder time racking up slam titles at the start of his career than Federer (A position I agree with).

It's interesting to compare just the facts of the first ten slam final opponents of both players to see if either had an easier time getting to that magical figure.

Thoughts?

FEDERER
1.Philippoussis
2.Safin
3.Roddick
4.Hewitt
5.Roddick
6.Agassi (age 35)
7.Baghdatis
8.Nadal (age 20)
9.Roddick
10.Gonzalez

NADAL
1.Puerta
2.Federer (age 25)
3.Federer (age 26)
4.Federer (age 27)
5.Federer (age27)
6.Federer (age 28)
7.Soderling
8.Berdych
9.Djokovic (age 23)
10.Federer (age 29)

 

[Razer]

Some people claim Nadal had a much harder time racking up slam titles at the start of his career than Federer (A position I agree with).

It's interesting to compare just the facts of the first ten slam final opponents of both players to see if either had an easier time getting to that magical figure.

Thoughts?

FEDERER
1.Philippoussis
2.Safin
3.Roddick
4.Hewitt
5.Roddick
6.Agassi (age 35)
7.Baghdatis
8.Nadal (age 20)
9.Roddick
10.Gonzalez

NADAL
1.Puerta
2.Federer (age 25)
3.Federer (age 26)
4.Federer (age 27)
5.Federer (age27)
6.Federer (age 28)
7.Soderling
8.Berdych
9.Djokovic (age 23)
10.Federer (age 29)

6 Out of 10 Slams which I blackened are French Opens, Nadal is already a God on clay, giving him Federer's backhand on clay is like a soft target. The Berdych wimbledon was also an easy slam. That leaves 2008W, 2009AO, 2010FO and 2010USO as the good wins.

In Federer's case, 2004AO, 2004W, 2007W and 2009W as good wins.

So they are on par here, you're trying to make it look like Nadal had it very tough when it is false.

The person who had some very tough and formidable roadblocks to reach rank 1 is Novak Djokovic. His first 10 slams are actual super tough wins.

01. Zoning Tsonga (had to beat Federer in semis)
02. Murray (had to beat Federer in semis)
03. Rafael Nadal
04. Rafael Nadal (had to beat nigh unstoppable Federer in semis)
05. Rafael Nadal (Had to beat peak Murray in semis)
06. Murray (Had to beat Wawrinka en route in a long match)
07. Federer
08. Murray (again had to beat Wawrinka)
09. Federer
10. Federer

 

[Herald]

Some people claim Nadal had a much harder time racking up slam titles at the start of his career than Federer (A position I agree with).

It's interesting to compare just the facts of the first ten slam final opponents of both players to see if either had an easier time getting to that magical figure.

Thoughts?

FEDERER
1.Philippoussis
2.Safin
3.Roddick
4.Hewitt
5.Roddick
6.Agassi (age 35)
7.Baghdatis
8.Nadal (age 20)
9.Roddick
10.Gonzalez

NADAL
1.Puerta
2.Federer (age 25)
3.Federer (age 26)
4.Federer (age 27)
5.Federer (age27)
6.Federer (age 28)
7.Soderling
8.Berdych
9.Djokovic (age 23)
10.Federer (age 29)

Why ask a question that:

a. You know the answer to
b. You how others will respond to (reactionary tribalism)

 

[Milanez82]

Sure, Roger is super adaptable, no doubt there, but would he reach the final for 4 straight years in an era of specialists playing on surfaces that are very diverse and only 2-3 weeks apart them? That raises some valid doubts. and that is 5 finals in 6 years excluding the semi final of 05 which was also like a final, so it is abnormal.

90s era had specialist Grass Courts and specalist Clay courters, so if someone had to be the best clay/grass courter then they would pay the price on the other surface. Debts had to be paid for being strong on 1 surface, but the 21st century was beyond any debts for the legends, they were great everywhere.

So how did Borg do it
There were great specialists on clay and grass back then, both surfaces were as different as they could be and required polar styles of play to have success

Or how about Lendl in 80s, a great clay courter, how did he manage to play 2 Wimbledon finals?

 

[Unseeded Player]

I expect that Fed fans will eventually dominate here like everwhere but Djokovic has a case for 3rd best in open era on clay imo

Borg never played against Nadal, if Novak win 1 more RG until career end than he is second best on clay.