federer as a GOAT???

[joshburger]

heres my thoughts.

no matter how many grandslams federer wins, and what carreer highlights he has, if his head to head with nadal remains what it is, he cannot be considered the best player of all time.

in my opinion, if you are beaten regularly by a player in your generation, then you are not the greatest player of that generation. even though federer may have superior carrer highlights to nadal, he has a 7-13 record against his biggest rival.

in comparrison, there was never anyone that beat sampras, borg, or any of the other GOAT candidates as regularly as nadal has beaten federer in his carreer.

i am not here to say that nadal is a GOAT candidate, because based on his number of grand slam wins, and time at number 1, that would be ridiculous. i am also not trying to disrespect federer, who i believe is one of the greatest players in history. what i am trying to say is that, when history looks at roger federers carreer, along with all of the many positive attributes that his carreer had to offer, his rivalry and head to head with nadal, will be harmfull to his GOAT chances.

~just my $.02

any thoughts???

 

[Nadalfan89]

Not to mention his record against Murray.

I think GOAT talk is fundementally flawed. All eras had different equipment, a different field of players and different sufaces.

How would Federer do if he was playing in the 60's? How would he have done if he played in Sampas's era? No one knows.

 

[LeftSHBH]

You should read the latest TENNIS magazine

 

[R.Federer]

 

[flyinghippos101]

You should read the latest TENNIS magazine

+1, nice gif

 

[ubermeyer]

this thread = fail

 

[tudwell]

no matter how many grandslams federer wins, and what carreer highlights he has, if his head to head with nadal remains what it is, he cannot be considered the best player of all time.

"Greatest player of all time" doesn't mean "perfect in every single way". It just means a player has a better record than anyone else in the sport. I mean seriously, if Federer ended up with 50 slams, 15 years at number 1, 300 career titles, and a 7-13 head-to-head with Nadal, you still wouldn't consider him the GOAT? Then who would be?? Somebody has to be the greatest of all time.


Not that I think Federer is the greatest of all time, but he's getting there.

 

[Agassifan]

Usually, great players get to play their great rivals on all surfaces. Not just 55% of their matches on one surface. Also, a great player's great rival usually makes the final.

 

[[d]ragon]

AHAHAHA

Not to mention his record against Murray.

I think GOAT talk is fundementally flawed. All eras had different equipment, a different field of players and different sufaces.

How would Federer do if he was playing in the 60's? How would he have done if he played in Sampas's era? No one knows.

QFT. There is not GOAT because it's impossible to compare generations.

 

[lessthanjake]

Federer matches up terribly with Nadal individually. That is fact. Nadal's strengths play right into Federer's weaknesses and neutralize his strengths.

Because of that, if Nadal were a better player, we would expect a HUGE gap in the head to head. If they were equal as players, we would still expect Nadal to have a reasonably big head to head advantage. And if Federer were the better player, we would expect him to manage to make the head to head even or even get a slight advantage despite the bad matchup.

Well, here's the thing. Nadal IS a better clay court player. There is no denying that. So the 2-9 record on clay just confirms that. Nadal has a big head to head advantage because he is a better player on that surface AND matches up well with Federer.

Off of clay, Federer is the greater player. This is also confirmed by the head to head. Federer has a slight 5-4 advantage in their head to head off of clay, despite the fact that he matches up terribly with Nadal. This indicates that he is a distinctly better overall player off of clay than Nadal.


So all the head to head tells us is what we already know. Nadal is better on clay; Federer is better overall elsewhere.


Federer just has the misfortune of matching up TERRIBLY with the 2nd best player of his era. He also has the misfortune of having the 2nd best player of his era being best on Federer's worst surface, meaning that the 2nd best player of the era is distinctly better than him on a main surface, despite not being as good overall.

This really doesnt mean that much. Federer never needed to be better than Nadal on clay to be the GOAT. And every player matches up badly with other players sometimes.

 

[kabob]

Why do people keep pulling out the meaningless H-to-H statistic as an indicator of tennis ability?

Rod Laver, considered by many to be the true GOAT, had a losing record versus both Bjorn Borg (2-5) and against Stan Smith (3-5) but does anyone argue that either of the two was the better player based on career achievements?

 

[kabob]

Pete Sampras, 14-time GS winner and considered the GOAT before Federer surpassed his record, had a 4-5 record versus Richard Krajicek. And both were in their primes at the same time. I guess Krajicek was the true GOAT then, huh?

 

[Mick]

GOAT is like religions, people have different beliefs but Federer is already the GOAT in the minds of many tennis observers.

 

[CyBorg]

Pete Sampras, 14-time GS winner and considered the GOAT before Federer surpassed his record, had a 4-5 record versus Richard Krajicek. And both were in their primes at the same time. I guess Krajicek was the true GOAT then, huh?

He's not saying that Nadal is the greatest of all time, in case you weren't reading.

Anyway, at this point both guys are active. Federer may just go on a roll and beat Nadal a few times in a row. Let's wait until it's all over.

 

[grafselesfan]

Pete Sampras, 14-time GS winner and considered the GOAT before Federer surpassed his record, had a 4-5 record versus Richard Krajicek. And both were in their primes at the same time. I guess Krajicek was the true GOAT then, huh?

It was 4-6, however:

- 4-6 is not domination. 6-13 is.
- Krajicek was not one of Sampras's main rivals apart from grass. Let alone his main rival.

Anyway Krajicek and Sampras met twice only in slams AFAIK and were 1-1. So Krajicek inflicted very little harm on Sampras's career when it really mattered. Granted he didnt get many opportunities to play Sampras in slams and do so but whose fault was that.

 

[avmoghe]

heres my thoughts.

no matter how many grandslams federer wins, and what carreer highlights he has, if his head to head with nadal remains what it is, he cannot be considered the best player of all time.

in my opinion, if you are beaten regularly by a player in your generation, then you are not the greatest player of that generation. even though federer may have superior carrer highlights to nadal, he has a 7-13 record against his biggest rival.

in comparrison, there was never anyone that beat sampras, borg, or any of the other GOAT candidates as regularly as nadal has beaten federer in his carreer.

i am not here to say that nadal is a GOAT candidate, because based on his number of grand slam wins, and time at number 1, that would be ridiculous. i am also not trying to disrespect federer, who i believe is one of the greatest players in history. what i am trying to say is that, when history looks at roger federers carreer, along with all of the many positive attributes that his carreer had to offer, his rivalry and head to head with nadal, will be harmfull to his GOAT chances.

~just my $.02

any thoughts???

Head 2 Head's only have real meaning in a round robin type tournament
- Where every player is equally likely to play any other player. Tennis tournaments in general do NOT work that way.

Do you understand how tennis draws work? Federer winning a tournament where Nadal is in the draw but knocked out by another player is an implicit victory for Federer against Nadal - something not registered in any head 2 head stat.

You realize that if Federer was *worse* on clay, he would have a *better* head to head against Nadal?

Are you capable of comprehending that statement?

Hypothetical Scenario : Say you have a robot tennis machine that wins every match it plays on clay, and loses in the first round of any non-clay tournament. This machine will have a better head 2 head against the best human clay court player. The machine will keep beating the human in finals (or perhaps earlier) of clay court tournaments.

The human however, will almost never get to improve his head to head because the clay court machine robot loses in the first round of every other non-clay tournament. The human can only improve his h2h if the luck of the draw makes him face the machine in the first round - very unlikely considering the machine will be seeded given its invincibility on clay.

Now in this case, the head 2 head between the human vs the machine will clearly be in favor of the machine. Does this mean the machine is a better tennis player? No.

If you have the mental ability to understand the above hypothetical, you will see that a head 2 head between player A and player B is not necessarily a decider when it comes to finding out who the better player is.

Anyways, as far as the GOAT question is concerned, I don't pick Federer - I pick Laver. But anyone using a head 2 head in isolation to guage player ability is clearly ignorant of how tennis draws work.

 

[lessthanjake]

It was 4-6, however:

- 4-6 is not domination. 6-13 is.
- Krajicek was not one of Sampras's main rivals apart from grass. Let alone his main rival.

First, Krajicek ***** Sampras while Krajicek was playing well. Sampras only got the head to head somewhat respectable when Krajicek started playing badly.

And that's the issue. Sampras never matched up terribly individually against his main rivals like Federer does. Agassi had a great return and great passing shots, which are highly useful against serve and volleyers. BUT, Agassi's gameplan was to run players back and forth to get his shots. Well, one of Sampras' big strengths was his running forehand. It was really dangerous to run him around like that. So they both neutralized each other's games. Sampras matched up great against another #1 player from his era: Thomas Muster. Muster hated playing against serve and volleyers. Other rival players like Edberg, Rafter, Stich, and Goran were just fellow serve and volleyers so they weren't terribly matchups for Sampras. The only player I can think of who Sampras matched up badly against was Lleyton Hewitt. And it is no surprise that Hewitt won 5 of their last 6 meetings (and the matches before that which Sampras won were played before Hewitt was even top 10 level), including a US Open final. Matchups matter. But Hewitt or a player like him but better wasn't around during Sampras' peak to beat him.

 

[Alafter]

Tihs terhad is eipc fial. Thou slhat not baet a daed hrose, nor shlal thou dcusiss an adearly oevr done toipc as if it wree a fesrh tpoic.

 

[Rippy]

It was 4-6, however:

- 4-6 is not domination. 6-13 is.
- Krajicek was not one of Sampras's main rivals apart from grass. Let alone his main rival.

Anyway Krajicek and Sampras met twice only in slams AFAIK and were 1-1. So Krajicek inflicted very little harm on Sampras's career when it really mattered. Granted he didnt get many opportunities to play Sampras in slams and do so but whose fault was that.

Nadal is better than Krajicek. If Krajicek made it deeper into tournaments he could well have had a much stronger H2H over Sampras. Federer is just being penalised because the player he is weak against happens to be so good.

And anyway, why is it H2H against the "main rival" that is so important? It's basically just luck how well your rival matches up against you. If you want to take into account H2H, which is a stupid thing to do, you should at least look at your H2H with every player.

 

[joeri888]

This has been discussed a million times! Put up Sampras against Kuerten on clay 11 times and he won't even win twice, and Kuerten is an inferior clay player to Rafa. The h2h has a story, and sure Nadal is a problem for Federer, but I think it's ridiculous to say that Federer can never be GOAT if he doesn't change that h2h. It's not like you invented this argument yourself, and imo it's just something people use who are not liking the idea of Federer being the very best. Everyone has things going against him, but I think this is a rather small one.

 

[raiden031]

H2H (Fed - Nadal)

Clay - 2 - 9
Hard - 3 - 3
Grass - 2 - 1

Federer is 5-4 on non-clay courts an 2-9 on clay courts against possibly the greatest claycourter ever.

 

[zapvor]

Head 2 Head's only have real meaning in a round robin type tournament
- Where every player is equally likely to play any other player. Tennis tournaments in general do NOT work that way.

Do you understand how tennis draws work? Federer winning a tournament where Nadal is in the draw but knocked out by another player is an implicit victory for Federer against Nadal - something not registered in any head 2 head stat.

You realize that if Federer was *worse* on clay, he would have a *better* head to head against Nadal?

Are you capable of comprehending that statement?

Hypothetical Scenario : Say you have a robot tennis machine that wins every match it plays on clay, and loses in the first round of any non-clay tournament. This machine will have a better head 2 head against the best human clay court player. The machine will keep beating the human in finals (or perhaps earlier) of clay court tournaments.

The human however, will almost never get to improve his head to head because the clay court machine robot loses in the first round of every other non-clay tournament. The human can only improve his h2h if the luck of the draw makes him face the machine in the first round - very unlikely considering the machine will be seeded given its invincibility on clay.

Now in this case, the head 2 head between the human vs the machine will clearly be in favor of the machine. Does this mean the machine is a better tennis player? No.

If you have the mental ability to understand the above hypothetical, you will see that a head 2 head between player A and player B is not necessarily a decider when it comes to finding out who the better player is.

Anyways, as far as the GOAT question is concerned, I don't pick Federer - I pick Laver. But anyone using a head 2 head in isolation to guage player ability is clearly ignorant of how tennis draws work.

thank you. this talk of losing to nadal and not being goat is just plain stupid. You have the greatest clay courter of all time, basically the clay court GOAT, and fed has managed to come so close so many times, in aiddition to everything else hes done. outside of clay nadal doesnt even come close to Fed. neither does anyone else. on top of the 15 slams, he holds so many records noone even comes close to. to say fed is not goat indicates compelte stupidity.

 

[Rippy]

Not to mention his record against Murray.

I think GOAT talk is fundementally flawed. All eras had different equipment, a different field of players and different sufaces.

How would Federer do if he was playing in the 60's? How would he have done if he played in Sampas's era? No one knows.

Murray is 5 years younger. When players get old, like Federer is, they start to lose against younger players.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Head 2 Head's only have real meaning in a round robin type tournament
- Where every player is equally likely to play any other player. Tennis tournaments in general do NOT work that way.

Do you understand how tennis draws work? Federer winning a tournament where Nadal is in the draw but knocked out by another player is an implicit victory for Federer against Nadal - something not registered in any head 2 head stat.

You realize that if Federer was *worse* on clay, he would have a *better* head to head against Nadal?

Are you capable of comprehending that statement?

Hypothetical Scenario : Say you have a robot tennis machine that wins every match it plays on clay, and loses in the first round of any non-clay tournament. This machine will have a better head 2 head against the best human clay court player. The machine will keep beating the human in finals (or perhaps earlier) of clay court tournaments.

The human however, will almost never get to improve his head to head because the clay court machine robot loses in the first round of every other non-clay tournament. The human can only improve his h2h if the luck of the draw makes him face the machine in the first round - very unlikely considering the machine will be seeded given its invincibility on clay.

Now in this case, the head 2 head between the human vs the machine will clearly be in favor of the machine. Does this mean the machine is a better tennis player? No.

If you have the mental ability to understand the above hypothetical, you will see that a head 2 head between player A and player B is not necessarily a decider when it comes to finding out who the better player is.

Anyways, as far as the GOAT question is concerned, I don't pick Federer - I pick Laver. But anyone using a head 2 head in isolation to guage player ability is clearly ignorant of how tennis draws work.

This, sir or madam, is a brilliant post. Too bad most of the people who subscribe to the "13-7 means Federer isn't the greatest of all time" camp will probably not understand the logic behind this at all.

I don't know if Federer is the GOAT. I don't know how to compare eras or the hypotheticals between the. I don't know if I will claim that Laver is the GOAT either. The guy would probably be killed if he played in the game of today or the 90s, where the game is played with so much more speed and intensity on every point. I don't know if Sampras is the GOAT, because of all of his shortcomings on clay and his relatively one-dimensional game.

I will say that Federer's candidacy for the GOAT is not, in any way, tarnished by his H2H record against Nadal because, exactly like you say, the nature of a tennis tournament means that a top player cannot improve his H2H unless the other player holds his end of the bargain.

You' also correct in saying that those tournaments where Federer advanced to the final and Nadal didn't are implicit victories for Federer. Some Nadal fans will claim that, if Nadal had made it to the final, he would have a finite chance of winning the match and this should be accounted for in a hypothetical 'readjustment' of their H2H record to account for the wide disparity in court surface representation. This is giving Nadal too much credit. Nadal cannot possibly 'win' a tournament if he doesn't even advance to the finals. That is a fact. For each of these instances where he leaves Federer hanging, it should be counted as a 'loss,' and vice versa for each time that Federer misses out on the final while Nadal makes it.

If we make an adjustment for all the times that Nadal failed to even reach Federer, the H2H record skews dramatically, and it becomes much more even. Incidentally, if Federer was a worse clay court player and simply lost in those 9 clay court matches, he would have a better H2H record (7-4) despite not getting as far in a tournament. So, in essence, people who bring up his poor H2H record against Nadal are implying that it's better to lose early in a tournament than to make it to the finals (and lose)!

Unfortunately, there has never been an adequate rationalization from the Nadal fans that subscribe to this belief. It's rather disconcerting to see people believe so strongly in something that they can't even justify with any logic or fact.

 

[Rippy]

This, sir or madam, is a brilliant post. Too bad most of the people who subscribe to the "13-7 means Federer isn't the greatest of all time" camp will probably not understand the logic behind this at all.

I don't know if Federer is the GOAT. I don't know how to compare eras or the hypotheticals between the. I don't know if I will claim that Laver is the GOAT either. The guy would probably be killed if he played in the game of today or the 90s, where the game is played with so much more speed and intensity on every point. I don't know if Sampras is the GOAT, because of all of his shortcomings on clay and his relatively one-dimensional game.

I will say that Federer's candidacy for the GOAT is not, in any way, tarnished by his H2H record against Nadal because, exactly like you say, the nature of a tennis tournament means that a top player cannot improve his H2H unless the other player holds his end of the bargain.

You' also correct in saying that those tournaments where Federer advanced to the final and Nadal didn't are implicit victories for Federer. Some Nadal fans will claim that, if Nadal had made it to the final, he would have a finite chance of winning the match and this should be accounted for in a hypothetical 'readjustment' of their H2H record to account for the wide disparity in court surface representation. This is giving Nadal too much credit. Nadal cannot possibly 'win' a tournament if he doesn't even advance to the finals. That is a fact. For each of these instances where he leaves Federer hanging, it should be counted as a 'loss,' and vice versa for each time that Federer misses out on the final while Nadal makes it.

If we make an adjustment for all the times that Nadal failed to even reach Federer, the H2H record skews dramatically, and it becomes much more even. Incidentally, if Federer was a worse clay court player and simply lost in those 9 clay court matches, he would have a better H2H record (7-4) despite not getting as far in a tournament. So, in essence, people who bring up his poor H2H record against Nadal are implying that it's better to lose early in a tournament than to make it to the finals (and lose)!

Unfortunately, there has never been an adequate rationalization from the Nadal fans that subscribe to this belief. It's rather disconcerting to see people believe so strongly in something that they can't even justify with any logic or fact.

Good post.

 

[pame]

Apart from the dead horse aspect of this thread, I wish someone had told Fed back in 2003 that turning the history books inside out, and creating or equalling more than 30 or 40 records in the sport would be totally ignored if he had a bad H2H with 1 or 2 players out of an entire field. Then he could have strategically lost in the French Open 2005 at QF, 2006-2008 at SF stage, and one stage lower on 2 other clay tournies, and voila, all would be well. Losing one stage lower would not have affected his record for the # of consecutive weeks as No.1 (since he was so far ahead in points when he achieved this) -- but oh goodness gracious, then the argument would have been that he was not good enough to make it to the final of the FO... and if it wasn't that argument, somebody would invent something else. Pshaw!

Tennis must be the only sport by which the measure of a man's success and claims to accolades are being judged by one single arbitrary yardstick of some people's choosing, and to hell with all the other considerations.

 

[lawrence]

heres my thoughts.

no matter how many grandslams federer wins, and what carreer highlights he has, if his head to head with nadal remains what it is, he cannot be considered the best player of all time.

in my opinion, if you are beaten regularly by a player in your generation, then you are not the greatest player of that generation. even though federer may have superior carrer highlights to nadal, he has a 7-13 record against his biggest rival.

in comparrison, there was never anyone that beat sampras, borg, or any of the other GOAT candidates as regularly as nadal has beaten federer in his carreer.

i am not here to say that nadal is a GOAT candidate, because based on his number of grand slam wins, and time at number 1, that would be ridiculous. i am also not trying to disrespect federer, who i believe is one of the greatest players in history. what i am trying to say is that, when history looks at roger federers carreer, along with all of the many positive attributes that his carreer had to offer, his rivalry and head to head with nadal, will be harmfull to his GOAT chances.

~just my $.02

any thoughts???

its a fair argument. but in all fairness you also have to take into account the fact that federer has made it far in a LOT of clay tournaments to lose to nadal on (nadals best surface). on the other hand, nadal doesn't go far in every HC tournament, and you can't deny that if he did make it further than QF's etc, fed would handle him left right and center

 

[Fedfan1234]

Federer is better than Sampras because:
- Federer has won 15 slams instead of 14.
- Federer took only 6 years to reach 15 instead of 12 years to reach 14
- Federer has won all 4 slams instead of just 3.
- Federer has less players that he loses to in big tournaments.
- Federer has reached 21 consecutive semi-finals, instead of ???
- Federer has won more MS tournaments than sampras.
Let's get real Sampras cannot be GOAT with these stats.

Nadal certainly is not GOAT (YET????) with only 6 slams and no USO title.

Borg was not good on HC, so he cannot be GOAT either.
Then we can go back even further.

Rosewall never even won Wimbledon, does hurt his GOAT status. This could be due to the fact that he was also a pro player and therefore wasn't allowed to compete anymore.
He turned pro around 1956.

Laver turned pro in 1962. From this we could also tackle the suggestion that Laver is GOAT, since he did not have to play Rosewall and it was easier for him to win, Laver was beaten by both Rosewall and Hoad in 1963. Hoad won the first 8 matches against Laver when turning pro, and Rosewall won 11 out of 13. This would at least suggest he would have had more difficulty winning his first slams. It is like Nadal playing in another division, Federer would have 6 more slam wins in that case. And a couple of season slams.

Laver was a good player, but he only won 11 slams and if you add pro, which is really unfair because you can't add apples and oranges, you get 19. Even the 11 is unfair, because Rosewall and other players like Hoad did not compete. So in my opinion we would have to subtract some of the slams or pro event for both Rosewall and Laver. This because otherwise there are 8 tournaments to win instead of the 4 now. Either Rosewall loses a couple or Laver or some other players. For example Laver wins Wimbledon 1961 or 1962 and Rosewall the equivalent Wembley pro event. You can't have it both ways.
Rosewall only won 8 slams and something like 15 pro equivalents(I am not 100% sure 15 is correct).

Conclusion we can say that all the other GOAT contenders have even worse arguments as to why they can't be GOAT. So either there is no such thing as GOAT or Federer is GOAT.

 

[cknobman]

heres my thoughts.

no matter how many grandslams federer wins, and what carreer highlights he has, if his head to head with nadal remains what it is, he cannot be considered the best player of all time.

in my opinion, if you are beaten regularly by a player in your generation, then you are not the greatest player of that generation. even though federer may have superior carrer highlights to nadal, he has a 7-13 record against his biggest rival.

in comparrison, there was never anyone that beat sampras, borg, or any of the other GOAT candidates as regularly as nadal has beaten federer in his carreer.

i am not here to say that nadal is a GOAT candidate, because based on his number of grand slam wins, and time at number 1, that would be ridiculous. i am also not trying to disrespect federer, who i believe is one of the greatest players in history. what i am trying to say is that, when history looks at roger federers carreer, along with all of the many positive attributes that his carreer had to offer, his rivalry and head to head with nadal, will be harmfull to his GOAT chances.

~just my $.02

any thoughts???

yeah in my opinion your opinion dosnt mean spit!!!!!

so do you know every other "GOAT" candidates records against everyone they played? most likely NO!!!!

Why? Because like the past greats 20+ years from now no one is going to remember h2h's against other players. People remember achievements not failures.

You only know whats directly in front of your face and outside of that your blind. If your going to judge Federers greatness based off his failures (against one man) then its meaningless unless you take the time to do the same for all others as well.

so stfu.

 

[bruce38]

It was 4-6, however:

- 4-6 is not domination. 6-13 is.
-

By extension, 6-13 is not domination, 2-45 is. Uhhhh, duhhhhhh.

 

[AAAA]

in comparrison, there was never anyone that beat sampras, borg, or any of the other GOAT candidates as regularly as nadal has beaten federer in his carreer.

Sampras just "lost to more players=more vulnerable" which explains why Federer has 15 Majors in the time it took Sampras to win only 11 Majors.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

in comparrison, there was never anyone that beat sampras, borg, or any of the other GOAT candidates as regularly as nadal has beaten federer in his carreer.

There's also never been anyone who gets far enough into tournaments at all surfaces to let himself get beat like Federer. So again, you're basically punishing getting to the finals (and losing) versus losing in the earlier rounds.

I don't know what logic you're using, but finals appearance > early round loss by my metric.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

H2H (Fed - Nadal)

Clay - 2 - 9
Hard - 3 - 3
Grass - 2 - 1

Federer is 5-4 on non-clay courts an 2-9 on clay courts against possibly the greatest claycourter ever.

Similar record at grandslams except Feds only wins against Nadal were on grass.

Clay- 0-4
Hard-0-1
Grass 2-1

 

[slicefox]

dam son, this thread is really some novel idea.

i've never heard of this one before