Federer deserves the GOAT status, but not against Rafa.

[terribleIVAN]

I believe Fed's records and longevity rightfully place him above other greats like Pete, Borg, Mac, Nadal, Agassi or Lendl.

It doesn't mean of course Fed would beat them all individually; he deserves the GOAT status because his achievements against the whole field, not just your main rivals, surpasses those of all the players cited above.

His shotmaking, economy in effort, ability to play total tennis without real weaknesses provided him a longevity that he used to break nearly every tennis record.

Having established that, there will be those who will point out it's a nonsense to use the GOAT status when you could never dominate your main rival, and they have a perfectly valid point.

Just like Pete before him, who could never master clay, Roger has left the GOAT door open to interpretation ; he's himself very much aware of it.

So, it would be unjust to rewrite history now that he's in decline and forget his whole legacy in favour of younger lions.

Until another player can come along and beat these records, i say Fed deserves the GOAT status...except against Rafa.

 

[6-3 6-0]

I don't understand the "except against RNadal" part ???

 

[terribleIVAN]

I don't understand the "except against RNadal" part ???

I say once you bring into the equation Rafa, Fed loses his GOAT status.

The same way Pete loses his possible GOAT status once you mention clay and RG.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I say once you bring into the equation Rafa, Fed loses his GOAT status.

The same way Pete loses his possible GOAT status once you mention clay and RG.

To whom does Fed lose it?

 

[6-3 6-0]

I say once you bring into the equation Rafa, Fed loses his GOAT status.

The same way Pete loses his possible GOAT status once you mention clay and RG.

Oh, in that case, who do you place above him?
But in the first sentence of the first post you contradicted yourself by mentioning RNadal.

 

[terribleIVAN]

I'm not saying Fed loses the GOAT to Nadal; but his claims to GOAT diminish strongly.

GOAT is for me a hypothetical status that is set personally by each different fan.
Each player has it's claims to it and it's shortcomings.

 

[spinovic]

In the Open Era, the list is two people.

Federer, and if you DQ him because of Nadal, then it is Sampras.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

In the Open Era, the list is two people.

Federer, and if you DQ him because of Nadal, then it is Sampras.

No way can Sampras ever be the GOAT. His clay results are far too weak.

 

[6-3 6-0]

I'm not saying Fed loses the GOAT to Nadal; but his claims to GOAT diminish strongly.

GOAT is for me a hypothetical status that is set personally by each different fan.
Each player has it's claims to it and it's shortcomings.

Ofcourse, I get it. Relax!
Its definitely a hole in his resume, but whom do you place above him? Just wanted to know your opinion. That's all! Because RNadal do exist and have been an integral part of RFederer's career?

You guys have to realize that the term "greatest" is relative, meaning if someone loses it then someone else must have replaced him, right?

 

[ScottleeSV]

imo, not even the goat can hold every single record and rule the roost in every single h2h; it's impossible. The guy's stats are head and shoulders (at the moment) above anyone else in the game. He is the GOAT, for my money. The fact he has a losing h2h against Rafa is neither here nor there.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Ofcourse, I get it. Relax!
Its definitely a hole in his resume, but whom do you place above him? Just wanted to know your opinion. That's all! Because RNadal do exist and have been an integral part of RFederer's career?

You guys have to realize that the term "greatest" is relative, meaning if someone loses it then someone else must have replaced him, right?

I might take Pete or Laver.

I don't think Rafa can claim GOAT status, because he couldn't progress in his game towards "total tennis".

 

[terribleIVAN]

imo, not even the goat can hold every single record and rule the roost in every single h2h; it's impossible. .

Pete did, arguably.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

I think Federer's record against Nadal is a very serious blow to his GOAT claim, but I don't think that makes Nadal the goat either. Nadal's not versatile enough — 65% of his success comes from one surface, and not the surface with the deepest competition. He's never won the WTF.

 

[terribleIVAN]

I think Federer's record against Nadal is a very serious blow to his GOAT claim, but I don't think that makes Nadal the goat either. Nadal's not versatile enough — 65% of his success comes from one surface, and not the surface with the deepest competition. He's never won the WTF.

Congrats for your prediction for Fed's quarters record !

 

[6-3 6-0]

I might take Pete or Laver.

I don't think Rafa can claim GOAT status, because he couldn't progress in his game towards "total tennis".

Although I disagree with you since you chose losing H2H over a worse clay career, I respect your opinion

Pete did, arguably.

Not against all though, he did lose to RFederer in the Wimbledon 2001 and was the defending champion. Therefore H2H against him is actually 0-1.

 

[Netspirit]

Pete did, arguably.

No, he did not. He was owned by Krajicek (4-6) losing to him at Wimbledon of all places.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Federer deserves the GOAT status, but not against Rafa.

But that's the problem Fed has. Rafa, not Sampras et al., will be the player Fed is eventually compared to. If Nadal gets to 14-15 slams himself, Fed won't be the GOAT. There will be no GOAT... unless Rafa gets to 17 himself. Just a top tier.

 

[terribleIVAN]

But that's the problem Fed has. Rafa, not Sampras et al., will be the player Fed is eventually compared to. If Nadal gets to 14-15 slams himself, Fed won't be the GOAT. There will be no GOAT... unless Rafa gets to 17 himself. Just a top tier.

Mmm...

No.

As much i like Rafa, he cannot claim GOAT status just by virtue of a single slam dominance .

He would need to win at least 4-5 more slams outside of clay for that; judging by the strategy he implements on the courts nowadays ( turning his backhand at each occasion, even on first serves) and his injuries, it's next to mission impossible.

He should have been developped better 3-4 years ago; but his management just went for the safer route.

Such a waste !

 

[dudeski]

The following is all you need to know:

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Rafael Nadal 12*
4. Björn Borg 11
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Dkokovic 6*
= Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Rafael Nadal 17*
5. Björn Borg 16
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Andy Murray 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 33*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. Rafael Nadal 20*
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
= Novak Djokovic 19*
9. Boris Becker 18
10. Björn Borg 17


Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Novak Djokovic 12*
3. Ivan Lendl 10
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5
= Andy Murray 5
= Boris Becker 5
9. Roger Federer 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4


GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 40*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
7. Rafael Nadal 24*
8. Boris Becker 23
= Novak Djokovic 23*
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 36*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 15*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Andy Murray 9
7. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7
10. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Roger Federer 54*
= Stefan Edberg 54
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Roger Federer 256*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. 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. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Novak Djokovic 73+*

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 76*
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. = Rafael Nadal 57*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

 

[BHud]

Until another player can come along and beat these records, i say Fed deserves the GOAT status...except against Rafa.

Either you are pregnant or you aren't => either you are GOAT or you are not.

 

[BHud]

Exactly dudeski...let the facts speak for themselves!

 

[terribleIVAN]

Either you are pregnant or you aren't => either you are GOAT or you are not.

Light can act like both a wave and a particle.

 

[smoledman]

Guess what, GOAT status is about how you perform against the entire field, not one player.

Ooops, another GOAT thread. Like we had a shortage of them.

 

[terribleIVAN]

We should create multiple GOAT realities.

 

[Talker]

The following is all you need to know:

Nadal is so far down or absent from so many of those important lists.

There's quite a few players between Nadal and Fed.

 

[smoledman]

Nadal is so far down or absent from so many of those important lists.

There's quite a few players between Nadal and Fed.

20-10. 8 French Opens to 1. All the clay records in the universe to zero. Nadal was the first to hold slams on clay/grass/hard at the same time when he won 2009 AO, not Federer! Also Nadal was the first and ONLY to win FO/Wimby/US Open on 3 different surfaces int he same season(2010).

If you look at the totality of the situation, Nadal is easily the GOAT and Roger is 3rd tier at best.

 

[terribleIVAN]

20-10. 8 French Opens to 1. All the clay records in the universe to zero. Nadal was the first to hold slams on clay/grass/hard at the same time when he won 2009 AO, not Federer! Also Nadal was the first and ONLY to win FO/Wimby/US Open on 3 different surfaces int he same season(2010).

If you look at the totality of the situation, Nadal is easily the GOAT and Roger is 3rd tier at best.

Yes, that's some very valid arguments there. He did achieve it vs a very strong field, with a still excellent Fed.

Had he done it 1 or 2 more times he could have achieved GOAT status for certain.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

The following is all you need to know:

Yes...he did not win the Grand Slam, so there's no GOAT status for Federer.

 

[Talker]

20-10. 8 French Opens to 1. All the clay records in the universe to zero. Nadal was the first to hold slams on clay/grass/hard at the same time when he won 2009 AO, not Federer! Also Nadal was the first and ONLY to win FO/Wimby/US Open on 3 different surfaces int he same season(2010).

If you look at the totality of the situation, Nadal is easily the GOAT and Roger is 3rd tier at best.

It's good he has a few records but what about the other 30+ areas.

No WTF's either, he needs two of those at least.

Fed made 5 straight on two surfaces, Nadal hasn't done it on his best.

It goes on and on and on.

Why do Nadal fans even try when they always get spanked at the end?

 

[Emiliano55]

There won't be any GOAT, EVER. There are different tiers of players, but you cannot say that just one of them is the best.

Federer is just one of them.
I would put him in tier 1, along with other legends just as Laver and Sampras.

On tier 2 I would put Rafa (he still can be in tier 1 if he gets some more slams), Connors, Borg, JMac, etc.

On tier 3 we have Agassi, Becker, Lendl, Djokovic, and so on.

But please, stop this GOAT bs, its nosense.

 

[pame]

Yes...he did not win the Grand Slam, so there's no GOAT status for Federer.

So did Laver win 5 consecutive on 2 different surfaces? How about all the other stuff he didn't do that Fed did. Seems as if it's only Fed that has to match another player, but the other player doesn't have to come close to Fed's records

 

[tennis_pro]

Pete did, arguably.

Well Pete didn't face Nadal 15 times on clay.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes...he did not win the Grand Slam, so there's no GOAT status for Federer.

Laver didnt have to beat a clay freak like Nadal. Take Nadal out and Federer does 2-3 CYGS easily.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Well Pete didn't face Nadal 15 times on clay.

Pete had minor thalassemia, which causes weakness by lack of red blood cells.

We hear a lot about EPO: imagine the opposite, an athlete forced to compete while low on red blood cells.

You've got to wonder where he would have ended with no hereditary illness.

 

[tennis_pro]

Pete had minor thalassemia, which causes weakness by lack of red blood cells.

We hear a lot about EPO: imagine the opposite, an athlete forced to compete while low on red blood cells.

You've got to wonder where he would have ended with no hereditary illness.

What does that have to do with my post?

Btw why would I care? Should we automatically award every disabled person the GOAT title, well let's not forget what they could achieve if they were healthy! Good for Pete for achieving as much as he did but nobody will add extra Slams to his tally because he had thalassemia minor (which btw didn't affect him as much as his defenders claim)

 

[terribleIVAN]

What does that have to do with my post?

Without his illness, Pete could have sustained long rallies from the back of the court, thus could have gone deeper at RG and faced the best clay had to offer, with maybe some success.

 

[terribleIVAN]

which btw didn't affect him as much as his defenders claim)

Nonsense.

Ever remember those five set instances where he was throwing up on the court ?

He kept his illness private because he didn't want to give an advantage to his adversairies.

 

[tennis_pro]

Nonsense.

Ever remember those five set instances where he was throwing up on the court ?

He kept his illness private because he didn't want to give an advantage to his adversairies.

The guy won a good 60-65% of his 5-set matches, what are you talking about?

Other than his match against Corretja, when did he throw up?

 

[TMF]

Yes...he did not win the Grand Slam, so there's no GOAT status for Federer.

So did Laver win 5 consecutive on 2 different surfaces? How about all the other stuff he didn't do that Fed did. Seems as if it's only Fed that has to match another player, but the other player doesn't have to come close to Fed's records

Laver has one criteria to Roger's endless list of criteria. There's no comparison.

 

[Federer20042006]

The Nadal fan/anti-Federer fans just want to ignore the head to head having a disproportionate number of matches on clay, where Nadal is the GOAT, or certainly in the discussion, and unquestionably better than Federer.

Most of the ATP tournaments are on hardcourt, yet Federer/Nadal have played 15 of their 30 matches on clay.

The argument for Federer is that while he could never overcome possibly the greatest clay court player of all-time on clay, he may be the best all-around player in history.

Possibly Top 10 all-time on clay, in the Top 3-5 on grass, in the Top 3-5 on hard court.

Sampras isn't even Top 50 all-time on clay, disqualifying him.

 

[smoledman]

The Nadal fan/anti-Federer fans just want to ignore the head to head having a disproportionate number of matches on clay, where Nadal is the GOAT, or certainly in the discussion, and unquestionably better than Federer.

Most of the ATP tournaments are on hardcourt, yet Federer/Nadal have played 15 of their 30 matches on clay.

The argument for Federer is that while he could never overcome possibly the greatest clay court player of all-time on clay, he may be the best all-around player in history.

Possibly Top 10 all-time on clay, in the Top 3-5 on grass, in the Top 3-5 on hard court.

Sampras isn't even Top 50 all-time on clay, disqualifying him.

Distribution of ATP schedule:

Hard - 50%
Clay - 40%
Grass - 10%

So clay is a major part of the schedule and I'd be willing to downgrade the 13-2 by 40% to account for that. Still, it's embarrassing for the supposed "GOAT" to have such an embarrassing H2H.

 

[LuckyR]

This discussion is really getting old. Get it through your heads: Roger is the GOAT. Rafa is better than Roger and Nole 2.0 is better than Rafa.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Laver has one criteria to Roger's endless list of criteria. There's no comparison.

Laver has the ultimate achievement for GOAT status. Federer was not, and never will be in that conversation.

 

[TMF]

Laver has the ultimate achievement for GOAT status. Federer was not, and never will be in that conversation.

I don't want to copy/paste Federer career achievements in this post because it's a long, long list.

Here is Federer goat resume.

List of Federer Achievements and Tennis Records

 

[cc0509]

Laver has the ultimate achievement for GOAT status. Federer was not, and never will be in that conversation.

Stop being ridiculous. Most people think Federer is the GOAT or the closest thing to it, whether you agree does not change this fact.

 

[Fiji]

Nadal is so far down or absent from so many of those important lists.

There's quite a few players between Nadal and Fed.

Exactly.

[/THREAD]

.......

 

[Federer20042006]

Distribution of ATP schedule:

Hard - 50%
Clay - 40%
Grass - 10%

So clay is a major part of the schedule and I'd be willing to downgrade the 13-2 by 40% to account for that. Still, it's embarrassing for the supposed "GOAT" to have such an embarrassing H2H.

The big tournaments:

Australian Open - hard
Indian Wells - hard
Miami - hard
Monte Carlo - clay
Rome - clay
Madrid - clay
French Open - clay
Wimbledon - grass
Canada - hard
Cincinnati - hard
US Open - hard
Shanghai - hard
Paris - hard
WTF - hard

9 of the 14 big tournaments (64.3%) are hard court, 4 (28.6%) are clay, and 1 (7.1%) is grass.

It would be embarrassing if Federer had that kind of record against Nadal when the surfaces they played on were more evenly distributed.

Instead, it's 13-2 Nadal on clay, 8-7 Federer on non-clay. Not so embarrassing when you really look at it.

 

[zam88]

Let's just blow everyone's mind for a second.. and let's say Roger was 20-10 vs. Rafa instead of the other way around... But for the sake of argument, let's say the slam count was the same for both.


Now.. instead of Roger having a negative record against Rafa.. he's 0-14 vs. David Ferrer, winner of ZERO slams.


What would we say then?

 

[jg153040]

I believe Fed's records and longevity rightfully place him above other greats like Pete, Borg, Mac, Nadal, Agassi or Lendl.

It doesn't mean of course Fed would beat them all individually; he deserves the GOAT status because his achievements against the whole field, not just your main rivals, surpasses those of all the players cited above.

His shotmaking, economy in effort, ability to play total tennis without real weaknesses provided him a longevity that he used to break nearly every tennis record.

Having established that, there will be those who will point out it's a nonsense to use the GOAT status when you could never dominate your main rival, and they have a perfectly valid point.

Just like Pete before him, who could never master clay, Roger has left the GOAT door open to interpretation ; he's himself very much aware of it.

So, it would be unjust to rewrite history now that he's in decline and forget his whole legacy in favour of younger lions.

Until another player can come along and beat these records, i say Fed deserves the GOAT status...except against Rafa.

I guess you do have some points. I think he loses undisputed goat status.
But that is because Rafa stopped him from CYGS. If Fed had won just one RG against Rafa and have CYGS, he could have been undisputed goat.

But, he can still be goat, by smaller margins. He has the stats and the genius playing style over Nadal, Sampras, Borg.

But competition in Feds era is the toughest. Evolution is twice as fast now.
In previous eras, it was usually 10 years before new generation evolved their games. Now the next generation is only 5 years behind.

If Sampras during his slight decline after age 26 had 21 years old Borg and Agassi (I mean non headcase Agassi), I don't think he wins 14.

So, Fed has the stats even though the competition is amazing. If you put Nadal and Djokovic out of Feds era, Fed dominates his generation BY FAR, EVEN ON CLAY.

Djokovic and Nadal don't have 2 or 3 prodigies from the next generation after them.

I think this should be enough to put Fed above over Sampras, Borg and Nadal. But still not enough to say he is perfect, undisputed.

 

[jg153040]

Let's just blow everyone's mind for a second.. and let's say Roger was 20-10 vs. Rafa instead of the other way around... But for the sake of argument, let's say the slam count was the same for both.


Now.. instead of Roger having a negative record against Rafa.. he's 0-14 vs. David Ferrer, winner of ZERO slams.


What would we say then?

This is the problem of h2h arguments. Losing at your peak vs journeymen at slams like Nadal and Pete did is not penalized.

Fed losing at his peak only to Nadal (all-time great) on clay and in finals, is penalized.

I mean h2h should be ignored for obvious flaws. But if you should use it as an argument, you should use all h2h not just vs top players. I mean if losing to Nadal is such a bad thing in slam finals, losing to Rosol early should be even worse.

Either you don't use h2h argument, or use it with context.

The difference between Pete, Nadal and Fed is that Fed lost to one guy a few matches, but Pete and Nadal lost to different guys more. They have worse h2h, but it is spread out to different players.

So, what is worse? Losing to different guys and to lesser players and early in slams? Or losing to only 1 guy, an all-time great more times in slam finals?

Also what is better? Winning 2 slams in 10 tries, or 1 slam in 3 tries?

Who is richer? A guy who is 20 and has 1 million dollars, but stays at 1 million? Or a guy who is 20 and is broke, but has 2 million when he is 30?