Federer v Djokovic: Reframing the "GOAT" debate

[TMF]

Djokovic sawed his racquets after losing in the Olympics. He has NEVER done that after losing in WTF. Instead he comes out to matches with funny masks and eyepatches on. That's how serious he took it. Both in 2010 and 2011 Novak and Nadal respectively didn't have their heart into the WTF because they were preparing for Davis Cup finals which meant more to them.

In terms of points, yes WTF is rnaked behind the slam, but in terms of how much the players care about it, it ranks behind the Davis Cup and Olympics.

Not true about Nadal 2010. Nadal was very determine to win in the final against Federer. 2012 Nole was also very motivated since his disapointed 2011 result. And Davis cup was on clay so of course Nadal was motivated. But in 2010 he chose not to play against the USO because it was on indoor hc.

No sign of injury? LOL did you see how short Nadal's FH was? This is because he couldn't generate enough power from his legs to hit the ball deeper. Of course, you don't understand the dynamics of shot making because you don't know much about tennis, all you know about is Federer's numbers.

As for USO 2010, that's because he beat a major winner and former US finalist to win it, not a slam final virgin. Del Potro had one hot run at the US Open, don't talk like as if he is some USO GOAT like Nadal is at RG.

And of course he was injured, explain why he would pull out of Wimbledon if he wasn't injured.

How do you explain after dismantling everyone until he finally face Soderling? Nadal face a player with fire power that can take him down, just like Rosol did in Wimbledon. The evidence is there to prove that a great player can be defeated. It happen to all great players, why can't you be open-mined to accept nadal is not invincible?

I don't believe in fluke slam, but if you're going to discredit Roger's 2009 achievement than you must do the same for Nadal 2010 USO. It works both way, and can backfire you.

 

[The_Order]

Not true about Nadal 2010. Nadal was very determine to win in the final against Federer. 2012 Nole was also very motivated since his disapointed 2011 result. And Davis cup was on clay so of course Nadal was motivated. But in 2010 he chose not to play against the USO because it was on indoor hc.

I said respectively. Go look up what that means. In 2010 NOVAK didn't care, in 2011 NADAL didn't care. I didn't say Rafa didn't care in 2010, he did, but his SF against Murray left him out of gas for the final.

How do you explain after dismantling everyone until he finally face Soderling? Nadal face a player with fire power that can take him down, just like Rosol did in Wimbledon. The evidence is there to prove that a great player can be defeated. It happen to all great players, why can't you be open-mined to accept nadal is not invincible?

Of course great players can lose from time to time, but the fact that Nadal's FH was unusualy short and the fact that he took 2 months off after the match proves that it wasn't a fake injury. He dismantled everyone before Soderling? Who? The first and second round opponents followed by a terrible form Hewitt? WOW. Nadal even when injured will still beat them.

I don't believe in fluke slam, but if you're going to discredit Roger's 2009 achievement than you must do the same for Nadal 2010 USO. It works both way, and can backfire you.

No, Nadal beat a former slam champion and multiple slam finalist and semi finalist and world #3 for the past 4 seasons (2007-2010). A player who had a leading HC h2h against him and had not lost to him in a HC Masters match since 2007.

Federer beat no such player in RG and Sod was NOWHERE near the same form as he was against Nadal.

 

[namelessone]

The more interesting argument, is who is Djokovic's greatest rival?

 

[フェデラー]

I believe you cannot use the OG as part of the GOAT debate because so many players in history, some of the greatest of our sport, were never even able to play for it. Recall that the Olympics were reintroduced only in 1988. I guess Nadal is better than Laver because Laver doesn't have the Gold Medal. Sampras lacks a gold medal as well. Would you consider Agassi is greater than Sampras even though Agassi has the gold and a career slam, even though he has fewer slams total, and fewer weeks at no.1 and fewer tour finals (of which Nadal has zero)?

 

[DropShotArtist]

I believe you cannot use the OG as part of the GOAT debate because so many players in history, some of the greatest of our sport, were never even able to play for it. I guess Nadal is better than Laver because Laver doesn't have the Gold Medal. Sampras lacks a gold medal as well. Would you consider Agassi is greater than Sampras even though Agassi has the gold and a career slam, even though he has fewer slams total, and fewer weeks at no.1?

Quoted for truth. Been saying this for a long time. But some people just don't get it. It doesn't mean it's not a meaningful event for today's players as many will attest to. However, in terms of historical achievement? Absolutely meaningless.

 

[Fedfan34]

Not sure why people care so much about the Federer-Nadal H2H. Once they're both retired, nobody's going to care about them anymore anyway. Fed fanatics will be gone from the sport, Nadal fans will have new interests and hobbies.
Just remember the facts--> Nobody ever cared about retired athletes. Nobody ever has or will care about a retired athlete.
Out of sight is out of mind. People move on with their lives and invest their interest in what's current today. Not what was.

Just like there are no Petetards, Lavertards, or Borgtards?

 

[spinovic]

Quoted for truth. Been saying this for a long time. But some people just don't get it. It doesn't mean it's not a meaningful event for today's players as many will attest to. However, in terms of historical achievement? Absolutely meaningless.

I do think it can be used to a small degree when debating the current group of players, because all of them have put some focus into the Olympics. However, I don't think it carries the weight that some would suggest...at least not yet. It may in the future. The fact that it only happens once every 4 years, making it more elusive, adds a different flavor to it.

 

[Fedfan34]

If Djokovic racks up to 10 slams and maybe actually surpassing Rafa in the slam count. Then Djokovic could be seen greater than Rafa (if he gets RG and another Wimbly), seeing how Djokovic is such a good player on slow courts and definitely adapting better at fast courts than Rafa. Then Djokovic becomes a part of the GOAT debate, kicking Rafa out of the equation. Fed wins. :twisted:

Nice thread though, never actually though of this before.

So what's your opinion now that Djoker has 12? And thank you.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

A common argument against Federer's "GOAT"ness is his record against Rafa Nadal, his "greatest" rival. How can a player be the best ever if he loses almost twice as often to his biggest threat?

Generally Federer fanatics make a number of fantastic excuses to combat this point, emphasizing the high number of clay court battles, Nadal being left handed creating "match up" issues etc.

The purpose of this thread is basically to reframe this entire premise that Rafa is Federer's greatest rival. Could one not argue that in fact Djokovic is Federer's greatest rival? They have played the same number of times (29) as Federer has played Nadal and in a shorter period of time (2007 to present versus 2004 to present). Not to mention they have played more grand slam matches (11 v 10) and have played against each other at all 4 grand slam tournaments. And oh yeah, Federer has a winning record

Nadal and Djokovic are roughly a year apart, so attempts at saying that Djokovic is part of a different era are doomed to failure, because if this is the case, Nadal is also part of a different era, and therefore his positive record against Federer can't really be held against Federer.

Novak is not Federer's greatest rival. He just matches up much better against Djokovic than Nadal, and we saw how he'd do if Nadal's balls didn't have the same pace and penetration through the court.

 

[underground]

So what's your opinion now that Djoker has 12? And thank you.

Interesting to read what I posted 4 years ago.

In my mind Novak just edges slightly right now with the non-CYGS, but Rafa is defending himself with his resurgence to the AO final. I see Novak as the more versatile one with more longevity, given that he really has dominated the tour for a good 3 years or so (he was practically unbeatable in 2011, 2015 and early 2016 apart from the odd loss against Fed and Stanimal here and there). In my mind in 2008 and 2010 Rafa didn't have this invincibility factor outside clay (2013 was the year he truly dominated the hard courts).

Overall in the public eye Rafa is still ahead, but I personally think Novak is pretty much on par right now, we'll see how he reacts to his decline though. The problem with all of us is that we put a lot more weight to recent events, and Nadal's decline has certainly swayed my decision towards Novak.

Also bear in mind when I posted this, Rafa was still on 11 slams and was just coming back from his recovery after 2012.