Federer vs Nadal hypothetical: Who would have had the better career?

Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
I think most of us would put Federer ahead in the GOAT debate at present or at least have the two about level (vocal minority would have Nadal ahead). However, had Federer retired after his terrible 2013 season and if Nadal had retired after this season, who would you have considered to have the better career?

Assume for this that any wins Federer has had over Nadal since then, somebody else beats Nadal so he doesn't win extra tournaments.

Both would have 17 slams with 7 finals. Nadal would have won his first and last slam 13 years apart, Federer 9 years apart
Federer 6 YEC, Nadal 0 YEC
Nadal 1 OSG, Federer 0 OSG
Nadal 33 masters, Federer 21 masters
Nadal 80 titles, Federer 77
Federer 5 YE#1, Nadal 4 YE#1
Federer 302 weeks #1, Nadal 196 weeks #1
H2H would be 22-10 in Nadal's favour

Who would you have considered greater?
 
With slams being most people general consensus of GOAT in tennis, then I think it would come down to fanbase bias.
There is no doubt, even at that point, for me, that Federer has the more balanced career.
Nadal needs to overtake the slam count to be considered the GOAT. He cant be even if he draws level.
Had he beaten Djokovic and won Wimbledon this year, and defended his USO crown ( he was very close to both ), then his career looks a lot more balanced.

But as for them finishing on 17 slams each, Federer would still be the GOAT.
 
This is a tough call. I need to list each player’s best case:

Nadal’s case:
Nadal leads in titles 80-77
Nadal leads HTH 22-10
Nadal owned clay more than anybody owned a surface by a huge margin.
11 FO titles
81 match winning streak on clay
2 channel slams for Nadal
Nadal’s wins over Fed at 2009 AO and 2008 Wimbledon titles matches
Won title on all 3 surfaces in one year
Won titles on all 3 surfaces at least twice each
Won 3 slam titles without deopping a set
10 straight years of winning at least 1 slam title

Fed’s case:
5-4 edge in year-end #1
302-196 edge in weeks at #1
6-4 edge in year-end #1 prize money
10 consecutive slam finals and 8 consecutive slam finals
23 consecutive slam semis(Nadal’s best is 5)
36 consecutive slam quarters(Nadal’s best is 11)
65 straightt grass court wins
56 straight hard court wins. Next best is 36 by Federer
5 straight Wimbledons
5 straight USO
3 years winning 3 slam titles
4 straight years winning 2 slam titles
11 slam titles in 4 year span

I think Nadal hit a higher peak, when factoring in all surfaces. But Roger was much more consistent.

I think I would take Fed’s career by a whisker. But I see a strong case for Nadal. When it is this close, the HTH means huge bragging rights.
 
kevaninho said:
Was Federer dominant on clay ? Against the 'entire field' ?
Click to expand...
as in all surfaces averaged out as a whole. Whats Nadals highest winning percentage during a calendar season and compare that to Federers highest. Nadal has never been as dominant against the field. He has more losses and less wins than Federer.
 
Nadal would have surpassed Fred for sure, without the AO 2017 beating.

If we compare their numbers iF Fred retired in 2013, its still Fred at this point.
 
kevaninho said:
Was Federer dominant on clay ? Against the 'entire field' ?
Click to expand...

If we don't include that Spaniard fighter....

Jokes apart, no he wasn't apart from his peak years, but even then a prime nadal stood in his way all the time....
With all respect to every single player, NO PLAYER IS A MATCH FOR NADAL ON CLAY ON WHEN THE BULL'S ON....

Djoker was extremely lucky not to have the faster-than-light and bull-level clay-nadal to stop him in his heydays, so he could vulture clay titles
 
Really tough I think. Nadal would have significant marks for longevity here, wining slams over 13 years, 10 years of winning at least 1 slam in a row. He also has the lead in masters and a significant lead in H2H

Federer would have had more sustained dominance which Nadal never has had. He also would have a more balanced slam resumé. More time at number 1. 6 YEC to 0

I'd actually probably view them as equal with all things considered but can see very strong arguments either way
 
kevaninho said:
With slams being most people general consensus of GOAT in tennis, then I think it would come down to fanbase bias.
There is no doubt, even at that point, for me, that Federer has the more balanced career.
Nadal needs to overtake the slam count to be considered the GOAT. He cant be even if he draws level.
Had he beaten Djokovic and won Wimbledon this year, and defended his USO crown ( he was very close to both ), then his career looks a lot more balanced.

But as for them finishing on 17 slams each, Federer would still be the GOAT.
Click to expand...
He wasn't that close to defending his USO crown though.
 
Last edited:
mike danny said:
He wasn't that close to defending his USO crown though.
Click to expand...

Take away his obvious knee problem and I think he beats this version of Del Potro anywhere.
Obviously Djokovic was the big one, but getting to the last 4 is pretty close to winning the tournament.
 
robthai said:
as in all surfaces averaged out as a whole. Whats Nadals highest winning percentage during a calendar season and compare that to Federers highest. Nadal has never been as dominant against the field. He has more losses and less wins than Federer.
Click to expand...

I never argued about Nadal being more dominant, but I responded to the absurd statement that Fed was dominant over the entire field on 'all surfaces' , which just isn't true.
 
It's really tough to say. I feel like Nadal would have the edge in numbers but fairly weighted towards one surface so Nadal would probably be the best overall, but Fed the best all rounder.
 
Fed’s ability to go deep in a slam event was uncanny. For example:

Getting to a slam final pays you about 1.7 million dollars. It is better than winning a masters. Pete Sampras played in 18 slam finals. Federer made it to 18 slam finals out of 19 that were held. His lone miss was a semi.

Slam semis pay about 900K. That is a great pay day. Sampras made it to 23 slam semis in his career. That is remarkable. Fed went to 23 consecutive slam semis.

And lastly, Agassi and Nadal have made it to 36 slam quarters. Sampras made it to 29. Federer made it to 36 consecutive slam quarters.

Those last two records of Fed’s will be much tougher to break than his 20 slam title. Basically, Fed went nearly 6 years without missing a slam semi and 9 years without missing a slam quarter. And this is why I put Fed(through 2012) Fed over Nadal. We cannot treat all losses the same. It as I said before, Nadal keeps it extremely close. He has more titles. So I can see this going either way.
 
Towny said:
I think most of us would put Federer ahead in the GOAT debate at present or at least have the two about level (vocal minority would have Nadal ahead). However, had Federer retired after his terrible 2013 season and if Nadal had retired after this season, who would you have considered to have the better career?

Assume for this that any wins Federer has had over Nadal since then, somebody else beats Nadal so he doesn't win extra tournaments.

Both would have 17 slams with 7 finals. Nadal would have won his first and last slam 13 years apart, Federer 9 years apart
Federer 6 YEC, Nadal 0 YEC
Nadal 1 OSG, Federer 0 OSG
Nadal 33 masters, Federer 21 masters
Nadal 80 titles, Federer 77
Federer 5 YE#1, Nadal 4 YE#1
Federer 302 weeks #1, Nadal 196 weeks #1
H2H would be 22-10 in Nadal's favour

Who would you have considered greater?
Click to expand...
Federer had a back injury in 2013; only reason Murray won AO
 
SuperSpinner said:
Fed clearly ahead. Weeks #1 is the most important thing after slams.
Click to expand...
Weeks at No 1 are linked to the points ATP awards to the individual tournaments which are more or less arbitrary and do not reflect true greatness. Otherwise we must believe that when defining greatness two masters equals one slam which is ******** or that two lost slam finals make a player greater than one slam win. I dare you to ask any one time slam winner like ivanisevic or Johansson for how many runner up trophies they would exchange their elusive slam win. They will think you are completely crazy.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Weeks at No 1 are linked to the points ATP awards to the individual tournaments which are more or less arbitrary and do not reflect true greatness. Otherwise we must believe that when defining greatness two masters equals one slam which is ******** or that two lost slam finals make a player greater than one slam win. I dare you to ask any one time slam winner like ivanisevic or Johansson for how many runner up trophies they would exchange their elusive slam win. They will think you are completely crazy.
Click to expand...

Slams being the best is also arbitrary. It all is. Bottom line is player's strive for being the best. Being the best = #1. Ergo, weeks at #1 is a critical criterion.
 
SuperSpinner said:
Slams being the best is also arbitrary. It all is. Bottom line is player's strive for being the best. Being the best = #1. Ergo, weeks at #1 is a critical criterion.
Click to expand...
Slams are not arbitrary as slam count is what players strive the most for. Fed skips clay season to be in a better position to win more slams even though it costs him all chances of being No.1. In the end it comes down to what players value most. No amount of lost finals will ever equal only one slam win although it will give you more ranking points.
 
Wow this was a lot closer than I thought. I might give the slight edge to Fed for how high his peak dominance was (as seen through his time at number one stats).
Fed was also more versatile across 3 surfaces for most of his career imo, although Nadal's versality often gets overlooked due to his extreme dominance on clay.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Slams are not arbitrary as slam count is what players strive the most for. Fed skips clay season to be in a better position to win more slams even though it costs him all chances of being No.1. In the end it comes down to what players value most. No amount of lost finals will ever equal only one slam win although it will give you more ranking points.
Click to expand...

Not really. Back in the 80s, slams were big but nowhere near what they are now. It was only from Sampras on that slam count really began being a thing.
 
SuperSpinner said:
Not really. Back in the 80s, slams were big but nowhere near what they are now. It was only from Sampras on that slam count really began being a thing.
Click to expand...
True that but as we are talking Federer vs Nadal this is not relevant, both clearly prioritized slams over no 1 ranking. In the 80is the ranking system was even more flawed than today.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
True that but as we are talking Federer vs Nadal this is not relevant, both clearly prioritized slams over no 1 ranking. In the 80is the ranking system was even more flawed than today.
Click to expand...

Yes Slams are in current day over #1. But the second most important is weeks #1. It shows dominance, what else is more important in defining a career next to slams.
 
11 of rafa's grand slams are at the french. Its the least respected grand slam, like austrialia used to be
 
SuperSpinner said:
Yes Slams are in current day over #1. But the second most important is weeks #1. It shows dominance, what else is more important in defining a career next to slams.
Click to expand...
However the system is sometimes flawed in the way that the importance of the slams is not valued high enough. Imagine Djokovic had lost the AO final against Murray in 2013 but would have instead won an additional Master and an additional ATP 500. He wouldnt have won any slam that season but would have ended YE No 1 even though Nadal won two slams and on top of that also beat Novak in both.

Another thing is injury/missing parts of the season. In 1999 Agassi was YE No 1 even though he admitted himself he did not feel so as Pete beat him in all important matches. That he finished on top was only due to the fact that Pete missed the first half of the season as well as the US Open due to injury. Same with Nadal 2017. Roger was the real No 1 here, due to the H2H.

On another note, I don’t really think that in this particular scenario the majority of tennis fans would dig deep enough to consider things as weeks as No 1. As soon as some future occasional tennis fan finds out that the two players who share the record in the most important metric (slam count) played in the same era, the first question which will come to his mind is how they fared against each other. If then one of the two (in our scenario Nadal) has an overwhelming advantage of 22-10 with 9-2 in slams, he will immediately see him as the better of the two so in this particular case Head to head trumps weeks at No 1. Tennis is an individual sport of one against one after all so the direct comparison should not be neglected.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
However the system is sometimes flawed in the way that the importance of the slams is not valued high enough. Imagine Djokovic had lost the AO final against Murray in 2013 but would have instead won an additional Master and an additional ATP 500. He wouldnt have won any slam that season but would have ended YE No 1 even though Nadal won two slams and on top of that also beat Novak in both.

Another thing is injury/missing parts of the season. In 1999 Agassi was YE No 1 even though he admitted himself he did not feel so as Pete beat him in all important matches. That he finished on top was only due to the fact that Pete missed the first half of the season as well as the US Open due to injury. Same with Nadal 2017. Roger was the real No 1 here, due to the H2H.

On another note, I don’t really think that in this particular scenario the majority of tennis fans would dig deep enough to consider things as weeks as No 1. As soon as some future occasional tennis fan finds out that the two players who share the record in the most important metric (slam count) played in the same era, the first question which will come to his mind is how they fared against each other. If then one of the two (in our scenario Nadal) has an overwhelming advantage of 22-10 with 9-2 in slams, he will immediately see him as the better of the two so in this particular case Head to head trumps weeks at No 1. Tennis is an individual sport of one against one after all so the direct comparison should not be neglected.
Click to expand...

It may be flawed or it may not be. But it is what it is. H2H is pretty meaningless. And it's double counting. Moreover if you really want to consider H2H, it's not how they fared against one another that matters, it's how they faired against nobodies on the biggest stages.

Injuries are just excuses. If you couldn't be fit, that speaks to your inferiority as a great tennis player.
 
Rafa, by a little bit..Same amount of "slams" won, but Rafa has more big titles here. Other numbers (except for H2H which goes Rafa's way (but I don't value it that much) are close to even, with Roger holding one more YE#1. Think about it: Roger is 5 years older, so if he retired after 2013 (obviously, he didn't), they would have done so at the same age, if Rafa retired now. Without even saying "weak era" (as I find that demeaning to several players and to what Roger achieved), I think it would be safe to say that Rafa's career was just a little stronger against slightly higher competition.

Some comments below:

Both would have 17 slams with 7 finals. Nadal would have won his first and last slam 13 years apart, Federer 9 years apart
Slight edge to Rafa for longevity at the top, but not a huge disparity.

Federer 6 YEC, Nadal 0 YEC 6 more big titles to Fed, but (see just below)...
Nadal 1 OSG, Federer 0 OSG
Nadal 33 masters, Federer 21 masters ...Considering the Olympics as well, that's 34-27 Rafa (Big "non-Slam" titles - a sizable edge in this category

Nadal 80 titles, Federer 77 Close enough to be negligible
Federer 5 YE#1, Nadal 4 YE#1 Slight edge to Fed
Federer 302 weeks #1, Nadal 196 weeks #1 Edge to Fed here, of course, but doesn't offset the "Big Titles" edge, even with one more YE#1 - which I value more than Weeks at #1
H2H would be 22-10 in Nadal's favour Of course, an edge numerically for Rafa, but it's not that huge of a deal for me
 
BeatlesFan said:
What's the Lendl-Connors H2H? Google that, examine the parameters of that stat and get back with us. o_O
Click to expand...
Imagine Federer, Nadal, and Djoker were the same age, how rapidly Fed would have improved his backhand and strategy from defensive to aggressive. Federer may have demoralized djoker and nadal to the point where it would have affected them mentally and changed everything.
 
Benben245 said:
Imagine Federer, Nadal, and Djoker were the same age, how rapidly Fed would have improved his backhand and strategy from defensive to aggressive. Federer may have demoralized djoker and nadal to the point where it would have affected them mentally and changed everything.
Click to expand...

Yes, because Federer is the only truly great player of the three - and also Rafa and Novak are notorious for being so weak-minded, and easily demoralized. Where do you come up with this nonsense?
 
BeatlesFan said:
What's the Lendl-Connors H2H? Google that, examine the parameters of that stat and get back with us. o_O
Click to expand...
It is 22-13 in favor of Lendl don’t need to google it. However i fail to understand what you want to tell me. Do you think Connors is widely considered as being greater than Lendl? The comparison to the Fedal H2H does not hold water anyways. Connors is eight years older than Lendl and their rivalry clearly follows the pattern that the older guy beat the younger at the beginning until he declined and the younger caught up. Connors was leading 8-0 and 12-5 before Lendl won their last 17 meetings. Federer on the other hand NEVER led Nadal in H2H not even at the beginning when Nadal was a teenager and Fed at the peak of his powers. This is not due to age, actually Fed caught up when both grew older.

In addition, in slams Lendl is only leading Connors 4-3 while Nadal in our hypothetical scenario is leading Federer 9-2.

As you can see horrible example for whatever point you were trying to make. Work on your analytical skills and try better next time.
 
Chadalina said:
Television. Major networks dont even carry it anymore.

IMO AO>USO>Wimb>French. The french and wimbledon still dont even have lights. Stuck in time, whereas the AO has made huge advances.
Click to expand...

Our national TV stations broadcasts only RG of all the Slams.
 
Towny said:
I think most of us would put Federer ahead in the GOAT debate at present or at least have the two about level (vocal minority would have Nadal ahead). However, had Federer retired after his terrible 2013 season and if Nadal had retired after this season, who would you have considered to have the better career?

Assume for this that any wins Federer has had over Nadal since then, somebody else beats Nadal so he doesn't win extra tournaments.

Both would have 17 slams with 7 finals. Nadal would have won his first and last slam 13 years apart, Federer 9 years apart
Federer 6 YEC, Nadal 0 YEC
Nadal 1 OSG, Federer 0 OSG
Nadal 33 masters, Federer 21 masters
Nadal 80 titles, Federer 77
Federer 5 YE#1, Nadal 4 YE#1
Federer 302 weeks #1, Nadal 196 weeks #1
H2H would be 22-10 in Nadal's favour

Who would you have considered greater?
Click to expand...

I would have to go with the H2H so Nadal. Tennis is about rivalries.

Fed will however always be my favourite and GOAT changes nothing for me.

After-all, my favourite basketball player is not widely considered GOAT, same with hockey. Ditto football [American]. Same applies to writers, musicians, artists, movies, books. Virtually everything as I think about it really.

I have zero investment in GOAT. It is a lively pub subject to bicker over with some ale and peanuts at most.
 
OldschoolKlaus said:
Nadal without clay = middle of nowhere, no?
Federer without grass = still a great champion.
Click to expand...

Pointless debate, as HC covers most of the season, which is arguably Feds best surface.
If there were equal clay, grass and hard court events, then fair comparison, but everyone knows Fed is as good as anyone ever on hard courts, as well as grass.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
It is 22-13 in favor of Lendl don’t need to google it. However i fail to understand what you want to tell me. Do you think Connors is widely considered as being greater than Lendl? The comparison to the Fedal H2H does not hold water anyways. Connors is eight years older than Lendl and their rivalry clearly follows the pattern that the older guy beat the younger at the beginning until he declined and the younger caught up. Connors was leading 8-0 and 12-5 before Lendl won their last 17 meetings. Federer on the other hand NEVER led Nadal in H2H not even at the beginning when Nadal was a teenager and Fed at the peak of his powers. This is not due to age, actually Fed caught up when both grew older.

In addition, in slams Lendl is only leading Connors 4-3 while Nadal in our hypothetical scenario is leading Federer 9-2.

As you can see horrible example for whatever point you were trying to make. Work on your analytical skills and try better next time.
Click to expand...

Absolutely great analysis there. (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll Poll
Stan with the hypothetical Career Grand Slam vs Andy Murray
2
Replies
88
Views
5K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
M
Comparing Federer to Nadal after 2008/2013
Replies
34
Views
3K
TMF
T
B
How to statistically measure greatness in the OE. The Nadal vs Federer debate.
2
Replies
64
Views
3K
GoatNo1
GoatNo1
M
Summary of the Big 3 and Damage They Have Done to Each Other's Legacy
Replies
16
Views
1K
Fedforever
F
M
Do you think Nadal/Djokovic would have won less majors/retired by now if Fed had already retired? Whereas, Fed has had to manufacture motivation?
Replies
1
Views
354
Jonesy
J
Back
Top