Federer vs Nadal Who Is Ahead As Of Now?

[BorgTheGOAT]

I would say versatility itself should never be a tie breaker because is much easier to win 10 slams by distributing it over surfaces than to win 10 at a single slam. Someone who wins 10 at a single slam is normally on 20 in total because good form often translates to other surfaces in an year but it is not necessarily gonna translate next year.... that much harder to win 20 french opens than to win say 5*4

I agree that the importance of versatility is wildly exaggerated here, but let’s not get carried away in the other direction. Sure winning one slam 20 times is harder to do than 4*5, but harder is not necessarily equal to greater here. Winning a masters 20 times is also harder than winning 20 slams, playing a match hitting 120 aces is also harder, winning two slams at the age of 43 as well. All those things are however not a greater achievement than 10 slams let alone 20. I stand by my view that versatile can never outweigh even a one slam difference (maybe bar compleye extremes), but if slam number is equal, versatility can be one (of several) tie breakers.

 

[Razer]

I agree that the importance of versatility is wildly exaggerated here, but let’s not get carried away in the other direction. Sure winning one slam 20 times is harder to do than 4*5, but harder is not necessarily equal to greater here. Winning a masters 20 times is also harder than winning 20 slams, playing a match hitting 120 aces is also harder, winning two slams at the age of 43 as well. All those things are however not a greater achievement than 10 slams let alone 20. I stand by my view that versatile can never outweigh even a one slam difference (maybe bar compleye extremes), but if slam number is equal, versatility can be one (of several) tie breakers.

Winning a masters 20 times is not harder than winning a slam 20 times. As you grow old you can still win BO3 over next gens but BO5 will expose you. Hitting 120 aces is a longevity based record, if a match goes on and one then why not ? It means nothing. WInning 2 at 43 ? Sure, the person who won 2 at 43 must having a minimum of 25 slams in his 20s & 30s, otherwise how is he gonna win 2 in his 40s ? So that would automatically make him goat.

Versatility is not at all special. A guy who won wimbledon and is in great form that year will also win at least 1 HC slam, it is the french which is harder to come with W, not the other 2 slams, so how exactly is Federer versatile? His 5+ wins on 3 different slams making him looks more versatile than Rafa but Rafa has won DCGS while Fed thanks to Soderling won his CGS. So I would say versatility is overrated because Federer already had an edge over Nadal at more slams and yet he was that inferior to have emerged with less slams.

Why do you rate a GUY with 17FO + 1W + 1AO + 1USO as better than a guy with 20FO + 0W + 0AO + 0USO ? So you want the second player to be less great on clay to be a better player overall ? Thats like asking Usain Bolt to win only 2 Gold medals at 100M Olympics instead of 3. Now you want Usain to win 2 Golds at 100M and 1 extra gold at 800M and then you are gonna say see Usian is greater ? Why ? Usain is defined by his 100M, diminishing him there won't help because nobody asked Usain to prove his mettle at 800M, you have better guys for that, specialists, why worry ? Just let Usain shine more at what he does, it is harder to collect an extra olympic gold at an extra olympics 4 years later than to collect an additional gold at something else somewhere. .

 

[Deleted member 758560]

enemy of the state with will smith is an excellent movie btw, guys, ones who didnt watch, do it..

 

[fedfan24]

Please don't forget the Baghdatis and Gonzalez opens that helped the Federer cause.

Both stronger than any non clay slam since 2021.

 

[Neptune]

Nope because there is none. We are talking slam titles here not finals so whether you face him in the final or before is irrelevant and hence your point is moot. Nadal faced Djokovic 13 times in or after 2011 while Fed did so 11 times, Nadal faced Federer 8 times before end of 2009 while Djokovic did so 6 times. So Nadal faced the prime versions of the respective others more often while still overall having the best record (winning record against both of them). This should even out the clay skew. Also, I don’t necessarily say Nadal had it the toughest but saying he had it the easiest and his slams should be asterisked is ridiculous.

How can one be so clueless in analyzing?

 

[SonnyT]

I place Nadal ahead Federer, who had already conceded #1 and dominance to Nadal during the '10 season. That would certainly have happened in '11 and beyond if Djokovic hadn't intervened.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I’m shocked how quickly Federer was erased

Dude it was not quick. He became the GOAT officially in 2009 and stayed till 2021. That is 12 years. He did admirably. Our guy Pete became the GOAT in 2000 and ended already by 2009. That's 9 years.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Winning a masters 20 times is not harder than winning a slam 20 times. As you grow old you can still win BO3 over next gens but BO5 will expose you. Hitting 120 aces is a longevity based record, if a match goes on and one then why not ? It means nothing. WInning 2 at 43 ? Sure, the person who won 2 at 43 must having a minimum of 25 slams in his 20s & 30s, otherwise how is he gonna win 2 in his 40s ? So that would automatically make him goat.

I said winning a masters 20 times is harder than winning 20 slams in total, of course not harder than winning a slam 20 times. To win a masters 20 times you need to be on a high level for minimum 20 years and don’t have an off-day in all those years. Never happened and not gonna happen while there are three players who have won 20+ slams. Nevertheless a player who wins let’s say 8 slams and on top of that one and the same masters 20 times will never be considered greater than a guy who wins a total of 20 slams, this is what I meant with “being harder to achieve” does not equal “greater achievement”. The two slams at 43 was also an example. Let’s assume a guy wins 5 slams in his 20s and 30s and then 2 more at age 43. He would never be considered greater than a 20 slam winner but one can argue winning 2 slams at 43 is harder to achieve (nobody ever achieved it in the end).

Why do you rate a GUY with 17FO + 1W + 1AO + 1USO as better than a guy with 20FO + 0W + 0AO + 0USO ? So you want the second player to be less great on clay to be a better player overall ?

Because even if some folks exaggerate the importance of versatility, tennis is still played on multiple surfaces and being inept of some of them does hurt you in GOAT debate.

Versatility is not at all special. A guy who won wimbledon and is in great form that year will also win at least 1 HC slam, it is the french which is harder to come with W, not the other 2 slams, so how exactly is Federer the loser versatile? His 5+ wins on 3 different slams making him looks more versatile than Rafa but Rafa has won DCGS while Fed thanks to Soderling won his CGS. So I would say versatility is overrated because Federer already had an edge over Nadal at more slams and yet he was that inferior to have emerged with less slams.

Who spoke about Federer and Nadal?, I was talking in general that versatility can serve as a tie breaker but nothing more.

Now you want Usain to win 2 Golds at 100M and 1 extra gold at 800M and then you are gonna say see Usian is greater ? Why ? Usain is defined by his 100M, diminishing him there won't help because nobody asked Usain to prove his mettle at 800M, you have better guys for that, specialists, why worry ? Just let Usain shine more at what he does, it is harder to collect an extra olympic gold at an extra olympics 4 years later than to collect an additional gold at something else somewhere

Completely pointless comparison. 100 m and 800 m are different disciplines and while many athletes have competed in both 100 and 200 or 200 and 400, nobody has ever competed in 100 and 800 including Bolt. In tennis, players play all four slams every year so if there are some you never win it means you lose it every year. By the way what you say is also not correct. Even in track and field versatility is valued highly. Carl Lewis was also in GOAT discussions because he mastered different disciplines (100 m, 200 m, long-jump). If he had only competed in 100 m his greatness would have suffered.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

How can one be so clueless in analyzing?

Any arguments or only insults? If it is so wrong it should be easy for you to refute wouldn’t it? So please explain me why Nadal had it the easiest out of the three.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

100 and 800 are two abs different universes, while four slams are one universe plus having same value

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

100 and 800 are two abs different universes, while four slams are one universe plus having same value

Exactly.

 

[Neptune]

Any arguments or only insults? If it is so wrong it should be easy for you to refute wouldn’t it? So please explain me why Nadal had it the easiest out of the three.

Rafa and Nole have faced each other 18 times in Slam

On Rafa's strongest surface, clay (Nole's weakest), 1/4 of the Slams constitute more than half of their encounters, totaling 10. These matches often occur before the final, with the strategy to eliminate Nole early and reduce uncertainty.

However, on Nole's strongest surface, hardcourt, which accounts for 1/2 of the Slams, they've met only 5 times, all in finals. This suggests a deliberate placement of Rafa on the other side of the draw to create an opportunity for a potential steal of title.

Do you understand?

 

[nolefam_2024]

The GOATkovic explained everything that you need to see.

We are basically seeing number 2 player of open era vs clay GOAT.

 

[GoatNo1]

Agreed. But Fed dominated that era more than anyone ever did in history. Its only by 2009 that he was starting to get neutralized by the younger generation. When he changed his racket in 2014, he turned most of the H2H on their heads as well.

2014 ->	Novak Djokovic	Rafael Nadal	Andy Murray
Roger Federer	36.8% (7-12)	75.0% (6-2)	100.0% (5-0)

GS 2014 ->	Novak Djokovic	Rafael Nadal	Andy Murray
Roger Federer	0.0% (0-6)	50.0% (2-2)	100.0% (2-0)

 

[nolefam_2024]

2014 ->	Novak Djokovic	Rafael Nadal	Andy Murray
Roger Federer	36.8% (7-12)	75.0% (6-2)	100.0% (5-0)

GS 2014 ->	Novak Djokovic	Rafael Nadal	Andy Murray
Roger Federer	0.0% (0-6)	50.0% (2-2)	100.0% (2-0)

Ofcourse on Djokovic he couldn't. I meant Murray Berdych Nadal and the rest.

 

[Hitman]

He can't be the GOAT even if he had 23 slams. Nole was banned and still just 1 behind. What would happen if Nole is unleashed. Same thing that happened in 2023. It would be our guy winning 3 slams in 2022 getting to 24 while Rafa would remain at 21 and single CGS.

Very hyperbolic to call him the GOAT when he lags in every other metric and even in slams it is SO dubious.

I had Nadal as GOAT after AO 2022, that is my personal opinion that if I had to pick a GOAT, it would be Nadal. The slam count is seen as the biggest and most important record in defining the GOAT.

Nadal for me went past everyone after AO 2022, but was only put back into second place once Djokovic equalled his slam count.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I had Nadal as GOAT after AO 2022, that is my personal opinion that if I had to pick a GOAT, it would be Nadal. The slam count is seen as the biggest and most important record in defining the GOAT.

Nadal for me went past everyone after AO 2022, but was only put back into second place once Djokovic equalled his slam count.

People like these is why tennis discourse is so bad. Slam count alone doesn't justify everything.

 

[Hitman]

People like these is why tennis discourse is so bad. Slam count alone doesn't justify everything.

Slam count is seen as the biggest thing, if slam count is equal, then other records are brought into it. Federer was considered GOAT after RG 2009, despite having less weeks at number one and less year ending number ones that Sampras at the time, and even less Wimbledon titles.

 

[GoatNo1]

So there's only BIG 2, not 3 ?

OP conveniently left out Djokovic in this discussion since he's the 3rd wheeler

 

[nolefam_2024]

Slam count is seen as the biggest thing, if slam count is equal, then other records are brought into it. Federer was considered GOAT after RG 2009, despite having less weeks at number one and less year ending number ones that Sampras at the time, and even less Wimbledon titles.

He had freaking 3 seasons as 3 slam winner, 4 RG finals and 1 RG title over Sampras. He was also just 27 then unlike Pete who was 32 winning the last slam. Only a borg like decision was ever going to force Fed out of creating a monumental difference in every single criteria.

 

[Hitman]

He had freaking 3 seasons as 3 slam winner, 4 RG finals and 1 RG title over Sampras. He was also just 27 then unlike Pete who was 32 winning the last slam. Only a borg like decision was ever going to force Fed out of creating a monumental difference in every single criteria.

Yes, it is built on his slam achievements, that is the point. Federer equalled the slam count, most saw him as greater. He won Wimbledon, even more saw him above Sampras. The other records were mentioned.

 

[JoshDragon]

I don't care anymore.

 

[GoatNo1]

Slam count is seen as the biggest thing, if slam count is equal, then other records are brought into it. Federer was considered GOAT after RG 2009, despite having less weeks at number one and less year ending number ones that Sampras at the time, and even less Wimbledon titles.

and yet, in all GOAT polls online, fed has 3-4 times as many votes as rafa despite 2 slams deficit!

 

[Razer]

I said winning a masters 20 times is harder than winning 20 slams in total, of course not harder than winning a slam 20 times. To win a masters 20 times you need to be on a high level for minimum 20 years and don’t have an off-day in all those years. Never happened and not gonna happen while there are three players who have won 20+ slams. Nevertheless a player who wins let’s say 8 slams and on top of that one and the same masters 20 times will never be considered greater than a guy who wins a total of 20 slams, this is what I meant with “being harder to achieve” does not equal “greater achievement”. The two slams at 43 was also an example. Let’s assume a guy wins 5 slams in his 20s and 30s and then 2 more at age 43. He would never be considered greater than a 20 slam winner but one can argue winning 2 slams at 43 is harder to achieve (nobody ever achieved it in the end).

Because even if some folks exaggerate the importance of versatility, tennis is still played on multiple surfaces and being inept of some of them does hurt you in GOAT debate.

Who spoke about Federer and Nadal?, I was talking in general that versatility can serve as a tie breaker but nothing more.

Completely pointless comparison. 100 m and 800 m are different disciplines and while many athletes have competed in both 100 and 200 or 200 and 400, nobody has ever competed in 100 and 800 including Bolt. In tennis, players play all four slams every year so if there are some you never win it means you lose it every year. By the way what you say is also not correct. Even in track and field versatility is valued highly. Carl Lewis was also in GOAT discussions because he mastered different disciplines (100 m, 200 m, long-jump). If he had only competed in 100 m his greatness would have suffered.

Carl Lewis was not great enough to win 3 gold medals in 100M olympics, so I think he would have been greater if he could have done that.

I dont think being indept on other surfaces rules you out. Agassi was competent on all surface and yet he is not as great as Lendl or Connors or Mcenroe who dont have a CGS....Agassi is more in the Becker tier than in Lendl's tier, versatility is overrated bigtime. It cannot serve as a tie breaker.

H2H will be the tie breaker if you have same number of slams..... plus in reality a tie is a tie, there is no tie breaker. 20=20, you need 21 to be above 20. Rest of the little BO3 stuff are all not important.... globally most people dont even watch the masters tourneys or 500s or 250s, they are all just means to add your rankings points and paychecks, nothing more.... only h2h could be tie breaker man.... If Federer and Nadal had 20 slams each then Nadal would always shut down any argument by saying that Federer was my pigeon..... case closed.... Federer has no base to stand on if slam count is same, versatilitiy is never a tie breaker

 

[nolefam_2024]

and yet, in all GOAT polls online, fed has 3-4 times as many votes as rafa despite 2 slams deficit!

Exactly. In most votes, Fed is now behind Nole as well.

 

[Jonesy]

This forum is already taken, let's divide in two team of Nole fans, team 1 support fed while team 2 support nadal, while making an effort that we actually care about who has the better claim.

 

[jondice]

It's Rafa. Tennis is about winning slams and big tourneys. Rafa has more of both. And, of course, the head to head. Fed is amazing and his weeks at number one and YEC certainly warrant the question being asked, but those are mitigated, again, by Slams, total big tourneys and head to head.

Against all odds, the end result of the Big 3 is Novak then Rafa then Fed.

 

[Razer]

Slam count is seen as the biggest thing, if slam count is equal, then other records are brought into it. Federer was considered GOAT after RG 2009, despite having less weeks at number one and less year ending number ones that Sampras at the time, and even less Wimbledon titles.

You are contradicting your own rules.

Sampras had more weeks at 1 and year end 1s than Federer even when they were 14=14, so how exactly was Federer ahead ?

Truth is if slam counts are tied then even the weeks and such stuffs dont matter, players are truly tied. Majority of fans worldwide only see slam counts & H2H...then comes rank 1 stats..... rest of the stats are nerd stufFs...

Federer only crossed Sampras at wimbledon 2009.... not at French open 2009

 

[GoatNo1]

Exactly. In most votes, Fed is now behind Nole as well.

nole has 60+% votes in pretty much all polls. rafa is usually single-digit.

 

[GoatNo1]

It's Rafa. Tennis is about winning slams and big tourneys. Rafa has more of both. And, of course, the head to head. Fed is amazing and his weeks at number one and YEC certainly warrant the question being asked, but those are mitigated, again, by Slams, total big tourneys and head to head.

Against all odds, the end result of the Big 3 is Novak then Rafa then Fed.

in ALL sports, and tennis is no exception, the greatest achievement is to be the best at what you do! and only no1 means you are the best not slams. slams means you were the best in that single tournament. no1 means that you are currently the best player, aside from the political BS of recent years!

 

[Hitman]

and yet, in all GOAT polls online, fed has 3-4 times as many votes as rafa despite 2 slams deficit!

I am talking about my personal opinion, am I not?

 

[MichaelNadal]

People like these is why tennis discourse is so bad. Slam count alone doesn't justify everything.

You need to see an EXPERT doctor for your Nadal hate lol. Go eat something and tell a family member you love them. Sheesh

 

[Neptune]

The GOATkovic explained everything that you need to see.

We are basically seeing number 2 player of open era vs clay GOAT.

Rigged Slam draws, designed to facilitate a Fed-Rafa final (we know who need more help to reach final) early, and hinder Nole later, end up assisting Rafa in surpassing Fed in slam count.

One chart depicting 12 consecutive non-clay Slam draws highlights the absurdity of the rigging. (During that period, Davydenko, Rafa's apparent master on hardcourt, and those are all the 6 HC slams they both participated.) The math: 23 consecutive heads in coin tosses, shameless rigging.

 

[Hitman]

You are contradicting your own rules.

Sampras had more weeks at 1 and year end 1s than Federer even when they were 14=14, so how exactly was Federer ahead ?

Truth is if slam counts are tied then even the weeks and such stuffs dont matter, players are truly tied. Majority of fans worldwide only see slam counts & H2H...then comes rank 1 stats..... rest of the stats are nerd stufFs...

Federer only crossed Sampras at wimbledon 2009.... not at French open 2009

Because they saw Federer holding all four slams. His 14 looked superior.

 

[RS]

 

[Deleted member 758560]

a la diego 86 world cup epic run

 

[RS]

a la diego 86 world cup epic run

Maradona's was more important but I like Messi's more

 

[Razer]

Because they saw Federer holding all four slams. His 14 looked superior.

LOL.... 14 cannot be superior to 14 because it is still 14...... This is not a rolex commercial.

We saw Federer losing to Nadal on all 3 surfaces in Slams in the 12 months before RG09, it was a very miserable period for a Fed fan, so suddenly Soderling beating Nadal and Federer winning French would not put him above Sampras.

Federer had a few people calling him the greatest ever since 2004, but the official consensus by the media was only obtained after Wimbledon 2009. Just because Pete was magnanimous to call Fed best at 14 or Jmac in his exaggerated ways called Fed the best & asked if he could hold the trophy because he has never won .... does not mean the consensus was obtained. WImbledon 2009 is what sealed it, thats why Laver and Borg were there along with Sampras.

 

[RS]

Might just spam GIF's.

 

[Hitman]

LOL.... 14 cannot be superior to 14 because it is still 14...... This is not a rolex commercial.

We saw Federer losing to Nadal on all 3 surfaces in Slams in the 12 months before RG09, it was a very miserable period for a Fed fan, so suddenly Soderling beating Nadal and Federer winning French would not put him above Sampras.

Federer had a few people calling him the greatest ever since 2004, but the official consensus by the media was only obtained after Wimbledon 2009. Just because Pete was magnanimous to call Fed best at 14 or Jmac in his exaggerated ways called Fed the best & asked if he could hold the trophy because he has never won .... does not mean the consensus was obtained. WImbledon 2009 is what sealed it, thats why Laver and Borg were there along with Sampras.

14 Wimbledon titles is not superior than 14 over all four slams. Tennis is about mastery of all the surfaces. Federer was seen as GOAT in the States, I remember it being everywhere post RG.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

 

[RS]

WC you can't beat it

 

[Razer]

14 Wimbledon titles is not superior than 14 over all four slams. Tennis is about mastery of all the surfaces. Federer was seen as GOAT in the States, I remember it being everywhere post RG.

You are not able to understand the significance of 14 Wimbledons.

Someone winning 14 Wimbledons will win at least 30 slams ... minimum.... Slam counts of any wimbledon champ (3 or more) has been 2X or more.

Becker - won 3 W .... Total Slams 6
Mcenroe - won 3 W .... Total Slams 7
Borg - won 5 W .... Total Slams 11
Sampras - won 7 W .... Total Slams 14
Djokovic - won 7 W .... Total Slams 24
Federer - won 8 W .... Total Slams 20

You won't have someone winning 14W and being on par with Sampras or Federer, that person would be GOAT.

Being a 1 trick pony becomes more and more valuable as your slam count goes up...... Versatility is overrated nonsense.

Federer being rated ahead in US or even globally with 14 does not matter, fans can think whatever they want, but the official consensus was only obtained at 15. If Federer had suffered a career ending injury after wimbledon 09 then today Sampras and Federer be seen tied.... all the recency bias in 09 seems to have vanished today, now when you look at Federer he looks like 3rd best of his era, a man who cheated us into believing that he was special, goat and what not, his losses to Nadal always gave us hints that he is fraud but we never could come to terms with it, today see where we are ?

 

[Hitman]

You are not able to understand the significance of 14 Wimbledons.

Someone winning 14 Wimbledons will win at least 30 slams ... minimum.... Slam counts of any wimbledon champ (3 or more) has been 2X or more.

Becker - won 3 W .... Total Slams 6
Mcenroe - won 3 W .... Total Slams 7
Borg - won 5 W .... Total Slams 11
Sampras - won 7 W .... Total Slams 14
Djokovic - won 7 W .... Total Slams 24
Federer - won 8 W .... Total Slams 20

You won't have someone winning 14W and being on par with Sampras or Federer, that person would be GOAT.

Being a 1 trick pony becomes more and more valuable as your slam count goes up...... Versatility is overrated nonsense.

Federer being rated ahead in US or even globally with 14 does not matter, fans can think whatever they want, but the official consensus was only obtained at 15. If Federer had suffered a career ending injury after wimbledon 09 then today Sampras and Federer be seen tied.... all the recency bias in 09 seems to have vanished today, now when you look at Federer he looks like 3rd best of his era, a man who cheated us into believing that he was special, goat and what not, his losses to Nadal always gave us hints that he is fraud but we never could come to terms with it, today see where we are ?

I have to say, I disagree with this.

 

[NoleFam]

Rodja

LOL.... 14 cannot be superior to 14 because it is still 14...... This is not a rolex commercial.

We saw Federer losing to Nadal on all 3 surfaces in Slams in the 12 months before RG09, it was a very miserable period for a Fed fan, so suddenly Soderling beating Nadal and Federer winning French would not put him above Sampras.

Federer had a few people calling him the greatest ever since 2004, but the official consensus by the media was only obtained after Wimbledon 2009. Just because Pete was magnanimous to call Fed best at 14 or Jmac in his exaggerated ways called Fed the best & asked if he could hold the trophy because he has never won .... does not mean the consensus was obtained. WImbledon 2009 is what sealed it, thats why Laver and Borg were there along with Sampras.

You have to understand how important the career grand Slam is, and how rare it was back then. Agassi was the 1st guy to do it after Laver/Emerson and it was a massive deal. Borg couldn't do it, Connors couldn't, neither Mac, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, nor Sampras. Only Agassi. So someone with a career Grand Slam tied with someone without a career Grand Slam would definitely be placed above the one without it by a vast majority of the tennis historians, coaches, players, and commentators.

 

[Razer]

Rodja

You have to understand how important the career grand Slam is, and how rare it was back then. Agassi was the 1st guy to do it after Laver/Emerson and it was a massive deal. Borg couldn't do it, Connors couldn't, neither Mac, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, nor Sampras. Only Agassi. So someone with a career Grand Slam tied with someone without a career Grand Slam would definitely be placed above the one without it by a vast majority of the tennis historians, coaches, players, and commentators.

Nope, CGS is a modern concept, you cannot retroactively penalize Sampras for not wining the French open.

Before the era of homogenization nobody used terms like CGS in the media, show me any article of Agassi's CGS being mentioned as a term in 1999. You cannot because back in the 1990s wimbledon itself was a more prestigious slam than other 3. US open itself was more prestigious than a French or AO ... the AO was the least prestigious. Boris Becker with 6 slams only was a bigger name worldwide than Lendl because of 3 wimbledons that are greater than 3 french opens... the way the world looked at tennis was different pre homog and post homog, you are mixing the 2. Nobody considered Agassi even better than Becker in the early 2000s because Becker's wimbledons were a big deal even then, later on CGS term was coined in the post 02 era.

Nobody cared if Borg couldn't CGS. Borg only won 2 slams out of 4 but he is respected for 5 Wimbledon alone and 6 Frenchs. Those 5 straight WImbledons alone kept his name shining in the media. That era was judged on Slams prestige along with ATP Finals & davis cups, not on CGS..... Penalizing Sampras for his lack of french was all started by Roger Federer fans itself. It is cruel karma for Roger that he lived and had to die by his own sword, what was marketed as CGS became DCGS later on and now TCGS, in future it will even become QCGS. Then what? Will you penalize Sampras for not winning all 4 slams at least 3-4 times?

Sampras was exceptional on fast courts, so not winning all 4 slams is a price to pay for him, even Federer has not been that exceptional on fast courts because courts have never been that fast since 02, so why would Fed's CGS hold that much weightage now? Absolutely not. 14 Slams are 14 Slams only. Federer was actually rated ahead of Sampras long before he reached 14, but that doesnt mean the official consensus ws obtained on 14, that only happened on 15, thats why the legends were all there to click pics with him.

So someone with a career Grand Slam tied with someone without a career Grand Slam would definitely be placed above the one without it by a vast majority of the tennis historians, coaches, players, and commentators.

Try winning 3AO, 2FO, 2W and 2USO, you will be rated below Borg with 5W & 6FO .....the big numbers are more eye catching ... the whole world speaks of Nadal's 14 french opens... because it is the greatest feat in Tennis .... to overshadow that you need a higher slam count.... as simple as that.

 

[NoleFam]

Nope, CGS is a modern concept, you cannot retroactively penalize Sampras for not wining the French open.

Before the era of homogenization nobody used terms like CGS in the media, show me any article of Agassi's CGS being mentioned as a term in 1999. You cannot because back in the 1990s wimbledon itself was a more prestigious slam than other 3. US open itself was more prestigious than a French or AO ... the AO was the least prestigious. Boris Becker with 6 slams only was a bigger name worldwide than Lendl because of 3 wimbledons that are greater than 3 french opens... the way the world looked at tennis was different pre homog and post homog, you are mixing the 2. Nobody considered Agassi even better than Becker in the early 2000s because Becker's wimbledons were a big deal even then, later on CGS term was coined in the post 02 era.

Nobody cared if Borg couldn't CGS. Borg only won 2 slams out of 4 but he is respected for 5 Wimbledon alone and 6 Frenchs. Those 5 straight WImbledons alone kept his name shining in the media. That era was judged on Slams prestige along with ATP Finals & davis cups, not on CGS..... Penalizing Sampras for his lack of french was all started by Roger Federer fans itself. It is cruel karma for Roger that he lived and had to die by his own sword, what was marketed as CGS became DCGS later on and now TCGS, in future it will even become QCGS. Then what? Will you penalize Sampras for not winning all 4 slams at least 3-4 times?

Sampras was exceptional on fast courts, so not winning all 4 slams is a price to pay for him, even Federer has not been that exceptional on fast courts because courts have never been that fast since 02, so why would Fed's CGS hold that much weightage now? Absolutely not. 14 Slams are 14 Slams only. Federer was actually rated ahead of Sampras long before he reached 14, but that doesnt mean the official consensus ws obtained on 14, that only happened on 15, thats why the legends were all there to click pics with him.



Try winning 3AO, 2FO, 2W and 2USO, you will be rated below Borg with 5W & 6FO .....the big numbers are more eye catching ... the whole world speaks of Nadal's 14 french opens... because it is the greatest feat in Tennis .... to overshadow that you need a higher slam count.... as simple as that.

Agassi achieved the career Grand Slam 20 years before Federer did it. 20 years and 1 month to be close to exact, and I remember how big of a deal it was because I watched that '99 RG final he played against Medvedev in real time. I remember the conversation after that and I remember how big of a deal the media made when he did it, so it's not a concept tied to Federer and the modern era.

It was Agassi who reinvigorated it, and he was definitely rated above Becker but below Lendl and Connors back then, because of their #1 records. You're saying a lot of things that I'm not saying, and I'm not penalizing Sampras for not winning it. I'm just saying Federer's 14 was seen as better by the majority when he got the career Grand Slam.

 

[Neptune]

Agassi achieved the career Grand Slam 20 years before Federer did it. 20 years and 1 month to be close to exact, and I remember how big of a deal it was because I watched that '99 RG final he played against Medvedev in real time. I remember the conversation after that and I remember how big of a deal the media made when he did it, so it's not a concept tied to Federer and the modern era.

It was Agassi who reinvigorated it, and he was definitely rated above Becker but below Lendl and Connors back then, because of their #1 records. You're saying a lot of things that I'm not saying, and I'm not penalizing Sampras for not winning it. I'm just saying Federer's 14 was seen as better by the majority when he got the career Grand Slam.

Nole Slam = Calendar Slam (&3 surfaces) + YEC = SUPER CGS within a year
And I guess they don't make it a big deal because it is Nole?

 

[NoleFam]

Nole Slam = Calendar Slam (&3 surfaces) + YEC = SUPER CGS within a year
And I guess they don't make it a big deal because it is Nole?

Well the argument is now that it's not as difficult so some feel the career Grand Slam doesn't hold the same weight as in the 90s. There's some truth to it being more difficult in the 90s because the surfaces were more polarizing so only Agassi has the bragging rights of doing it on slow clay, the older grass, fast decoturf and sticky rebound ace. I have to give him his due on that because that was an immense achievement. Djokovic doing it 3 times though is incredible and tbh, I think he would have been the only one to do it more than once since Laver if covid and the politics thereafter didn't happen.

 

[NoleFam]

Here are three articles from mainstream media from 1999 when Agassi won RG so you can get an idea of what they thought about it and what conversation was like, in case anyone wants to read them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/tennis/longterm/1999/french/articles/french7.htm

Andre in Giant Company Now

French Open: Emotional Agassi rallies after losing first two sets to take singles championship and become only the fifth man to win all four Grand Slam events.

www.latimes.com

TENNIS; Agassi Revival Reaches a Peak In French Open (Published 1999)

Andre Agassi captures French Open singles title, to become fifth man in tennis history to win all four Grand Slam events--Australian, French and United States Opens and Wimbledon; Agassi defeats Andrei Medvedev after losing first two sets; for Agassi, this is latest and most significant...

www.nytimes.com