Federer vs Nadal Who Is Ahead As Of Now?

[Dwell]

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 .)

Something was off during the rafa/fed domination era for sure. it took an inhuman talent to break that weird dream. federer on hc and grass, rafa on hc and clay, Nike happy, Media happy, everyone happy. Eww
Thank god ultronovic appeared.

 

[Razer]

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.

Federer's 12 itself was seen as better than Pete's 14 by many in 2007, not all, but many, this was because of his Wimbledon and US open streaks at that time and his aura, the concentrated dominance & recency bias at that time. However the journey between 12 to 14 was excruciatingly painful. Those 1.5 years from his Mono until Nadal's loss to Soderling were so bad that it did affect the impact of his 14th win, his 13th win itself was one which he needed very badly, had he lost at uso08 more and more questions would have been asked on whether he would cross Sampras or not. The Aus open loss itself created doubts after that. So no, most media houses did not rate Federer as unanimous GOAT anymore than they did in 2007. The CGS really did not make him better at RG09. Reg Agassi and Becker, I am damn sure at least in Asia in our city in the early 2000s the tennis fans I knew of, i.e our uncles and seniors all used to talk of Becker-Sampras a lot. Agassi was rated below Becker at that time by them. Later on of course in this more slam centric era of Big 3 we have Agassi's stock that has grown since he has more slams than Becker and of course his CGS also has gained prominence. Today lot more people criticize Sampras for him not winning the French than hardly anyone who did 20 years ago. Thats what happens when a game gains new fans and they look at the past and form their own narratives to suit the current agendas and perceptions.

 

[NoleFam]

Federer's 12 itself was seen as better than Pete's 14 by many in 2007, not all, but many, this was because of his Wimbledon and US open streaks at that time and his aura, the concentrated dominance & recency bias at that time. However the journey between 12 to 14 was excruciatingly painful. Those 1.5 years from his Mono until Nadal's loss to Soderling were so bad that it did affect the impact of his 14th win, his 13th win itself was one which he needed very badly, had he lost at uso08 more and more questions would have been asked on whether he would cross Sampras or not. The Aus open loss itself created doubts after that. So no, most media houses did not rate Federer as unanimous GOAT anymore than they did in 2007. The CGS really did not make him better at RG09. Reg Agassi and Becker, I am damn sure at least in Asia in our city in the early 2000s the tennis fans I knew of, i.e our uncles and seniors all used to talk of Becker-Sampras a lot. Agassi was rated below Becker at that time by them. Later on of course in this more slam centric era of Big 3 we have Agassi's stock that has grown since he has more slams than Becker and of course his CGS also has gained prominence. Today lot more people criticize Sampras for him not winning the French than hardly anyone who did 20 years ago. Thats what happens when a game gains new fans and they look at the past and form their own narratives to suit the current agendas and perceptions.

Recency bias definitely changes things especially when it comes to Sampras but I remember Bud Collins (used to be a player then commentator) said on air that Sampras wasn't the GOAT because he didn't win the career Grand Slam. This was when other commentators were saying they thought he was the GOAT so the conversation was happening before the big 3. I think we saw the rest differently and I don't remember it happening with Federer the way you are describing it. I remember a clear shift for Federer after RG '09.

 

[Neptune]

Something was off during the rafa/fed domination era for sure. it took an inhuman talent to break that weird dream. federer on hc and grass, rafa on hc and clay, Nike happy, Media happy, everyone happy. Eww
Thank god ultronovic appeared.

12+5+6=23

the chart = 23 consecutive heads in coin tosses, shameless rigging

 

[Razer]

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

Ok cool...... so you have articles mentioning career grand slam in 1999 after Agassi won it since he cried after the win, made it a big deal.

But all this has been blown out of proportion in the Big 3 era. Fed fans and probably this Agassi himself has a huge role in hyping all this CGS and bringing down the importance of Pete's 14 slams.

Anyway, versatility is overrated. I rate people who dominate slams in unique ways higher than all this CGS or DCGS type things.... and a tied slam count is still a tie.

Recency bias definitely changes things especially when it comes to Sampras but I remember Bud Collins (used to be a player then commentator) said on air that Sampras wasn't the GOAT because he didn't win the career Grand Slam. This was when other commentators were saying they thought he was the GOAT so the conversation was happening before the big 3. I think we saw the rest differently and I don't remember it happening with Federer the way you are describing it. I remember a clear shift for Federer after RG '09.

You are right regarding CGS conversation existing before Big 3, but no man, RG 09 did not change anything that existed in 07 at the end of the US open because the year 2008 till the 09 AO was a very bad period as a fan. I remember clearly after the RG we were all relieved that Federer had equalled Pete, now we knew the 15th win will come eventually in future. If you are saying those sentiments were shared by many people and they declared Fed best already, it could be true (though the media did not declare it until wimbledon win) but what if Fed had got stuck on 14 ? Then ? A big injury to him? I guarantee you today he would look same as Pete and not higher if he had got stuck on 14. See perceptions take time to change but they do. The man who was considered a God is now considered third wheel. You think Fed on 14 now would be seen better than Pete's 14 ?

 

[Biotic]

Too bad he couldn't do it at WC. In a vacuum it's better than Diego's, but... WC is where it's at, and things were different back then... I'm afraid whatever Messi did it simply wouldn't measure up. Sadly, it's not the same sport anymore.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

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?

Not really much to do with what I said but anyways. The clay skew I already addressed so no reason to rehash it.

These matches often occur before the final, with the strategy to eliminate Nole early and reduce uncertainty.

Whether it is a final or a quarter/semi, Novak has the same chances to deny Nadal the title (as he did in both 2015 and 2021) so how does it give Nadal an advantage?

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.

Well you seem to think that the ‘strategy’ here is to hope Novak will lose early against someone else such that Nadal can win without facing him or what exactly is your point?

Do you understand?

Bro turn down your arrogance. You haven’t provided any good points in your three months here so not in the position to run your mouth.

 

[SinneGOAT]

its an eternal discussion lol

Yup see you next January to discuss the exact same question lol it never ends on this board.

 

[NoleFam]

Ok cool...... so you have articles mentioning career grand slam in 1999 after Agassi won it since he cried after the win, made it a big deal.

But all this has been blown out of proportion in the Big 3 era. Fed fans and probably this Agassi himself has a huge role in hyping all this CGS and bringing down the importance of Pete's 14 slams.

Anyway, versatility is overrated. I rate people who dominate slams in unique ways higher than all this CGS or DCGS type things.... and a tied slam count is still a tie.



You are right regarding CGS conversation existing before Big 3, but no man, RG 09 did not change anything that existed in 07 at the end of the US open because the year 2008 till the 09 AO was a very bad period as a fan. I remember clearly after the RG we were all relieved that Federer had equalled Pete, now we knew the 15th win will come eventually in future. If you are saying those sentiments were shared by many people and they declared Fed best already, it could be true but what if Fed had got stuck on 14 ? Then ? A big injury to him? I guarantee you today he would look same as Pete. See perceptions dont take time to change. The man who was considered a God is now considered third wheel.

I would say the career Grand Slam is not as big of a deal today as when Agassi did it. I can't remember how many times McEnroe talked about it after that. The reason probably is because it was 30 years before someone did it when Agassi did it. Then 20 years later, 3 men did it within a 7 year time frame so it lost it's elusiveness and rarity factor. Djokovic's double career Slam was kind of a big deal though since no one did it in 50+ years. This is the way you feel but versatility has always been rated high in tennis.

#14 and #15 happened so quickly for Federer that there wasn't a long period in between but McEnroe called him the GOAT after the RG win and said it on air when interviewing him. Others thought it as well. I remember them saying he was arguably the GOAT when he had 12 or 13 but the arguably was dropped after #14.

 

[Red Rick]

Nadal has gone from 2nd to being 2nd.

It's been a miracle to watch.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

recalling was reading one article about pete many many years ago, so the author was mentioning there too about him unlikely to be the goat without rg

 

[nolefam_2024]

Yup see you next January to discuss the exact same question lol it never ends on this board.

It will end soon. Once nadal retires, it will move to former pro section

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal has gone from 2nd to being 2nd.

It's been a miracle to watch.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

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.

Contradicting yourself in one sentence.

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

Agassi was competent on all surface and yet he is not as great as Lendl or Connors or Mcenroe who dont have a CGS

So first you say H2H is the only tiebreaker. Then you say there is no tiebreaker (20 = 20). Then you go back and say only H2H could be the tiebreaker and everything other than slams is meaningless but nevertheless argue Connors and Mac > Agassi even though Agassi has the same number of slams as Connors with superior H2H and one more slam than Mac (as according to you, slams is all that matters this should be a slam dunk for Andre). Is there any logic or consistency behind that?

 

[Neptune]

Whether it is a final or a quarter/semi, Novak has the same chances to deny Nadal the title (as he did in both 2015 and 2021) so how does it give Nadal an advantage?

What? so are you saying rigging draw does not matter?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

recalling was reading one article about pete many many years ago, so the author was mentioning there too about him unlikely to be the goat without rg

There are several articles about Pete’s attempts to win the FO and the implications on his GOAT status (all in German unfortunately but maybe can use DeepL).

From 2002:

Tennis: Sampras als leichte Beute

Insgesamt 13 Grand-Slam-Turniere hat Pete Sampras gewonnen, aber niemals die French Open in Paris. Er redet von Siegen als "Droge", doch die neue Generation der Tennisprofis zollt ihm keinen Respekt mehr.

www.spiegel.de

From 2000:

Pete Sampras: Verhasster Sand, geliebter Sand

In der Asche zu wühlen ist nicht sein Metier. Schon wieder scheiterte Pete Sampras auf den Sandplätzen von Roland Garros bei den French Open. Nun plagt ihn der Frust, weil für ihn ein Titel in Paris zu einer perfekten Karriere gehört.

www.spiegel.de

From 1997:

»Verlieren bedeutet Sterben«

Pete Sampras, im fünften Jahr die Nummer eins, ist ein Getriebener: Ein despotischer Kinderarzt formte ihn zum Abbild Rod Lavers. Und weil ihn eine Erbkrankheit plagt, glaubt Sampras sein Leben ausschließlich dem Sport widmen zu müssen. Von Klaus Brinkbäumer

www.spiegel.de

 

[Razer]

I would say the career Grand Slam is not as big of a deal today as when Agassi did it. I can't remember how many times McEnroe talked about it after that. The reason probably is because it was 30 years before someone did it when Agassi did it. Then 20 years later, 3 men did it within a 7 year time frame so it lost it's elusiveness and rarity factor. Djokovic's double career Slam was kind of a big deal though since no one did it in 50+ years. This is the way you feel but versatility has always been rated high in tennis.

#14 and #15 happened so quickly for Federer that there wasn't a long period in between but McEnroe called him the GOAT after the RG win and said it on air when interviewing him. Others thought it as well. I remember them saying he was arguably the GOAT when he had 12 or 13 but the arguably was dropped after #14. Here's proof of McEnroe thoughts and many shared his point of view.

Is Roger Federer The Best Ever?

We've seen it before: The smile of a champion; the tears of a winner; the passion of a conqueror - all familiar emotions from No. 1 tennis player Roger Federer after winning one of his 10 career Gran…

www.theledger.com

McEnroe called him the GOAT after RG because Mac never won RG, and he is more like a showman who exaggerates things. McEnroe is the biggest peddler of recency bias.

The media did not give Federer the unanimous consensus even after RG2009. The biggest reason for this was Federer's lopsided H2H to Nadal which was a big discussion back then. Even the guys who were saying Fed had won French which Pete never won knew of Federer having a losing h2h to Nadal. Thats why it was only after wimbledon 2009 that all the media houses declared him the best ever.

See wimbledon 2009 sealed it, the media declared it on then.

Roger Federer seals place in history with epic victory over Andy Roddick

Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in a five-set epic at Wimbledon to claim a record 15th grand slam title

www.theguardian.com

Federer Outlasts Roddick to Win Record 15th Major Title (Published 2009)

Roger Federer held off Andy Roddick and won the longest fifth set ever in a Grand Slam final, 16-14. With his 15th major singles title, he broke Pete Sampras’s mark.

www.nytimes.com

2009 Wimbledon Men's Singles Final Live Blog: Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick

Minute-by-minute analysis of today's men's singles final, won by Federer for his sixth Wimbledon title and record 15th Grand Slam.

www.wsj.com

Federer triumphs in another English epic

A year removed from one of the greatest Slam finals ever, Andy Roddick helped deliver an encore Sunday at Wimbledon before succumbing to Roger Federer 5-7, 7-6 (5), 7-6 (5), 16-14.

www.espn.com

See after RG 09 they were still asking question marks or saying Federer now has made a case. But it was not unanimous

The Greatest? Federer’s Victory Fills Last Hole on His Résumé (Published 2009)

With his victory over Robin Soderling in the French Open, Roger Federer tied the career record of 14 major singles titles held by Pete Sampras.

www.nytimes.com

headlines even at the guardian never called him goat

Roger Federer beats Robin Soderling to win French Open tennis

Roger Federer won his first French Open title and became only the sixth man to win all four grand slams with a comprehensive 6-1, 7-6,6-4 victory over Robin Soderling

www.theguardian.com

So the general perception was divided because 14 = 14, you cannot market Federer ahead ..... Number 15th did it @NoleFam Remember Federer (as pompous as he was) himself saying after RG 2009 that "now the question if am I the greatest? I donno but I have many things going my way ... " .....

So Fed himself had to say all this because it was still a debate at that point...... due to the Nadal factor..... number 15 sealed it...... not 14.

 

[mike danny]

This holds true for all of them. Nadal has the best overall slam record against the other two 21-10 and he played them most at their respective prime. You can quibble that they played a lot on clay but overall I cannot see how Nadal should have the weakest competition out of all three.

Definitely not.

 

[Razer]

Contradicting yourself in one sentence.


So first you say H2H is the only tiebreaker. Then you say there is no tiebreaker (20 = 20). Then you go back and say only H2H could be the tiebreaker and everything other than slams is meaningless but nevertheless argue Connors and Mac > Agassi even though Agassi has the same number of slams as Connors with superior H2H and one more slam than Mac (as according to you, slams is all that matters this should be a slam dunk for Andre). Is there any logic or consistency behind that?

Ehh.... I meant same slam counts for players of same era/generation means they are tied. Of course when you compare Connors with Agassi for 8=8 then it is not applicable, they are player from different eras man........ no contradiction from my side

 

[mike danny]

Most of what made him the goat has been obliterated.

But that's different from being erased.

 

[mike danny]

Good yes but 2006 was not yet prime Nadal on grass. He was considerably better in 2007-2010.

You made it sound like he wasn't that good though.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

There are several articles about Pete’s attempts to win the FO and the implications on his GOAT status (all in German unfortunately but maybe can use DeepL).

From 2002:

Tennis: Sampras als leichte Beute

Insgesamt 13 Grand-Slam-Turniere hat Pete Sampras gewonnen, aber niemals die French Open in Paris. Er redet von Siegen als "Droge", doch die neue Generation der Tennisprofis zollt ihm keinen Respekt mehr.

www.spiegel.de

From 2000:

Pete Sampras: Verhasster Sand, geliebter Sand

In der Asche zu wühlen ist nicht sein Metier. Schon wieder scheiterte Pete Sampras auf den Sandplätzen von Roland Garros bei den French Open. Nun plagt ihn der Frust, weil für ihn ein Titel in Paris zu einer perfekten Karriere gehört.

www.spiegel.de

From 1997:

»Verlieren bedeutet Sterben«

Pete Sampras, im fünften Jahr die Nummer eins, ist ein Getriebener: Ein despotischer Kinderarzt formte ihn zum Abbild Rod Lavers. Und weil ihn eine Erbkrankheit plagt, glaubt Sampras sein Leben ausschließlich dem Sport widmen zu müssen. Von Klaus Brinkbäumer

www.spiegel.de

@alexio : just to give short description. First article it says that if Pete’s reputation should be flawless he has to win the FO.
Second one says:

“On paper, the six-time Wimbledon champ would finally be the non plus ultra of the international tennis circus. But only on paper. "Because this title here in Paris is part of a perfect career" - this realization doesn't make things any easier for "Pistol Pete". Without perfection on all surfaces, as Sampras has known ever since his permanent rival Andre Agassi won all four Grand Slams, he will never be recognized as the best player of all time.”

Third article from 1997 talks about Pete Fischer asking him after every tournament win why he still hasn’t won the FO.

 

[NoleFam]

McEnroe called him the GOAT after RG because Mac never won RG, and he is more like a showman who exaggerates things. McEnroe is the biggest peddler of recency bias.

The media did not give Federer the unanimous consensus even after RG2009. The biggest reason for this was Federer's lopsided H2H to Nadal which was a big discussion back then. Even the guys who were saying Fed had won French which Pete never won knew of Federer having a losing h2h to Nadal. Thats why it was only after wimbledon 2009 that all the media houses declared him the best ever.

See wimbledon 2009 sealed it, the media declared it on then.

Roger Federer seals place in history with epic victory over Andy Roddick

Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in a five-set epic at Wimbledon to claim a record 15th grand slam title

www.theguardian.com

Federer Outlasts Roddick to Win Record 15th Major Title (Published 2009)

Roger Federer held off Andy Roddick and won the longest fifth set ever in a Grand Slam final, 16-14. With his 15th major singles title, he broke Pete Sampras’s mark.

www.nytimes.com

2009 Wimbledon Men's Singles Final Live Blog: Roger Federer vs. Andy Roddick

Minute-by-minute analysis of today's men's singles final, won by Federer for his sixth Wimbledon title and record 15th Grand Slam.

www.wsj.com

Federer triumphs in another English epic

A year removed from one of the greatest Slam finals ever, Andy Roddick helped deliver an encore Sunday at Wimbledon before succumbing to Roger Federer 5-7, 7-6 (5), 7-6 (5), 16-14.

www.espn.com

See after RG 09 they were still asking question marks or saying Federer now has made a case. But it was not unanimous

The Greatest? Federer’s Victory Fills Last Hole on His Résumé (Published 2009)

With his victory over Robin Soderling in the French Open, Roger Federer tied the career record of 14 major singles titles held by Pete Sampras.

www.nytimes.com

headlines even at the guardian never called him goat

Roger Federer beats Robin Soderling to win French Open tennis

Roger Federer won his first French Open title and became only the sixth man to win all four grand slams with a comprehensive 6-1, 7-6,6-4 victory over Robin Soderling

www.theguardian.com

So the general perception was divided because 14 = 14, you cannot market Federer ahead ..... Number 15th did it @NoleFam Remember Federer (as pompous as he was) himself saying after RG 2009 that "now the question if am I the greatest? I donno but I have many things going my way ... " .....

So Fed himself had to say all this because it was still a debate at that point...... due to the Nadal factor..... number 15 sealed it...... not 14.

I think we just saw and remember it differently.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Definitely not.

Yeah and that was actually my whole argument but certain posters here got me side-tracked with all kind of irrelevant stuff.

 

[Biotic]

But that's different from being erased.

Yeah well... He's still there like all other ATGs. I just don't think there was ever an option of anything other than #1 for Federer.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

You made it sound like he wasn't that good though.

I said nothing else than that this was a very young Nadal.

 

[Razer]

I think we just saw and remember it differently.

You and @BorgTheGOAT are right on the CGS thing being a big deal even before Federer despite all slams not being equal back then. I agree, my perception on Pete-Agassi was quite nascent back then in 00-01. So you guys are right, but regarding Fed's 14, I am dead sure he needed 15 to overtake Pete unanimously, anyway we can agree to disagree.

By the way, I myself used to look down upon Nadal until mid 2010s as a 1 trick pony, I used to think 1 trick ponies are inferior to people who can win more outside 1 surface. However as his slam count at french open entered double digits I kinda realized how special it really is. So today I am firmly convinced that a same total slam count has to be tied and you cannot use versatility as a tie breaker because that 14 french opens is so freakin mind boggling..... you need to respect that...... it is out of this planet.....

 

[Neptune]

This holds true for all of them. Nadal has the best overall slam record against the other two 21-10 and he played them most at their respective prime. You can quibble that they played a lot on clay but overall I cannot see how Nadal should have the weakest competition out of all three.

Nole and Fed excel on hardcourt (and grass), with clay being their weakest surface. Conversely, Rafa is the king of clay but is weaker on hardcourt (and grass).

If Rafa predominantly encounters them on clay and is placed on the opposite side of the non-clay slam draw, allowing Nole and Fed to battle before the final, it presents the weakest competition out of the big3.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nole and Fed excel on hardcourt (and grass), with clay being their weakest surface. Conversely, Rafa is the king of clay but is weaker on hardcourt (and grass).

If Rafa predominantly encounters them on clay and is placed on the opposite side of the non-clay slam draw, allowing Nole and Fed to battle before the final, it presents the weakest competition out of the big3.

H2H is pure bs

 

[Subway Tennis]

What do you mean with antithetical? Clay has way more history as a tennis surface than hard and is way more played on overall (on youth and hobby level) than both hard and grass.

It is also not true that Nadal trails everywhere else, if it was you would have a point. Nadal is ahead in masters, H2H, has the OG and is even with Fed in YE #1. If it was only the two slam difference I would agree with you (if Nadal was two slams ahead of Djoko I would maybe still have Novak ahead because other than Fed he really is leading Rafa everywhere else).

It’s always a good indicator of how much someone knows about tennis on a grass roots and historical level when they try and marginalise clay.

A lot of people don’t understand how important the surface was in exploding the popularity of the sport early on, and modernising the game, and how many tournaments are actually played on clay now.

If you grow up playing tennis at any half decent level, and you know anything about the base level of professional tennis, you know clay is in the lifeblood of the sport, and yet some people think of it as some kind of secondary code of tennis.

 

[Neptune]

H2H is pure bs

H2H is not pure bs, but Rafa slam H2H sure is.

The other thread and post#183 here expose it.

 

[RS]

Too bad he couldn't do it at WC. In a vacuum it's better than Diego's, but... WC is where it's at, and things were different back then... I'm afraid whatever Messi did it simply wouldn't measure up. Sadly, it's not the same sport anymore.

Yeah Maradona's has to rank higher because of the stage it was in. This goal is unbelievable though arguably Messi's best.

 

[nolefam_2024]

H2H is not pure bs, but Rafa slam H2H sure is.

The other thread and post#183 here expose it.

I mean Rafa's H2H argument

 

[Razer]

H2H is pure bs

I mean Rafa's H2H argument

H2H is very important in one on one competition.... no matter what the sport ..... It is the basic foundation of 1 on 1 comparison between 2 players if the slam counts are same.

Clay skew h2h is still h2h .... Federer could never beat Nadal on his home turf while Nadal did beat Fed on his.... thats why Fed is a loser today....

Had Federer avoided W 2008 loss, they would be tied at 21-21 ..... Had Fed beaten Nadal at his french open even once, it would be Fed on 22 and Nadal on 20 .... that is the how pivotal h2h is.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Nole and Fed excel on hardcourt (and grass), with clay being their weakest surface. Conversely, Rafa is the king of clay but is weaker on hardcourt (and grass).

If Rafa predominantly encounters them on clay and is placed on the opposite side of the non-clay slam draw, allowing Nole and Fed to battle before the final, it presents the weakest competition out of the big3.

Ok draws are rigged I get it but how relevant was this in reality?
How many slam finals outside clay did Fed and Nadal play where one of them had to face Djoker before? Answer is 1, the 2007 Wimbledon final where it was coincidently Nadal who had to play Novak in the semi.

So Rafa NEVER played Fed in any slam final outside clay where Fed had to ‘battle’ Djoko beforehand.

How many times did Nadal play Djoko in a slam final outside clay where one of them had to face Fed before? Answer 3 times with Novak having to face Fed twice and Rafa having to face Fed once in the semi.

So all in all nothing interesting coming out of those rigged draws. Other than Novak at USO 2010 there is not one case where Nadal beat one of the others where they had to battle it out in a prior round and let’s face it, USO 2010 Nadal would likely have beaten Djokovic anyways.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

H2H is very important in one on one competition.... no matter what the sport ..... It is the basic foundation of 1 on 1 comparison between 2 players if the slam counts are same.

Clay skew h2h is still h2h .... Federer could never beat Nadal on his home turf while Nadal did beat Fed on his.... thats why Fed is a loser today....

Had Federer avoided W 2008 loss, they would be tied at 21-21 ..... Had Fed beaten Nadal at his french open even once, it would be Fed on 22 and Nadal on 20 .... that is the how pivotal h2h is.

I have yet to see a boxer who lost the fight against the main rival being considered greatest because he dominated the ‘field’.

 

[Neptune]

Ok draws are rigged I get it but how relevant was this in reality?
How many slam finals outside clay did Fed and Nadal play where one of them had to face Djoker before? Answer is 1, the 2007 Wimbledon final where it was coincidently Nadal who had to play Novak in the semi.

So Rafa NEVER played Fed in any slam final outside clay where Fed had to ‘battle’ Djoko beforehand.

How many times did Nadal play Djoko in a slam final outside clay where one of them had to face Fed before? Answer 3 times with Novak having to face Fed twice and Rafa having to face Fed once in the semi.

So all in all nothing interesting coming out of those rigged draws. Other than Novak at USO 2010 there is not one case where Nadal beat one of the others where they had to battle it out in a prior round and let’s face it, USO 2010 Nadal would likely have beaten Djokovic anyways.

Check the other thread and post#183, just tip of the iceberg.

 

[Razer]

I have yet to see a boxer who lost the fight against the main rival being considered greatest because he dominated the ‘field’.

Yup.... In 1 on 1 competition where we compare players of same era, always the H2H will come into play.

Boxing is a contact sport, so it is applicable even more there. Tennis even though is non contact, like Djokovic said the other day, there is eye contact, there are words exchanged, you constantly trying to read the opponent .... it is very 1 on 1 and direct.......

This whole idea of H2H not being important because of a clay skew was first started by Federer fans, I know it because I was myself harping this thing right from the mid 2000s. Back then former players were all pointing towards the h2h as if it was a big deal, now guess what, by the time Fed retired we've understood that it is indeed a big deal since Nadal did emerge with more slams.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Take every single non clay H2H out of Fedal rivalry. Federer may win Wimbledon 2008, AO 2009 and AO 2014, while Nadal may win Wimby 2006 Wimby 2007 and AO 2017. They will be virtually the same.
The H2H skew is anyway much better for Fedal rivalry than it is for Rafole Rivalry.

Fedal met 14 times in grand slams and only 6 of them were on clay.
Its way worse for Rafole. They met 18 times in grand slams. 10 of them were on clay.

Why Federer doesn't lead vs Rafa even after removing clay? Because Fed could never invade Rafa's fortress while Rafa did it half the times outside his fortress. And that's why he maybe is a little behind of Rafa. But there is no reason for Rafole then. Rafa leads 11 : 7 but is going to be left so far behind by the time their careers get over. Its because of this SKEW Rafa adds vs his main rivals. I don't care for his clay exploits anymore. Haven't moved the needle after his la decima or dacima whatever it was.

 

[Phoenix*]

I have yet to see a boxer who lost the fight against the main rival being considered greatest because he dominated the ‘field’.

Fed did end up pigeoning him on hc. As the main surface on tour, its the most important h2h.

Coupled with a solid grass lead and he has easily won the war against Nadal.

 

[GabeT]

If you go by the slam count approach there’s no debate.

But if you don’t simply look at most slams won it’s hard to argue for Nadal here. Fed is a more “all around” player, ahead in 3 of the 4 slams and 2 of the 3 surfaces

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Fed did end up pigeoning him on hc. As the main surface on tour, its the most important h2h.

Coupled with a solid grass lead and he has easily won the war against Nadal.

Bro with all due respect no interest anymore in debate with you. Every single statement of yours is so hilariously wrong. You simply are a Nadal hater but unlike vive not even a funny one.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Fed did end up pigeoning him on hc. As the main surface on tour, its the most important h2h.

Coupled with a solid grass lead and he has easily won the war against Nadal.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

If you go by the slam count approach there’s no debate.

But if you don’t simply look at most slams won it’s a hard to argue for Nadal here. Fed is a more “all around” player, ahead in 3 of the 4 slams and 2 of the 3 surfaces

How do you argue against masters and H2H then?

 

[Phoenix*]

Bro with all due respect no interest anymore in debate with you. Every single statement of yours is so hilariously wrong. You simply are a Nadal hater but unlike vive not even a funny one.

Truth hurts.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Truth hurts.

I know you’re bad at math, so let me break it down for you. If you trail someone in the slam count and the H2H then you didn’t “win the war” lol.

 

[Phoenix*]

I know you’re bad at math, so let me break it down for you. If you trail someone in the slam count and the H2H then you didn’t “win the war” lol.

Let me correct you. Hard + grass = 2; Clay = 1

2 > 1

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I know you’re bad at math, so let me break it down for you. If you trail someone in the slam count and the H2H then you didn’t “win the war” lol.

You are seriously wasting your time bro. That guy is void of any logic at all.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Let me correct you. Hard + grass = 2; Clay = 1

2 > 1

22 > 20, 24 > 16

 

[Phoenix*]

22 > 20, 24 > 16

Cool. Still 2 > 1