GOAT: Federer or Nadal?

Fed's got the GS record and a broader range of titles while Nadal's got the h2h by a wide margin. So who's the GOAT, or should we wait until they're both done playing?
 

fednad

Hall of Fame
Fed's got the GS record and a broader range of titles while Nadal's got the h2h by a wide margin. So who's the GOAT, or should we wait until they're both done playing?
GOAT was one that my grandmother had years back.
It had big horns and could take 360 degree turn at one position.
 

kanamit

Hall of Fame
Oh, yes. This is a thread that was just dying to be made since this topic is rarely ever discussed in these parts.
 

romeo8880

G.O.A.T.
Nadal only has the H2H by a wide margin because of clay. On other surfaces they are pretty much even.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Fed's got the GS record and a broader range of titles while Nadal's got the h2h by a wide margin. So who's the GOAT, or should we wait until they're both done playing?
2000 posts are you're still yet to comprehend that the head to head doesn't matter. Whole achievements matter such as winning majors or holding the #1 ranking.

If you disagree please explain why Nadals has a 0-0 h2h with Sampras and Federer a 0-0 h2h with Laver.

How can any of them possibly be GOAT if they have only a 50% record against different-era candidates?

17-12 and 302-102 are the only h2h stats that really matter here.
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Fed's got the GS record and a broader range of titles while Nadal's got the h2h by a wide margin. So who's the GOAT, or should we wait until they're both done playing?
I think this is an excellent thread.

Personally, I think if any of these can stake a serious claim currently to being the best ever, it's Roger. Nadal is now firmly in the top 10 maybe even 5 of the Open Era and in 2 or 3 years we may see him as being a greater player than Roger Federer.
 

zam88

Professional
Is this on clay?

I definitely think Nadal is better than Federer on clay.

Then again, I think Nadal is better than anyone ever on clay and I think it's highly likely to stay that way until I'm either too old to care or am dead.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Is this on clay?

I definitely think Nadal is better than Federer on clay.

Then again, I think Nadal is better than anyone ever on clay and I think it's highly likely to stay that way until I'm either too old to care or am dead.
Why did you have to bring your death into all this ? :(
 

zam88

Professional
Why did you have to bring your death into all this ? :(
Goat only matters while you're alive.

Some dead dude probably thinks Bill Tilden or someone was the GOAT.

Someday every poster on here will be dead and then some dude might rip off 4 consecutive CYGS's and render the entire discussion moot.

mind.blown.
 
I probably wouldnt have either top 3 with Gonzales, Laver, and Rosewall. Probably they are 4th and 5th right behind them with Federer 4th just ahead of Nadal in 5th for now.
 

pds999

Hall of Fame
Djokovic>Nadal>Federer
One thing is absolutely for sure: Djokovic is not in the equation at all, not even close. He may come to be in time, but it is a bit of an insult to Nadal and Federer to include him right now. 6 slams and an inferior H2H against either. In fact, take 2011 out of the equation (which let's be fair Djok hasn't looked like repeating since) and he is even further off. If you are including Djokovic then you may as well be including Wilander and Edberg.
 
Last edited:

Murrayfan31

Hall of Fame
One thing is absolutely for sure: Djokovic is not in the equation at all, not even close. He may come to be in time, but it is a bit of an insult to Nadal and Federer to include him right now. 6 slams and an inferior H2H against either. In fact, take 2011 out of the equation (which let's be fair Djok hasn't looked like repeating since) and he is even further off. If you are including Djokovic then you may as well be including Wilander and Edberg.
Djokovic has many more slams in him. And he just like Federer wins many RG's if it wasn't for Nadal.
 

NN-1

New User
One thing is absolutely for sure: Nadal is not in the equation at all, not even close. He may come to be in time, but it is a bit of an insult to Sampras and Federer to include him right now. 12 slams and inferior weeks at #1 and YE#1's. In fact, take 2010 out of the equation (which let's be fair Nad hasn't looked like repeating since) and he is even further off. If you are including Nadal then you may as well be including Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, and Agassi.
 

RF_fan

Semi-Pro
Lendl is 21:15 vs. McEnroe, but nobody really puts much significance into it in determining who was better. Becker was 25:10 vs. Edberg, yet both with 6 grand slam titles are considered about equal.
 

NikeWilson

Semi-Pro
Well when it comes to numbers, Federer's 17 Slams trumps Nadal's 12. Most casual fans and non-tennis fans will stop there.
But when you take a closer look, you have to take into consideration that Federer played against a very weak field from 2003-2007.
The weakest field in tennis history. There was really no true formidable foe that was talented enough to challenge Federer back then.
 

axel89

Banned
Well when it comes to numbers, Federer's 17 Slams trumps Nadal's 12. Most casual fans and non-tennis fans will stop there.
But when you take a closer look, you have to take into consideration that Federer played against a very weak field from 2003-2007.
The weakest field in tennis history. There was really no true formidable foe that was talented enough to challenge Federer back then.
finally someone who believes in weak era federer era was a cOMPLETE JOKE
 

RF_fan

Semi-Pro
Well when it comes to numbers, Federer's 17 Slams trumps Nadal's 12. Most casual fans and non-tennis fans will stop there.
But when you take a closer look, you have to take into consideration that Federer played against a very weak field from 2003-2007.
The weakest field in tennis history. There was really no true formidable foe that was talented enough to challenge Federer back then.
That's very debatable. What makes you think his era was weak? Is there good evidence that his opponents were weaker than ones Sampras played against in 1993-2000?
 

Masayoshi

Semi-Pro
There is no GOAT, and note that I'm distinguishing between Greatest and Most Successful. Federer comes closest, as he's the most successful - his weakest Slam is Roland-Garros, with 1 title, and 5 finals losses against the greatest clay court player who ever lived.

But questions about his H2H are valid, as well as the different eras, which is the main thing that makes a GOAT impossible to declare. Borg's achievements, for example, make him a very strong candidate, winning on vastly different surfaces for a long stretch.

But if you lined up all the all-time greats and put them in a single era with the same training and equipment, who knows who would actually come out on top? It could be Fed, or Laver, or Borg, or Sampras, or [gasp] even Nadal.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Federer is pretty much the greatest for now, but we will have to see how Nadal ends his career. It's possible he outdoes Federer by winning a few more RGs and a few slams outside his realm as well. Either way, it's pretty insane that a kid dominated a slam since he was 18, and became a grown man 10 years older and still pretty much dominated it the entire time. Only one guy could beat him, in a fluke but noteworthy effort.

And even if Nadal beats the slam record, the level of play will probably continue to increase as long as the ATP continues for a few more decades. Players the caliber of a Federer or Nadal may pop up more often in the future, natural tennis creatures who have access to even better training methods and fine-tuned techniques than those of today.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Well when it comes to numbers, Federer's 17 Slams trumps Nadal's 12. Most casual fans and non-tennis fans will stop there.
But when you take a closer look, you have to take into consideration that Federer played against a very weak field from 2003-2007.
The weakest field in tennis history. There was really no true formidable foe that was talented enough to challenge Federer back then.
Yeah, because Federer raised the level of play higher than it had been before. It took a while for the field to catch up, even Nadal. It's like Bolt smashing the 100m record. It'll be a while before the next person breaks 9.5.

If people really want to talk about level of play, then level of play in 20 years will be even higher. It's all relative and for now Federer is pretty much the best. Unless Nadal beats his record. And someone else might win fewer slams in the future but play in a much tougher field.

Edit: whoops double.
 
Top