How much does Fed's H2H against the Big 4 matter?

[FedExpress117]

If Djokovic had won today in MC, their H2H would be 17-17, and Fed wouldn't have a winning record against Djokovic, Nadal (10-23) or Murray (10-11). I certainly see the argument that he can't be considered the 'greatest' of all time if he doesn't have a winning H2H against any of the big 4 (especially Nadal). Still, I think # of Grand Slam titles is the more important metric people look at, and Fed has beaten all three of them in route to winning Grand Slams on numerous occasions (though only beaten Nadal twice at Wimbledon).

Fed could retire today and his H2H against Djokovic would be 18-16. He could keep playing, lose a few more matches to Djoker, and it would be 18-20. Do a few more matches (that only resulted because he chose to play on, even when he's 32 and could easily retire today) really make that much of a difference? I don't think so. I think you also have to look at overall context over their careers, and even if Fed goes negative for his H2H against Djoker, people will still know that it was always a 'close' rivalry, with each winning different key matches. People would probably say Fed has an edge over Murray (even if 10-11 H2H) since he's won more Grand Slam match ups. The longer Fed plays against Nadal, the worse that H2H will get, and even if a lot of those matches have been played on clay, Nadal owns Fed--though, a lot of people may just attribute that to a 'match up' issue.

We all have our different definitions and criteria of 'GOAT'. I think it should be less about being able to beat everyone else and having winning H2Hs against everyone in your generation. Someone should be the GOAT because they were able to achieve certain feats that no one else was able to. If Fed's H2H against Djoker goes negative, a decision to play on in the later stages of your career (rather than how you were able to beat that player en route to winning Grand Slams) shouldn't matter all that much, in my opinion.

 

[Logic]

What's the trophy/title/prize for h2h?

 

[Bobby Jr]

Obviously you were listening to Nick Lester commentary.

The reason is doesn't really matter are this, starting with the six most important ones:

17 vs 13

17 vs 6

17 vs 2

302 vs 130

302 vs 101

302 vs 0

Additionally, as has been discussed for hundreds of times previously, there is a reason there are no ranking points, no titles or trophies given out for any particular h2h matches. The reason for this is the h2h is bordering on irrelevant when compared to the key metrics by which tennis players have been measured across the history of tennis. When those key metrics are so lop-sided in favour of one player the h2h is merely the fodder of partisan hacks and clueless muppets.

To demonstrate where the h2h is so fundamentally flawed you only need to look at Sampras and the players he has losing h2hs against. (Max Mirnyi, Sergi Bruguera, Paul Haarhuis, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich etc)

Now, I know some people will be saying "but Sampras won tons more majors than those players so they can't really be compared..." which is true. If so, it must also be true for Federer vs Murray and Djokovic in that case too. Federer has Sampras' entire career worth of majors more than Murray and Agassi or Lendl's entire career worth more than Djokovic.

Even if you discount them and turn to the only current player who is remotely in the all-time great ballpark Federer still retains a majors lead over Nadal equivalent to Jim Courier's ENTIRE career, one of the greatest players of the 1990. It is also more than Gustavo Kuerten's ENTIRE career, one of the greatest claycourt players of all time (apparently).

The reason for this also stems from the fact that tennis is not a h2h sport, just like golf isn't. No one cares about the h2h results between golfers who are paired together in any round at a golf tournament - only their place on the leader board relative to the whole field. Similarly in tennis the key metric by which a player is measured is their performance versus the rest of the draw. The last guy undefeated gets the trophy (some facetious fool will now bring up the WTF as an exception. Please muppet away) and is considered to have bettered the whole field. If player B doesn't make it to the final they have no claim to have been the best player in that tournament (or even the second best for that matter). In that respect Federer far and away outperformed the field for many years - regardless of the instances he lost to any particular player.

 

[90's Clay]

His 10-23 h2h and demolition by the hands of Nadal since 2004 will always be a major stain on his legacy. No question about that.

Fed lucked out BIG TIME with Nole stopping Nadal in 2011 and various injuries to Nadal over the past few years (namely 2009 which enabled Fed to win the French and beak the slam record at wimbledon).

Nadal can say to Fed, "You may have records but you couldn't ever handle me"

No GOAT should have something so glaringly large of a hole in their resume as a 2-9 h2h in slams and 10-23 overall h2h vs. his/her main rival. Thats not GOAT-like

 

[Logic]

His 10-23 h2h and demolition by the hands of Nadal since 2004 will always be a major stain on his legacy. No question about that.

Nadal can say to Fed, "You may have records but you couldn't ever handle me"

No GOAT should have something so glaringly large of a hole in their resume as a 2-9 h2h in slams and 10-23 overall h2h vs. his/her main rival. Thats not GOAT-like

Who cares? Tennis isn't about h2h, it's about winning tournaments and being number one.

If h2h actually mattered then how come it gets ZERO recognition (in terms of awards etc.) from the tour?

 

[HunterST]

The ONLY thing that matters in tennis is tournament results.

It doesn't matter who you lose to, you're out. You don't get extra points for beating certain players.


Fed's amazing record shows that Federer out performed the other 4 in the majority of tournaments. A head to head comparison of tournament results is the only thing that matters.

People who obsess over head to head are not thinking about what actually happens in tennis. If Federer has lost to these guys several times but still has many more titles, that just means those guys were losing to other people. What's so awesome about that?

 

[chjtennis]

It matters but we also have to factor in the age difference between Federer and other 3 players.

 

[kOaMaster]

Let's talk about Federer's h2h against roddick, hewitt, safin or ferrero (or whoever you want to pick from the 2003-2007 period)

 

[jg153040]

His 10-23 h2h and demolition by the hands of Nadal since 2004 will always be a major stain on his legacy. No question about that.

Fed lucked out BIG TIME with Nole stopping Nadal in 2011 and various injuries to Nadal over the past few years (namely 2009 which enabled Fed to win the French and beak the slam record at wimbledon).

Nadal can say to Fed, "You may have records but you couldn't ever handle me"

No GOAT should have something so glaringly large of a hole in their resume as a 2-9 h2h in slams and 10-23 overall h2h vs. his/her main rival. Thats not GOAT-like

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

While the rest of the real world, like experts and pros know Fed is the goat making all those extra finals being 2nd on clay.

Sampras would be lucky to make 1 RG finals losing to Rafa.

 

[tennisaddict]

No GOAT should have something so glaringly large of a hole in their resume as a 2-9 h2h in slams and 10-23 overall h2h vs. his/her main rival. Thats not GOAT-like

Having a losing H2h is glaring , but not even making 1 FO final is not ? How about not making past the 2R between age 26-30 at FO ?

 

[jg153040]

Having a losing H2h is glaring , but not even making 1 FO final is not ? How about not making past the 2R between age 26-30 at FO ?

Using h2h is a fallacy. Because it's still a lot better to lose a RG final than avoiding Nadal.

Obviously Fed winning those RG finals would make him even bigger goat. But until someone breaks his records, losing those finals doesn't hurt the guy one bit.

Even if someone breaks his records, that wold not make Fed any worse player. Just the new goat would be even better than Fed. That''s it.

And please, how can people lump h2h between Fed and Murray, Nole with Rafa's h2h?

Fed actually owns the h2h in majors between Nole and Murray. He is something like 10-6 vs them combined or something.

 

[tennis_pro]

His 10-23 h2h and demolition by the hands of Nadal since 2004 will always be a major stain on his legacy. No question about that.

Fed lucked out BIG TIME with Nole stopping Nadal in 2011 and various injuries to Nadal over the past few years (namely 2009 which enabled Fed to win the French and beak the slam record at wimbledon).

Nadal can say to Fed, "You may have records but you couldn't ever handle me"

No GOAT should have something so glaringly large of a hole in their resume as a 2-9 h2h in slams and 10-23 overall h2h vs. his/her main rival. Thats not GOAT-like

I'll tell you what's a larger hole than the incapability to beat one player on one surface - the incapability to beat anyone on a surface

 

[jg153040]

I'll tell you what's a larger hole than the incapability to beat one player on one surface - the incapability to beat anyone on a surface

Yeah. There are holes and there are HOLES.

Fed has a tiny crack. Sampras's hole is the size of a grand canyon in comparison .

 

[TheMusicLover]

What an original thread.

Once again: Tennis isn't boxing.
It's not about how Player X does against Player Y, it's about how both Player X and Player Y do against the entire field, made up of some 1000+ other players having a say in the matter as well.
The player who manages this at best will see his results reflected in most tournaments won, most time at #1, etc. As of now, that player is Mr. R. Federer.

And, no, mr. 90's Clay, Nadal would NEVER say anything like that, as he - in contrary to you - understands what's most important in the sport.
Besides that, he's far too classy for even thinking about saying such a thing, as he has shown in many interviews already.

 

[clayqueen]

A lot.

......................

 

[FedererWinsWimbledon2014]

It doesn't matter. If Fed retired in 2012 would that mean he is better at tennis?

Fed being good enough to to reach the later stages of tournaments aged 30+ does not make him a worse player lol.

 

[drakulie]

Obviously you were listening to Nick Lester commentary.

The reason is doesn't really matter are this, starting with the six most important ones:

17 vs 13

17 vs 6

17 vs 2

302 vs 130

302 vs 101

302 vs 0

Additionally, as has been discussed for hundreds of times previously, there is a reason there are no ranking points, no titles or trophies given out for any particular h2h matches. The reason for this is the h2h is bordering on irrelevant when compared to the key metrics by which tennis players have been measured across the history of tennis. When those key metrics are so lop-sided in favour of one player the h2h is merely the fodder of partisan hacks and clueless muppets.

To demonstrate where the h2h is so fundamentally flawed you only need to look at Sampras and the players he has losing h2hs against. (Max Mirnyi, Sergi Bruguera, Paul Haarhuis, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich etc)

Now, I know some people will be saying "but Sampras won tons more majors than those players so they can't really be compared..." which is true. If so, it must also be true for Federer vs Murray and Djokovic in that case too. Federer has Sampras' entire career worth of majors more than Murray and Agassi or Lendl's entire career worth more than Djokovic.

Even if you discount them and turn to the only current player who is remotely in the all-time great ballpark Federer still retains a majors lead over Nadal equivalent to Jim Courier's ENTIRE career, one of the greatest players of the 1990. It is also more than Gustavo Kuerten's ENTIRE career, one of the greatest claycourt players of all time (apparently).

The reason for this also stems from the fact that tennis is not a h2h sport, just like golf isn't. No one cares about the h2h results between golfers who are paired together in any round at a golf tournament - only their place on the leader board relative to the whole field. Similarly in tennis the key metric by which a player is measured is their performance versus the rest of the draw. The last guy undefeated gets the trophy (some facetious fool will now bring up the WTF as an exception. Please muppet away) and is considered to have bettered the whole field. If player B doesn't make it to the final they have no claim to have been the best player in that tournament (or even the second best for that matter). In that respect Federer far and away outperformed the field for many years - regardless of the instances he lost to any particular player.

End thread.

 

[SpinToWin]

I love how you immediately see who the blind Rafa followers are in this debate...

 

[90's Clay]

I'll tell you what's a larger hole than the incapability to beat one player on one surface - the incapability to beat anyone on a surface

Shows your knowledge::shock:

Wins over the following on clay:

Bruguera
Agassi
Courier
Kafelnikov
Muster

etc.

Thats a far cry from being unable to beat anyone on a certain surface. In fact, minus Kuerten those are the BEST dirt ballers of the 90s.

 

[GoaLaSSo]

Hahahah these threads are the best.

I am quite impressed by Federer's head to head with Murray and Djokovic. Nadal obviously has a big edge on Federer, but one of the main reasons the h2h is so one sided is because Federer is the second best clay courter of the generation.

If you look at other great players' head to heads, like sampras for instance, almost all show that have losing head to heads with players belonging to younger generations.

Federer has kept up with and rightly smacked around players far younger than him, even has he fell far from his prime and they came into theirs.

 

[GoaLaSSo]

Shows your knowledge::shock:

Wins over the following on clay:

Bruguera
Agassi
Courier
Kafelnikov
Muster

etc.

Thats a far cry from being unable to beat anyone on a certain surface. In fact, minus Kuerten those are the BEST dirt ballers of the 90s.

No one cares if sampras managed to beat a few good players on clay. He wasn't consistent. He was not good enough to even get a solid chance at a title. Anyone can win a single match. The fact that Federer could consistently make it to the end of tournaments on every surface speaks to his strength.

I still don't get why sampras fans hate federer so much and flock to nadal. I was fan of sampras, and Federer's attacking game and technical skills led me to like him because of the similarities to sampras's game.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

His 10-23 h2h and demolition by the hands of Nadal since 2004 will always be a major stain on his legacy. No question about that.

Fed lucked out BIG TIME with Nole stopping Nadal in 2011 and various injuries to Nadal over the past few years (namely 2009 which enabled Fed to win the French and beak the slam record at wimbledon).

Nadal can say to Fed, "You may have records but you couldn't ever handle me"

No GOAT should have something so glaringly large of a hole in their resume as a 2-9 h2h in slams and 10-23 overall h2h vs. his/her main rival. Thats not GOAT-like

Federer's success is so much in your head, that it is not even funny.

Makes one wonder, whether you are not compensating by hating on a successful man.

 

[90's Clay]

No one cares if sampras managed to beat a few good players on clay. He wasn't consistent. He was not good enough to even get a solid chance at a title. Anyone can win a single match. The fact that Federer could consistently make it to the end of tournaments on every surface speaks to his strength.

I still don't get why sampras fans hate federer so much and flock to nadal. I was fan of sampras, and Federer's attacking game and technical skills led me to like him because of the similarities to sampras's game.

Oh Blahh blah... Yea I forgot Fed has dominated the French and clay too right? :shock:

You act as if Fed has MULTIPLE French Open crowns and is one of the greatest ever on clay, Fact is, neither Fed or Pete were anything to write home about on clay.

One French Open title between them. You talk about "consistency" Fed was a consistent LOSER to Nadal at the French (and pretty much everywhere really) . No one remembers 2nd place

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Oh Blahh blah... Yea I forgot Fed has dominated the French and clay too right? :shock:

You act as if Fed has MULTIPLE French Open crowns and is one of the greatest ever on clay, Fact is, neither Fed or Pete were anything to write home about on clay.

One French Open title between them. You talk about "consistency" Fed was a consistent LOSER to Nadal at the French (and pretty much everywhere really) . No one remembers 2nd place

This is the final proof that you don't live in reality.

 

[GoaLaSSo]

Oh Blahh blah... Yea I forgot Fed has dominated the French and clay too right? :shock:

You act as if Fed has MULTIPLE French Open crowns and is one of the greatest ever on clay, Fact is, neither Fed or Pete were anything to write home about on clay.

One French Open title between them. You talk about "consistency" Fed was a consistent LOSER to Nadal at the French (and pretty much everywhere really) . No one remembers 2nd place

What player of the last decade is better than Fed on clay other than Nadal?

People remember records. You can cry yourself to sleep at night over h2hs, delusional arguments, and fanboyism, but it won't ever change the fact that Federer tops the record books. Unless Nadal passes him up in slams, Federer will objectively be remembered as the greatest player of the open era and possibly all time. Just because your favorite player isn't the best anymore doesn't mean you have to be bitter toward the guy that dethroned him.

 

[Firing Forehand]

What's the trophy/title/prize for h2h?

What's the trophy/title/prize for number of #1 weeks?

 

[TMF]

What's the trophy/title/prize for number of #1 weeks?

Experts place ranking status very seriously in goat debate.

PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Win/loss record at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)

 

[LazyNinja19]

Experts place ranking status very seriously in goat debate.

PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Win/loss record at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)

You post this 'self made' criteria list in every thread. But it's just YOUR opinion!
Writing down your opinion in a List format doesn't make it a fact. :lol:

Who are these "experts"?

 

[ledwix]

It matters as much as those victories and losses led to titles and missed opportunities at titles at the stage of his career when he played the matches. In other words, it's redundant.

Federer-Djokovic is basically a tie, and Federer-Murray is basically a tie, but nobody could say any of these players are remotely close in terms of career greatness.

 

[TMF]

You post this 'self made' criteria list in every thread. But it's just YOUR opinion!
Writing down your opinion in a List format doesn't make it a fact. :lol:

Who are these "experts"?

No it's not. Those criteria are from experts from The Tennis Channel.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Federer continues to have a leading h2h against Djokovic, at the age of almost 33.

Against Murray, he just trails, but has a better h2h in the slam matches.

Thus, even if h2h were important (it's not), his records against Djokovic and Murray wouldn't be a blemish on his record.

Only Nadal has a lopsided h2h against him.

 

[LazyNinja19]

No it's not. Those criteria are from experts from The Tennis Channel.

Post a link, where they've mentioned this exact list of criteria.
And if this is what they used for making that Top100 list, then it explains how flawed it is.

 

[FedererWinsWimbledon2014]

What's the trophy/title/prize for number of #1 weeks?

Right here

 

[GoaLaSSo]

What's the trophy/title/prize for number of #1 weeks?

I don't see how you would think ranking is unimportant. It shows an objective measurement of what a player has achieved throughout the year.

It the best measure consistency and how players do against the field.

 

[TMF]

Post a link, where they've mentioned this exact list of criteria.
And if this is what they used for making that Top100 list, then it explains how flawed it is.

Watch the 100 Greatest of All Time Episodes from the tennis channel and you'll see those criteria.

It's only flaw coming from your biased opinion.

 

[Firing Forehand]

I don't see how you would think ranking is unimportant. It shows an objective measurement of what a player has achieved throughout the year.

It the best measure consistency and how players do against the field.

It's only a measure of a player being healthy. Nothing else.

 

[Firing Forehand]

Right here

That's not a trophy for number of #1 weeks.

That's a trophy for Year End #1 .

It's NOT the same. It doesnt matter the number of weeks. It only matters being #1 on December

 

[Candide]

Who cares? Tennis isn't about h2h, it's about winning tournaments and being number one.

If h2h actually mattered then how come it gets ZERO recognition (in terms of awards etc.) from the tour?

The marriage of (un?)intentional irony and self annihilation in this dude's avatar, name, professed fandom and postings is truly postmodern. Credit where credit is due. I'm consistently at a loss to know if he's a comic genius, completely deluded or just immune to a single instant of personal reflection. Sampras was like a buffalo on an ice rink on clay but apparently that's not a issue for his totality as a player. Federer on the other hand is a mug because he's good enough to make a mountain of finals against Nadal but Nadal can't make most finals off clay to play Federer. The logic is torturous.

 

[TheMusicLover]

The marriage of (un?)intentional irony and self annihilation in this dude's avatar, name, professed fandom and postings is truly postmodern. Credit where credit is due. I'm consistently at a loss to know if he's a comic genius, completely deluded or just immune to a single instant of personal reflection.

Sampras was like a buffalo on an ice rink on clay but apparently that's not a issue for his totality as a player. Federer on the other hand is a mug because he's good enough to make a mountain of finals against Nadal but Nadal can't make most finals off clay to play Federer. The logic is torturous.

Wow... that's like the definition of "pawned".

 

[monfed]

It matters to those whose own idols/heroes don't match up.

 

[Jam]

In answer to this question we have to accept the ageing thing. Fed is older than the other 3. Against Murray the weakest of the big 4, he may have a losing record but he's won at the slams all but once. Clearly advantage Fed. I support Muzza by the way.

Against Djoko, closer but the same logic still applies an ageing Fed took him out in 2011 in Djoko's god mode yea and won in the semis at wimbledon to take his 17th singles title. He's ahead in slams. So still level or more likely advantage to Fed in my opinion.

Against Nadal though there is no contest on the h2h. Nadal beates him everywhere and he does be it slams or non-slams on every surface. But yet Fed has more slams. Fed is also almost 5 years older. Nadal needs to get a lot closer in slam totals to be considered his equal or his superior although it would be a foolish man or more likely an extreme Fed fan who would bet about that (or shout about it here) not happening.

Perhaps Wawrinka can save Fed's slam record (or Djoko or maybe Murray or maybe Nadal's knees!!) in this sense as otherwise Nadal's going to take them all sadly. Me, I'd be sad about it but also realistic.

 

[TheMusicLover]

I still don't get why sampras fans hate federer so much and flock to nadal. I was fan of sampras, and Federer's attacking game and technical skills led me to like him because of the similarities to sampras's game.

It's something like this... to the extreme:

If anything, should it ever happen that Nadal will indeed eclipse Federer's GS tally - not entirely impossible, but surely not a done-deal either as of yet - I can only hope the Fed fans will show themselves just a mite more congratulatory towards Nadal than the likes of butthurt-Sampras turds towards Federer like mr. 90's Clay.

One can only hope though...

 

[jhhachamp]

Obviously you were listening to Nick Lester commentary.

The reason is doesn't really matter are this, starting with the six most important ones:

17 vs 13

17 vs 6

17 vs 2

302 vs 130

302 vs 101

302 vs 0

Additionally, as has been discussed for hundreds of times previously, there is a reason there are no ranking points, no titles or trophies given out for any particular h2h matches. The reason for this is the h2h is bordering on irrelevant when compared to the key metrics by which tennis players have been measured across the history of tennis. When those key metrics are so lop-sided in favour of one player the h2h is merely the fodder of partisan hacks and clueless muppets.

To demonstrate where the h2h is so fundamentally flawed you only need to look at Sampras and the players he has losing h2hs against. (Max Mirnyi, Sergi Bruguera, Paul Haarhuis, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich etc)

Now, I know some people will be saying "but Sampras won tons more majors than those players so they can't really be compared..." which is true. If so, it must also be true for Federer vs Murray and Djokovic in that case too. Federer has Sampras' entire career worth of majors more than Murray and Agassi or Lendl's entire career worth more than Djokovic.

Even if you discount them and turn to the only current player who is remotely in the all-time great ballpark Federer still retains a majors lead over Nadal equivalent to Jim Courier's ENTIRE career, one of the greatest players of the 1990. It is also more than Gustavo Kuerten's ENTIRE career, one of the greatest claycourt players of all time (apparently).

The reason for this also stems from the fact that tennis is not a h2h sport, just like golf isn't. No one cares about the h2h results between golfers who are paired together in any round at a golf tournament - only their place on the leader board relative to the whole field. Similarly in tennis the key metric by which a player is measured is their performance versus the rest of the draw. The last guy undefeated gets the trophy (some facetious fool will now bring up the WTF as an exception. Please muppet away) and is considered to have bettered the whole field. If player B doesn't make it to the final they have no claim to have been the best player in that tournament (or even the second best for that matter). In that respect Federer far and away outperformed the field for many years - regardless of the instances he lost to any particular player.

Great post!

 

[TheMusicLover]

Great post!

+1 - Obviously and not for the first time - Bobby Jr usually delivers the goods when necessary.

If only certain posters over here would pay attention and actually read his posts.

 

[jhhachamp]

It's only a measure of a player being healthy. Nothing else.

Weeks at number 1 is a measure of how dominant a player was. Being healthy is important to achieving a high level of dominance.

 

[Candide]

+1 - Obviously and not for the first time - Bobby Jr usually delivers the goods when necessary.

If only certain posters over here would pay attention and actually read his posts.

+ 2. The guys who try to mount a rational argument against this always remind me of the lines from the Oliver Goldsmith poem The Deserted Village.

The village master taught his little school...
'Twas certain he could write, and cipher too;
Lands he could measure, terms and tides presage,
And even the story ran that he could gauge.
In arguing too, the parson owned his skill,
For e'en though vanquished, he could argue still;
While words of learned length and thundering sound
Amazed the gazing rustics ranged around,
And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew
That one small head could carry all he knew.

Sadly, this forum has more than its fair share of gazing rustics and village idiots determined to argue on though long and thoroughly vanquished.

 

[dh003i]

It's only a measure of a player being healthy. Nothing else.

Hate to break it to you, but consistently being healthy is important. We don't take the AO 2008 away from Djokovic because Federer had mono, nor is it diminished. Likewise for Federer when his opponents have been injured or sick.

Being healthy enough to play and win is just as important an aspect in tennis and just as much a credit to a player as is talent, hard work, motivation, etc.

 

[Candide]

Weeks at number 1 is a measure of how dominant a player was. Being healthy is important to achieving a high level of dominance.

How about number and efficacy of excuses for losses based on injuries and the number of asterisked losses suffered at the hands of patently lesser players (such as the recent Aus Open)? One player stands alone based on these criteria. He is the Alternative Universe GOAT (also known as the Coulda-Shoulda GOAT).

 

[jhhachamp]

How about number and efficacy of excuses for losses based on injuries and the number of asterisked losses suffered at the hands of patently lesser players (such as the recent Aus Open)? One player stands alone based on these criteria. He is the Alternative Universe GOAT (also known as the Coulda-Shoulda GOAT).

I would like to respond to your post...but I honestly have no clue what exactly you are trying to say or how it relates to my post that you quoted. I don't want to misinterpret what you wrote, so if you would like me to respond, please be more clear with what you are asking.

 

[peakofthebounce]

The more people Federer has a losing record to, the less impressive Nadal looks, because that is what used to make him unique and if all the rest of the big 3 have winning records against Federer, his own winning head to head against Federer does not look so special.

One could say "Nadal has a winning record against Federer, so he must be the GOAT", to which one could reply "Well, so do a dozen other players including Murray, so they must equally be the GOAT"