How much does owning the GOAT help one's place in history?

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
having a dominating head to head against the greatest ever doesnt make someone the greatest, sure. but how much is one's record helped by it?

if(LOL) nadal wins RG, in which he would accrue a total of 12 majors, will he be on par in the GOAT debate with the likes of sampras who has 14?

surely owning the GOAT must count for something.

nadalpplegangers.jpg
 
Yes, it does count for something definitely. But the opposite is true. If Novak starts winning against Nadal again and owning the H2H, then Nadal fans could never claim Nadal is the better player. What goes around comes around I suppose. That's why I think the H2H's value, although real, is very relative.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
What's the point if you can't cross the finish line. Ferrer, Murray(before 12 USO) has beaten Nadal at the slam a few times, including Rosol, Soderling, Tsonga and co. has also beaten him but never managed to win the slam at the end. These guys are not getting any brownie points either. The goal is to be undeated at the end of the tournament. Nadal was able to cross the finish line only 11 times.
 
What's the point if you can't cross the finish line. Ferrer, Murray(before 12 USO) has beaten Nadal at the slam a few times, including Rosol, Soderling, Tsonga and co. has also beaten him but never managed to win the slam at the end. These guys are not getting any brownie points either. The goal is to be undeated at the end of the tournament. Nadal was able to cross the finish line only 11 times.
Only 11 times? LOL. You should put a finish line between your computer chair and the fridge. Maybe that way you can surpass Nadal's achievements. :)
 

ark_28

Legend
Only 11 times? LOL. You should put a finish line between your computer chair and the fridge. Maybe that way you can surpass Nadal's achievements. :)

Haha this was priceless only 11 grand slams, this muppet has a career in stand up comedy there is no doubt about that.
 

kiki

Banned
The Sampras vs Nadal comparative is so much similar to Bayern Munchen-Borrusia Dortmund... that it makes me wonder
 
M

monfed

Guest
So why is Ralph's slam count so skewed towards clay since the BOB believes that Ralph owns Fed on HC and grass too? 7/11 on clay when there's only 1/4 slam on clay makes one ponder about El Martyr's greatness.
 
It is a subjective factor but owning another all time great is always a benefit. It definitely affects peoples opinion of Connors that he didnt do well head to head vs his main rivals, Chrissie that she didnt do well vs Navratilova or Austin, Agassi that he didnt do well vs Sampras.
 

Gonzo_style

Hall of Fame
What's the point if you can't cross the finish line. Ferrer, Murray(before 12 USO) has beaten Nadal at the slam a few times, including Rosol, Soderling, Tsonga and co. has also beaten him but never managed to win the slam at the end. These guys are not getting any brownie points either. The goal is to be undeated at the end of the tournament. Nadal was able to cross the finish line only 11 times.

Only 11 times? LOL. You should put a finish line between your computer chair and the fridge. Maybe that way you can surpass Nadal's achievements. :)

Haha this was priceless only 11 grand slams, this muppet has a career in stand up comedy there is no doubt about that.

LMAO "only" 11 GS titles :) funniest thing I've heard today
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
A win against Federer is good only if it gets you a tournament win in the end.
Otherwise it's worthless. What would any pro choose? To defeat Nadal at RG or winning RG? I don't think any sane person would choose the first option.
 

6-1 6-3 6-0

Banned
What's the point if you can't cross the finish line. Ferrer, Murray(before 12 USO) has beaten Nadal at the slam a few times, including Rosol, Soderling, Tsonga and co. has also beaten him but never managed to win the slam at the end. These guys are not getting any brownie points either. The goal is to be undeated at the end of the tournament. Nadal was able to cross the finish line only 11 times.

RNadal's career isn't finished yet, genius. RFederer had only one more slam than RNadal at RNadal's age, yet RNadal isn't showing as much of a decline as RFederer was when RFederer won his 12th slam. RNadal is still on track to pummel RFederer another 10 times to make that h2h 30-10, before retiring with at least 18 slams. RFederer will simply be the "trivial record king"- just another JConnors/ILendl. :p
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
RNadal's career isn't finished yet, genius. RFederer had only one more slam than RNadal at RNadal's age, yet RNadal isn't showing as much of a decline as RFederer was when RFederer won his 12th slam. RNadal is still on track to pummel RFederer another 10 times to make that h2h 30-10, before retiring with at least 18 slams. RFederer will simply be the "trivial record king"- just another JConnors/ILendl. :p

Why do you think we don't want Nadal to break the records? The more slams he wins the better. But before he wins them he can't be the best. And he also needs 200 more weeks at nr.1 to catch Fedex.

But I'll be generous. If Nadal has 16 slams and over 200 weeks at nr.1 ranking I'm willing to put him on the same level as Fed even without the WTF win.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
having a dominating head to head against the greatest ever doesnt make someone the greatest, sure. but how much is one's record helped by it?

if(LOL) nadal wins RG, in which he would accrue a total of 12 majors, will he be on par in the GOAT debate with the likes of sampras who has 14?

surely owning the GOAT must count for something.

nadalpplegangers.jpg

Rofl, is that you NSK?
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
Sure, it's 17-11 now, and it's not much of a conversation. That said, should it jump to, say, 17-13 this year, it will all open back up. Should Nadal reach 14-15 slams or more, and own Federer in the process, there will be no GOAT. At that point, it will just be a round robin discussion of the top tier - make your best case.
 

90's Clay

Banned
It means if Nadal gets within the 17 slam count mark (15 or so) due to his domination (and positive h2h vs. ALL top players of his era) he will be considered greater of this generation by default IMO.

Nadal's roads to 90 percent of his slam titles were better than 85-90 percent of Roger's road to his slams as well since he had to deal with Peak Nole, Prime-A bit past prime Roger, Murray to win just about all of then
 

Tennis_Monk

Hall of Fame
Would Sampras have been considered the GOAT if Agassi had a 20-10 H2H with him?

Sampras cannot be considered GOAT regardless of his H2H with Agassi. He is (yet) to win a slam on CLAY.

In a hypotethical scenario, YES. Sampras could be considered a GOAT. H2H against one player wouldnt nullify all other achievements.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
It means if Nadal gets within the 17 slam count mark (15 or so) due to his domination (and positive h2h vs. ALL top players of his era) he will be considered greater of this generation by default IMO.

Nadal's roads to 90 percent of his slam titles were better than 85-90 percent of Roger's road to his slams as well since he had to deal with Peak Nole, Prime-A bit past prime Roger, Murray to win just about all of then

murray, the litmus test of a player's greatness.
 

90's Clay

Banned
rofl, i enjoy stats that help nadal as much as the next guy. but this is laughable.

How is that laughable? Murray has been a FAR superior player than Roddick overall. (And he is probably not even halfway done with his career) I don't even think thats debatable anymore

Murray could retire tomorrow and have a superior career to Roddick
 
It means if Nadal gets within the 17 slam count mark (15 or so) due to his domination (and positive h2h vs. ALL top players of his era) he will be considered greater of this generation by default IMO.

Nadal's roads to 90 percent of his slam titles were better than 85-90 percent of Roger's road to his slams as well since he had to deal with Peak Nole, Prime-A bit past prime Roger, Murray to win just about all of then

Ah, yes, Nadal's roads to the Majors that he won.

Like US Open 2010, Wimbledon 2010, Australian Open 2009, RG 2005 etc.

Also, Nadal will have to work pretty hard to boost his other achievements, because, apart from his clay domination, he has nothing on Federer. Nothing.
 

Day Tripper

Semi-Pro
Reasons why Nadal will never be considered the greatest of all time..

1. He will finish with only 13-14 slams.

2. he will have spent only 100 odd weeks at number one.

3. he will finish having won only 2-3 Wimbledons and a single US Open.

4. lingering suspicions of doping.
 

sbengte

G.O.A.T.
Reasons why Nadal will never be considered the greatest of all time..

1. He will finish with only 13-14 slams.

2. he will have spent only 100 odd weeks at number one.

3. he will finish having won only 2-3 Wimbledons and a single US Open.

4. lingering suspicions of doping.

But what about all the #worldhistory he is making as we speak ? Doesn't that count :-?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Would Sampras have been considered the GOAT if Agassi had a 20-10 H2H with him?

if agassi had a 20-10 h2h record vs sampras, how would sampras have won as many GS titles as he did ?

since most of the fedal GS matches were such that federer would the favourite to take the tournament if not for nadal, the h2h vs nadal already penalizes him in the form of lesser no of majors.

but then common sense is not exactly your forte is it ?
 
Reasons why Nadal will never be considered the greatest of all time..

1. He will finish with only 13-14 slams.

2. he will have spent only 100 odd weeks at number one.

3. he will finish having won only 2-3 Wimbledons and a single US Open.

4. lingering suspicions of doping.
There are lingering suspicions you are being a stoop.

But, regardless, if Rafa can't be the GOAT, neither can Fed. Getting beaten silly on a regular basis by a mug who is clearly not the GOAT can't make you the GOAT. If that were the case, Verdasco would be the GOAT.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Well beating Murray is certainly more impressive than beating Roddick in slams

yeah, I'm sure djokovic was trembling when he met murray in AO 2011, when nadal met him in wimbledon 2008, 10 and 11, federer when he met him in USO 2008 and federer had it easy vs roddick in wimbledon 2004, wimbledon 2009, USO 2007 etc. :roll:
 
Reasons why Nadal will never be considered the greatest of all time..

1. He will finish with only 13-14 slams.

2. he will have spent only 100 odd weeks at number one.

3. he will finish having won only 2-3 Wimbledons and a single US Open.

4. lingering suspicions of doping.

1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Probably right
4. Right
 

timnz

Legend
Strange

I always find it strange when some in this forum say things like....'Federer is no good, see how far behind the head to head he is against Nadal'....then go on to use the H2H to elevate Nadal's status.

But if Federer's no good, how is Nadal having a superior head to head to this 'not good player' make for a great achievement for Rafa? The more certain people put Federer down the less, ironically, they make Nadal, if they are basing some of Nadal's achievement on wins over Federer - because, if Federer isn't that great, then Nadal isn't beating someone of consequence.

Exaggeration to make a point....but you get what I mean.....

Let me get this clear. Nadal is a fantastic player. One of the greatest of all time. But his status in history isn't enhanced by the putting down of another great player.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
The fact is if Nadal didn't "own" Federer, Fed would have 20+ slams by now and made a complete mockery of the sport. Thank god for Nadal for saving interest in tennis.
 
Let me get this clear. Nadal is a fantastic player. One of the greatest of all time. But his status in history isn't enhanced by the putting down of another great player.
Very well said. Some people consider this a weak era. That's just ridiculous, three of the best players of all time are playing concurrently. I doubt this will ever be repeated. This is a legendary era. The rest of the tour looks weak because, in comparison, they are weak. Even Djokovic was weak before 2011 in comparison, but he is a big boy now.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I always find it strange when some in this forum say things like....'Federer is no good, see how far behind the head to head he is against Nadal'....then go on to use the H2H to elevate Nadal's status.

But if Federer's no good, how is Nadal having a superior head to head to this 'not good player' make for a great achievement for Rafa? The more certain people put Federer down the less, ironically, they make Nadal, if they are basing some of Nadal's achievement on wins over Federer - because, if Federer isn't that great, then Nadal isn't beating someone of consequence.

Exaggeration to make a point....but you get what I mean.....

Let me get this clear. Nadal is a fantastic player. One of the greatest of all time. But his status in history isn't enhanced by the putting down of another great player.

Yeah this is a great point. A contradiction really. At the same time Federer is not good because of the h2h but also being named as a tough competition to Nadal.

I guess you can't have it both ways.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
How is that laughable? Murray has been a FAR superior player than Roddick overall. (And he is probably not even halfway done with his career) I don't even think thats debatable anymore

Murray could retire tomorrow and have a superior career to Roddick

lol, just stop. murray? it's certainly debatable. as of right now, roddick is still ahead of murray. windshield-wiper-forehand-murray has a couple more major winning years, we'll see if he makes the most of it. he just did enough to get by djokovic in his first slam win. we'll see how he does with a more stacked wimbledon draw and see if he can manage to repeat his USO result despite losing nearly all of his momentum from last year.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
lol, just stop. murray? it's certainly debatable. as of right now, roddick is still ahead of murray. windshield-wiper-forehand-murray has a couple more major winning years, we'll see if he makes the most of it. he just did enough to get by djokovic in his first slam win. we'll see how he does with a more stacked wimbledon draw and see if he can manage to repeat his USO result despite losing nearly all of his momentum from last year.

Yeah Murray is a great example that by having a winning h2h against the goat doesn't help you at all. This doesn't win you titles.

I mean if Nadal had zero titles I don't think it would help him at all. I guess h2h only helps if you win in a final.
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
Would Sampras have been considered the GOAT if Agassi had a 20-10 H2H with him?

Yes, because he achieved more, and he held the most important records. At the very least it's absurd to say "no way he would have been considered the better player". I guess this will always be a looping discussion between the Nadal and Fed fans (particularly after every match they play as we saw in Rome, as Nadal was catapulted ahead of Federer in one match for the umpteenth time); one idea is to claim that the overall better tennis player is not the one who beats the other player more times, but the one who has done more in the sport. Considering tennis and its features (players trying to win titles across a variety of surfaces), frankly this makes better sense than to claim the player who has achieved less is the better player because he has beaten the other player more times. Once proposed this immediately begs a detailed look at the h2h, as far as Fedal goes this has done many times and IMO rightfully so.

Also, Nadal does not "own" Federer. The word, the vagueness and silliness of it aside, is misused in a very wrong manner. You don't own someone who has beaten you in 2 Wimbledon finals and at least once on all surfaces. The only time I'd personally give a pass (but still roll eyes) to it is when two players play a handful of matches and one of them does not have a single win.
 
Last edited:
Top