Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Jan 6, 2014.
It's not irrelevant, in fact quite the opposite NatF. Nadal's play is what caused Novak to deflate mentally. That means credit should be given to Nadal for being able to do that to him because Novak was playing very confident tennis and dominating the match.
I don't see how Fed should get as much credit when Agassi breaks down because of his birth defect.
Novak is younger, fitter, has more weapons and in his prime. Agassi was not.
Hewitt's most consistent major was the USO imo. Yes he does have weapons but I said to BEAT them in majors when they're in their prime and playing well.
He could give them problems if playing his best, but would he be able to do to Nadal what Novak did in that 2013 final? Hewitt's FH is nowhere near good enough unless he's having a fantastic day and his serve, particularly the second is very attackable, Fed used to pounce on it, don't think that Nadal and Novak wouldn't.
Stronger than 2006.
2006 was even weaker. It's just that Nadal at such a young age couldn't duplicate his results at the HC Masters because his HC game wasn't consistent enough.
Nadal's been dominating RG for almost 9 years. He didn't have anyone come up and take it from him, sure he lost there once, but then he beat that person the following 2 years.
In 2005 Federer was playing his best RG and there was a doper in the final, not to mention the fact that Nadal was only a teenager still that was an impressive victory.
2006 RG and Rafa had to face a very confident Federer in the final who had just pushed Rafa to the limit in Rome on clay.
2007 Again Fed would've been very confident having finally beat Nadal on clay in Hamburg and that was a tough RG final for Nadal.
2008 Nadal's level was clearly too high for anyone. Novak only pushed the third set to a TB because Nadal lost concentration. But he was smashing everyone in front of him.
2010 wasn't so tough, although technically he faced his toughest possible opponent since Sod was the only guy to have ever beaten him there.
2011 Nadal didn't play well because Novak dropped his confidence. He had a tough battle with Isner and then had to beat Sod, Murray (who played by far his best RG) and an in form Federer in the final.
2012 Nadal faced Novak, the man that beat him in 3 major finals in a row.
2013 his comeback to slam tennis and Novak definitely wasn't an easy opponent at all.
So yeah, RG has been relatively tough on Nadal, he mainly had to beat the "GOAT" at his peak in finals up there and then he's had to face a player that can beat him on any surface.
You mean except when he had to beat Agassi in the Toronto final? That must've been extremely tough given the case you've been mounting for Agassi, yet teenage Nadal still beat him on a surface that favors Agassi FAR more.
He beat Ljubicic on indoor HC in 5 sets coming back from 2 sets to love. Who's Ljubicic? Well I don't think he's that tough, but he was #3 in 2006 rankings which further highlights how weak 2006 was.
Ferrer > Ljubicic.
Also, Ferrer was only #3 because Murray was missing and so was Del Potro from the clay season, same thing happened the year before, Ferrer climbed because Nadal went missing.
Would Roddick have beat the Novak who showed up against Del Potro?
You can't just cherry pick Novak's worst performance and say yep, 05 Roddick would've beat him. First of all, the Roddick that showed up in the 05 final was rubbish as well.
Second of all, when I say post 2010, that means in general, not after Novak has to play a tough 5 hour SF.
Of course 2010 and 2013 are the worst finals he's played there, look who beat him in those matches...
As for the second set of 07, He was up a break and handed it back to Fed through many UEs.
Fed was serving down 5-6 and 15-40. He comes up with an ace, but then the next point Novak goes for broke with another UE, it wasn't anything Fed did to prevent the break. LOL you were sooking about Nadal's fight back from 0-40 down when he hit a few winners to get out of that, go on now, sook about Fed receiving UEs from Novak to win the second set.
Hewitt won 37 matches in 2005. Without Fed what would he have won? He wouldn't have won both WIM and USO, maybe one of them and IW. Nadal would've also won Miami. So a slam plus 5 Masters and all the other clay tournaments Nadal won and Hewitt still would've passed him with only 41 wins (and that's IF he wins both WIM and USO) in the season?
Any normal person can see why Nadal who was just 17 was beating Fed while losing to utter mugs while Fed was destroying those same mugs. Tennis fans know why, you can deny it all you want, doesn't make a difference to me.
Fed is the GOAT and that won't change even if Nadal surpasses his slam count. Nadal having the most slams will be discussed as a statistical anomaly which was proliferated by ATP's shameless money hungry dogs who slowed down the courts and tampered the draws so the talentless opportunistic mug could rack up some non-clay slams , something Fed haters like you will talk up at every opportunity which is ofcourse unpleasant but it is what it is. Haters gonna hate.
Oh yea I've always said Nadal is Fed's achilles heel, that doesn't however prevent him from being the greatest. Greatest is a comparison and in comparison noone stacks up to Fed,noone has a better game. I never said Fed is invincible, noone is, it's the haters who are constantly moving the goalposts. Nadal? Please don't make me laugh, his game is the most 1D i've seen for a supposed all time great. Plus his resume is a bit of a joke for a GOAT contender, so skewed towards clay(a MINORITY surface) it's not even funny. Sampras fans should really stop latching onto other players to ease the butthurt. Please grow up and enjoy Fed's game, you won't see a better player in your lifetime.
oh, so now 5 hr SF matters that much ? jeez, what happened to novak in 12 AO then ? how did he put up a good performance vs nadal in the final ! LOL
05 roddick wasn't 'rubbish'. He put in a decent performance, quite clearly better than what novak put up in 13 final
fed broke him with some good play in the 2nd set. And the UE that novak missed on set point only missed slightly, it wasn't a wild miss like the one that novak netted vs nadal in the 13 final . Obviously you don't get the difference. duh !
why isn't it possible that he wins both wimbledon and USO ? He'd be the favorite for both.
and again, his confidence level would be much higher without federer.
yeah, he does, on grass and fast HC. His game matches up clearly better with theirs than vs federer at the prime of his powers and obviously they are clearly worse than federer on both.
Federer is the most complete player ever, not a ball basher,not a grinder, not a retriever,not a pure S&Ver, not a serve bot. Plenty of ex-players, tennis experts, writers have said it. Everything is subjective so what? If you wanna talk stats, Fed kicks the **** out of Nadal in that area too outside clay even if he surpasses Fed's slam record by padding RG after RG.
Ofcourse you can't say that Nadal has the greatest game because he simply doesn't. You don't need stats to tell you that. On quicker surfaces he's found wanting and that's been the case with him since 05. Now the courts are slow as **** so he's winnning,plus his cakedraws make it easier than it already is.
Forgive me,objectivity, I can't tell you what you wanna hear and my opinion doesn't please you. I just cannot help it. You're definitely one of the better Nadal fans around here so I respect your opinion and your interest in the subject, but it's not right for me to give you an opinion I don't believe in just to please you, noone should. Every fan wants their favourite player to be the greatest, that's just human nature, so essentially we'll never agree on the GOAT topic,will we? I mean Maradona and Pele fans have been going at it for decades now and they still argue about who's the greatest.
hahaha, you are such a fangirl............:twisted:
I see your point. But his game breaks down only vs Rafa on clay. In his prime he did fine even vs Rafa on HC and grass. He owned everybody else on clay too. Including Nole in god mode in 2011.
So, Fed has all of that you mentioned, just his tiny flaw is Nadal on clay.
You think Sampras, Lendl would defeat Nadal on clay? Djokovic is the same caliber as Agassi, Lendl and he can't touch Nadal on clay too.
And Sampras game breaks down against entire field on clay. So, how can you hold this against Fed?
I'm not arguing Fed is the goat. It's hard to compare eras. But his weakness is greatly exaggerated.
Fed seems to have the least holes for now. Unless someone comes who will have all the records plus having winning h2h against all of his rivals of all generations and all surfaces. And that is almost impossible.
If we remove Fed, who can take his place? Rafa lacks numbers and he has a losing h2h vs his main rival on HC too. And that is 70% of tennis. He has losing h2h vs his main rival on grass too. And he breaks down vs everyone indoor. I mean he is nr.3 on HC and nr.2 on grass in his era. He is not even top 5 indoor.
How can he be goat? Fed is nr.1 indoor. He is nr.1 grass. He is nr.1 HC. And he is nr.2 on clay. Case closed.
Borg is not close to Fed's records. Sampras can't catch Fed, even if we take away clay.
It does matter. It is very hard not just physically but mentally to back it up. AO happens earlier in the season when players are generally more well rested physically and mentally.
Yes, he was rubbish. He almost lost to a lucky loser in the second round lol.
What good play? LOL wait for Novak errors?
Doesn't matter it was an UE, Federer didn't have to do anything except put the ball back into play.
Did I say it was impossible did I?
I said he wouldn't, that's my opinion. Even if he did, he still wouldn't have enough points :grin:
In 2007 at Wimbledon Hewitt was playing very well and was in good form leading into it minus the loss to Tsonga at Queen's he had decent runs in the clay season.
It was a tight match but he won one set against 2007 Novak on grass. He was 26 and in decent form at the time. It's not like Novak was at his best either so I'd say its a fair comparison. He has never beat Novak on grass.
On fast HC his chances would be even worse.
As for beating Nadal LOL what's that based on, his AO victories? If Nadal is playing well and in prime, sorry but Hewitt doesn't beat him in majors. He might give him a tough match, won't argue against that, but he won't beat him. Federer has only defeated Nadal in majors twice, both on his best surface and with one of those victories he struggled like hell. So if Federer struggles to take 3 sets off prime Rafa, do you really think Hewitt would do better than your idol? :lol:
Outdoor HC h2h:
So what's this about only Rafa on clay? And yes at his peak, Nadal still had the outdoor HC h2h lead and Fed's one victory came at Miami being 2 sets and a break down against Nadal. If it wasn't Nadal's first Masters final he would've closed it out no doubt about it.
Fed can't be goat because it's impossible to be the best of all time while being the 2nd best of his own time.:razz:
We have to look at the big picture here. Not just how you do vs one guy.
Davy is 6-1 vs Rafa on HC. But nobody will say Davy is better on HC.
I mean Rafa has only 3 more majors on HC than Davy and much worse loopsided h2h.
Fed has 6 more majors than Rafa on HC and h2h is even. And yet somehow Rafa is better than Fed? In what universe?
If we use your logic, we have to conclude Davy is better than Rafa on HC.
Don't numbers show this? In this era Fed is nr.1 on HC,grass and nr.2 on clay.
Rafa is nr.3 on HC (behind Fed and Nole) and nr.2 on grass.
You can't use only h2h when comparing players. You have to use titles too, lol. Maybe if Rafa wins 9 HC majors he will be better than Fed on HC due to h2h. But I would still consider them equals.
How can you argue that Rafa is better on outdoor HC, when Fed has 9 majors? This is absurd. Even arguing Davy is better than Rafa on HC is less absurd.
You lost it man . I mean you even argue peak Hewitt vs peak Nole, like you have a time machine. It's like arguing about the color of Santa's underwear.
No, you said only vs Rafa on clay. I simply pointed out that on outdoor HC his game breaks down against Rafa as well. That's all I did.
Never said Rafa was a better HC player than Fed. That's just you having no real response to your own flawed argument. You were the one who said Fed's game only breaks down vs Rafa on clay. You specifically said clay, when in reality it's also the case when they play outdoor HC matches.
It has nothing to do with who the better HC player overall is.
Ok, I see your point. We have a different definition of what breaking down means. I mean is outdoor HC a surface? On HC overall, they are even.
And breaking down means, that Fed is helpless, like on clay. On outdoor HC, you don't have a feeling Fed is helpless. Most matches are close. And they played most matches after Fed's best.
I mean I don't have a feeling Fed's game would break down vs Rafa in 2003-2007. And please don't bring a few isolated matches. All greats even at their peak lose about 10 matches a year or more. Nobody is undefeated.
I mean Nadal's game breaks down vs Davy on HC too. It's called a bad matchup. Fed has 9 HC majors, I'm sure at his peak, he would defeat Rafa.
Like it's safe to assume that Rafa due to 3 HC majors would probably defeat peak Davy. And even if he didn't, so what. Bad matchups happen. It would still be 3 HC majors vs 0 majors against Davy.
I don't believe in goat thing anyway. But you can make case for some players more. I mean Fed having best stats doesn't make him goat automatically, cuz this is subjective. But a player with better stats will always be in a better position.
I mean, how can you say Fed is 2nd best of his own time? So, you are saying Rafa is nr.1 of this era? Let's check this.
RAFA:HC-nr.3, Grass-nr.2, clay nr.1, indoor-not even top 5
FED:indoor-nr.1, grass-nr.1, HC-nr.1, clay-nr.2
I don't see by what standards a guy with 17 majors + 7 extra finals and 302 weeks is nr.2.
Tournament system is that you can have losing h2hs against several guys, but still be the best.
With this eternal discussion it has ALWAYS been more than just counting total majors/"slams" won. Many posters, not all of them, were simply posting things like 17>14 or 17>11 when comparing all time greats. It's never been so simple and never will be. It's much too simplistic to do that. Comparing Nadal and Federer, there will be debates whether it's 13 majors for Nadal and 17 for Federer, or even if it's 18 for Federer and 19 for Nadal. There will be arguments for and against both players and that's true for other all time greats as well. There is no simple metric that completely eliminates the debate and subjectivity, so then there are may factors, both objective and subjective ones, that will be continually debated for as long as tennis is played and watched. We'll see it continue in tennis season after tennis season through the rest of this decade and well beyond it. There is no one right answer here when trying to go through this theoretical exercise.
Rafa gave Fed a head start, but Rafa is better because his stats are better. Given their participation level, (Fed has participated in some 22 extra slams and a load more of every other event) Rafa has been as successful against the field as Fed at slams, and more successful at davis cup, olympics, ms1000, and dominated Fed h2h, while Fed has been more successful at the wtf.
Well if that's the case, Rafa should have no problems to break 17 majors and 302 weeks.
If he is as good as you say, he will end up with 20 majors and 400 weeks.
If Fed is as good as you say, he should have no problem having a winning h2h against his biggest rival.
Davydenko say hi.
I never said, Fed is that good. Just that he has the best case for goat.
Goat is not perfect. h2h doesn't help Rafa trailing 200 weeks and 4 majors.
I mean ok, if Rafa gets to 17 and 302 weeks, then maybe h2h can be used as a tie-breaker.
But I don't see how Rafa's h2h can make Fed's 17 and 302 weeks any less valuable. I mean it doesn't erase anything.
The OP asked what happens when Nadal gets to 18 (reasonable chance) and Fed is mired at 17 (very likely). I think it will be very hard to rest on weeks at #1 as THE criteria by which one supports Federer as having a greater career, given the incredibly, horribly, ridiculously, indisputably lopsided H2H (especially in slams...).
Weeks at #1 is a derivative accomplishment as most weeks are racked up without any need to win anything and you just have to be better than your competition, which can be quite weak at times (especially during a few of Fed's years). As soon as Nadal fully matured, Federer was almost done with #1 except for a couple of brief cups of coffee (when Nadal was injured actually in at least one case). GS titles are a tangible measurement of performance in the biggest tournaments and H2H involves winning man to man against a specific rival of similar accomplishments over a large sample size.
This is subjective. I gave you my opinion. I will always be biased in favor of Fed anyway. So, Rafa will have to do something crazy for me.
For me greatness will always be beyond pure numbers. Like how Fed was on top vs different generations. And how surfaces helped Rafa and Nole and Fed still was able to compete when his style and one-hander is not for this era. Also stuff like Rafa breaking the rules and his gamesmanship. Also Fed's style and shotmaking. And the fact he took his losses like a man and still fights. Doesn't skip majors and always goes deep in majors. Never retires from a match. Also the fact, that he is loved everywhere.
I mean Rafa has to destroy his health to be the best, then has to skip majors, so his domination is non-linear.
Stuff like this is important to me, when considering greatness.
And all fans are biased like this. For me tennis is fun, it's not just counting numbers on forums. It's also about other stuff.
And I have my own mind here. I won't let some TW guys here dictate to me what art or greatness is. Or what is the correct way to interpret any numbers.
Don't get me wrong, for me the goat still has to have some good numbers and records to back it up, but for me, this is not the only thing.
I mean this is tough for me. The OP is asking me to pretend Rafa has 18 majors. He doesn't and I can't. Because I know it's not the truth and I can't manufacture those emotions yet. So, until Rafa actually gets close, my emotions won't change.
Davy he say hi
floating on his head-to-head
mocking fanboy glad
fire fanboy mad
mind when not in outer space
Fed stands on his brain
blue moon thoughts of cheese
smells to hell with rot decay
fumbling the words
fanboy sit like owl in tree
branch come falling down
trolling under skies of black
fanboys born asleep
That's fine, but then you really should stop making objective bases for your emotional feelings - they will always get a response.
Davydenko is not Nadal's biggest rival, and hardly a rival at all (0 GS meetings). It is not relevant, how many times are you guys gonna bring this up?
Good point. Rafa has to first win at least a few on HC, for Davy to be his rival.
Now this 6-1 is complete ownage.
Yeah, the H2H isn't 6-1, it's actually 6-5. And outside of 250s, Nadal leads 5-4. Nadal even retired from one of the matches! Hardly ownage.
If we're only talking about H2H's on one surface let's look at 13-2 for Rafa vs. Fed (5-0 in GSs, 4-0 in GS finals).
That's ownage, my friend.
Don't people bring up Davydenko, while saying Rafa has to equal all of Fed's records before the h2h becomes relevant?.
Rafa's and Fed's numbers are similar, Davydenko's are not.
Yep, how do they not realize they are grasping at straws?? Where would you find Nadal playing to the best of his ability? The slams or in 250s?? Come on.
I can be both. My own definition is beyond just numbers, personal feeling and bias.
But I can give you my objective definition based on math, without feeling.
A guy with most weeks nr.1 and most majors is goat. Simple. If one guy hase more weeks and one guy has more majors, we use this:
Based on math, we have 4 majors / year. So 52 weeks at nr.1 = worth 1 major.
This is as close to objective we will ever get.
It's not that anything is less valuable. My point was really, that you are saying Rafa has to equal Fed's numbers/records, but Fed doesn't have to equal Rafa's. And even though Rafa's younger, he does have several things Fed does not, I just named one.
We all know Rafa equalling Fed's weeks at number one is pretty impossible, but then, Fed isn't going to equal some of Rafa's numbers either.
The end result is important here IMO. Was Djokovic playing great in the final throughout? The answer is no. He played well in sets 2 and 3. That's it. He shouldn't have gone away mentally, that reflects badly on him as an opponent. It doesn't make him look better.
What sort of great champion goes away completely after losing a tight 3rd set? It's pathetic that it's some kind of excuse. As for weapons and level of play. For those 2 sets Agassi was hitting groundstrokes harder and with more accuracy than Djokovic. He had bigger weapons off the ground than Djokovic.
I see what you're saying, it's unlikely that Agassi would have been able to win that match even with the 3rd set as the toll on him going the distance would be too much. But I don't see what that has to do with their actual performance in the match. The fact is Djokovic started slowly, found his game halfway through the second set then lost it again at the beginning of the 4th. Agassi's level of play for sets 2 and 3 was as high as anything Djokovic produced. Even if you favor Djokovic's performance it can't be that far apart and Federer had a tougher draw apart from the final anyway...by far.
He did to Federer what Djokovic did to Nadal so yes he could. Hewitt was hitting lots of winners past Federer and volleying fantastically. He'd certainly give Nadal problems playing like that. Hewitt seems to match up much better with those 2 than Federer. I'd favor him at Wimbledon over Djokovic at the very least.
He replicated his hardcourt form consistantly enough in the masters in 2005.
You could make a break down like that for anyone and their slam wins.
Federer at his peak on his worst surface and on Nadal's best you mean. Djokovic has been far from at his best at the FO the last 2 years. He had to save multiple match points just to get to the final in 2012. Even last year he was making alot of errors.
Agassi was playing well in Montreal that year, shows that Nadal wasn't a scrub on hardcourts if anyway. The problem for Agassi was that he found it easier to hit his groundstrokes off flatter balls. Nadal is a unique player you have to adjust to his game alot. Agassi was better at the USO also IMO.
I never said 2006 wasn't weak. Focus on something I disagree with perhaps?
Ljubicic was a good hardcourt player, the equal of most of the bottom half of the top 10 on the surface at his best.
I was talking about 2005, he ended the year #5 in 2006 anyway not #3.
Murray and Del Potro (also Tsonga and Federer) all had injuries this year. Which affected it's strength considerably. Ferrer is a pretty poor #3...
I didn't say Rafa has to equal all Fed's records. Just 2 most important ones.
Majors and weeks nr.1. This is what tennis is about. I mean WTF, masters and other stuff are still 2nd tier compared to majors and nr.1 ranking.
Yeah, Fed won't equal some 2nd tier stuff Rafa has. But Rafa can't equal some 2nd tier Fed has.
But weeks nr.1 and majors is 1st tier. Nobody can get around this.
They're not similar really...
But if its just about the numbers which one is more important? Majors or weeks at no.1? What happens if Nadal ends up with more slams than Federer but less week at No.1? (a possible scenario) Isn't Borg considered greater than Lendl with less then half as many weeks at No.1?
If we're throwing davydenko in the mix then, yes, Fed's and Nadal's numbers are similar.
Crissti-Its no use arguing with Fed fanatics. If by any chance Nadal surpass Federer in slam count the majority (more than 90% people) will consider Nadal as greater and better player than Federer. Don't you think that is enough?
Well yes relatively speaking they are then.
I don't care about clay h2h. If Fed had more than 8 RG titles, I would still consider Fed greater on clay, even with the h2h.
I'm not saying Davy is greater than Rafa on HC. I'm saying if we use Rafa fan logic where h2h is worth more than titles, in this case, Davy is greater.
But yeah h2h is very counterintuitive, so I can see why most fans don't get it. Because h2h actually punishes Fed for those extra RG finals. That's why h2h is flawed. If fed lost before finals, h2h would reward his poor results.
That's why it's maybe hard for a lot of people to grasp this. And we have this paradox too. Fed owns Davy, Rafa owns Fed, Davy owns Rafa.
How can lesser players have better h2h against better players? If they have better h2h vs more accomplished players are they really better?
Yes in tennis a guy can still be the best with a few losing h2hs.
It's easy. 52 weeks = worth 1 majors. I mean we have 4 majors/year and we have 4x52 weeks.
Yeah, Borg is considered greater, because most fans are biased and they don't use math.
But using pure math, Lendl and Connors should be ranked much higher than they are.
Yeah, they are...
Sorry but you are really stupid. Head to head means something between the rivals if they have played against each other many times and on many surfaces. In this case Federer and Nadal fits it. I'm not saying Nadal is greater than Fed or vice versa but if Head-to-head between your biggest rivals means nothing like you think, then why do they compete against each other in the first place?
A 4 slam difference is not similar, neither is the 180 odd difference at weeks at #1. Federer also has 2 more YE #1. Those are the big stats and those aren't similar.
answer me: when did i ever claim that federer and nadal are in the same era? ANSWER ME. when?
I don't think I've seen a lot of people saying H2H is worth more than titles..... I've seen a lot of people say it would be a legit tiebreaker if number of titles were similar.
Also, Fed fans seem to think that every H2H has the same worth. That's where our disconnect is. If you guys think that the H2H between Nadal and Davydenko is as significant as the H2H between Nadal and Federer, then we will never see eye to eye. The only reason the Nadal Davydenko H2H is mentioned is because it is negative for Nadal. The Nadal Federer H2H would be discussed regardless.
Care to elaborate on this more? I'm confused....
let me offer you a statistic which to me, is the most objective in describing "greatness" or "greatest game". it still doesn't perfectly get at the problem of comparing eras, but to me, this statistic is better than slam counts etc. basically, it is match winning percentage. with say a minimum of 500-600 matches played at the highest ATP level. I am not cherry picking this statistic, but I genuinely find it the most objective. it describes dominance, AND consistency. it does not discount players who retired early although it could slightly penalize players who hang on for too long, although that is usually rare. Jimmy connors seem to be the only example though even that is debatable.
Well you give this impression, if you use the h2h. I mean if you say you don't claim this, why would you use the h2h with guys who aren't in the same era?
Separate names with a comma.