If Nadal stays at 14 or 15 will hardcore Nadal fans concede GOAT status to Federer?

[jg153040]

Greatest doesn't necessarily mean the one with the best stats.

No, but in that case you have expanded the meaning of the word greatest, so the word is losing its purpose.

I mean you can say that me having most pounds doesn't necessarily mean I'm the heaviest man on the planet.

But you have changed the meaning of the word.

Fine, if you have problem with word goat, don't use it, use any other word, I don't care. Use moat, most successful.

I don't care what you call it, the concept is the same, we mean the same thing.

Fine, you don't have to call me the heaviest in the world, just call me the guy with most pounds, I don't care, but we all know what we mean here.

I mean you can say that winning a grand slam doesn't necessarily make you the best player in that grand slam, but that doesn't mean anything.

As long as you agree Fed has best stats, that's fine with me. Goat is some vague notion and people change definition of the word, so it doesn't mean anything anymore. Like God .

So, if you don't like the word say, in tennis we measure how good you are by stats. And Federer has the best stats.

I don't need you to agree Fed is goat, just agree with previous sentence.

 

[Amritia]

No, but in that case you have expanded the meaning of the word greatest, so the word is losing its purpose.

No, I am not.
Greatest does not necessarily mean best statistics.
It is possible that the one with the best statistics is greatest, but not necessarily the case.

 

[tennisaddict]

No, I am not.
Greatest does not necessarily mean best statistics.
It is possible that the one with the best statistics is greatest, but not necessarily the case.

Do you accept Fed has the best stats on the globally recognized achievement metrics ? That is all what JG is asking

 

[Amritia]

Do you accept Fed has the best stats on the globally recognized achievement metrics ? That is all what JG is asking

That is not all JG is asking, JG is saying greatest means best statistics, which absolutely is not true.

Federer has the best aggregate (i.e. accumulated) statistics, while Nadal has the best average statistics.

 

[jg153040]

Do you accept Fed has the best stats on the globally recognized achievement metrics ? That is all what JG is asking

Yeah. So, as long we agree on the concept, it doesn't matter how we call this concept.

When people talk about goat in all sports they usually mean best stats.

Some people don't agree with the definition of goat, that's fine. I accept that.

If you agree goat is best stats, then Federer is goat. If you don't agree, then he is not. But the thing is that we all at least agree that he has best stats, and in all sports this is what usually the word goat means.

So, people mostly argue semantics here and don't even realize it.

Ironically all Nadal fans agree that goat usually means best stats. They call Nadal the clay goat and it surely is not based on his style or his looks, but based on STATS.

I mean, how can Nadal fans argue that we can't compare eras and goat is not the best stats, then call Nadal the clay goat?

 

[tennisaddict]

That is not all JG is asking, JG is saying greatest means best statistics, which absolutely is not true.

Federer has the best aggregate (i.e. accumulated) statistics, while Nadal has the best average statistics.

The word 'average' does not really go with 'achievement' and 'greatest'. Moreover Rafa's stats are skewed.

There are 6 commonly established important metrics by tennis legends, analysts and historians. Average is not one of them.

 

[Amritia]

Yeah. So, as long we agree on the concept, it doesn't matter how we call this concept.

When people talk about goat in all sports they usually mean best stats.

Some people don't agree with the definition of goat, that's fine. I accept that.

If you agree goat is best stats, then Federer is goat. If you don't agree, then he is not. But the thing is that we all at least agree that he has best stats, and in all sports this is what usually the word goat means.

So, people mostly argue semantics here and don't even realize it.

Ironically all Nadal fans agree that goat usually means best stats. They call Nadal the clay goat and it surely is not based on his style or his looks, but based on STATS.

I mean, how can Nadal fans argue that we can't compare eras and goat is not the best stats, then call Nadal the clay goat?

I can't speak for anyone else- but I believe the sensible approach is seeing how hard it is to achieve what they have done given their circumstances.
That gives an inherent advantage to those with better stats (as there should be), but could also take into account the different variables and fully recognise the complexity of that.

 

[jg153040]

I can't speak for anyone else- but I believe the sensible approach is seeing how hard it is to achieve what they have done given their circumstances.
That gives an inherent advantage to those with better stats (as there should be), but could also take into account the different variables and fully recognise the complexity of that.

I agree that we can take into account different variables. But the same can be said with Borg vs Nadal on clay.

I mean, if you say stats isn't enough, why should we then call Nadal the clay goat?

Or Better yet Sampras and Borg vs Nadal.

What variables do you want to use?

 

[jg153040]

That is not all JG is asking, JG is saying greatest means best statistics, which absolutely is not true.

Federer has the best aggregate (i.e. accumulated) statistics, while Nadal has the best average statistics.

So, what metrics do you use to call Nadal the clay goat if not stats?

 

[Amritia]

I agree that we can take into account different variables. But the same can be said with Borg vs Nadal on clay.

I mean, if you say stats isn't enough, why should we then call Nadal the clay goat?

Or Better yet Sampras and Borg vs Nadal.

What variables do you want to use?

Variables can include factors such as competition, surface variety, propensity to get injured (if you don't see that itself as a negative), and a few other things.

I think Nadal is the greatest of all time on clay, taking into account the variables. That's my opinion, you are free to disagree.

 

[jg153040]

Variables can include factors such as competition, surface variety, propensity to get injured (if you don't see that itself as a negative), and a few other things.

I think Nadal is the greatest of all time on clay, taking into account the variables. That's my opinion, you are free to disagree.

But we can't use that variables in any objective way.

I would love to use them, but how would you put any number on that? How much slams is competition worth?

We can use the same logic vs Nadal too. Lack of RG champions means weak era, therefore Borg still has a case for clay goat.

Ok, so for you the definition for goat is surface variety + stats + propensity to get injured.

I won't argue with you on that. Let's say I agree with your definition. Fine, now how can we measure that stuff?

While definition can be subjective, measurements can't be, they have to be consistent.

 

[Amritia]

While definition can be subjective, measurements can't be, they have to be consistent.

That is the whole point, you cannot objectively who the GOAT is, on clay or all surfaces.

 

[jg153040]

That is the whole point, you cannot objectively who the GOAT is, on clay or all surfaces.

but I can say objectively who has best stats. That can be measured.

You can't say objectively who has worse or better competition or how much injuries play a part and so on.

That is the difference. The only knowledge is empirical knowledge. If you can't measure it, it's not knowledge.

So, we can only objectively argue about things we can measure.

 

[Amritia]

So, we can only objectively argue about things we can measure.

Yes, which is why we can't measure the GOAT debate objectively.
The GOAT debate is subjective.

 

[tennisaddict]

That is the whole point, you cannot objectively who the GOAT is, on clay or all surfaces.

You are again going back to GOAT .

Which player in open era leads cumulatively on the metrics below ?

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

 

[Amritia]

Just following the stats doesn't mean GOAT for the following reason:

-Any experiment needs variables to be constant for a fair test.
-For example if comparing the growth of two plants, with one in darkness while the other is in light- is not a fair comparison
-Like this there are other variables in tennis which can vary and fluctuate for different opponents- for example different levels of competition
-Just looking at stats ignores the other variables
-So therefore it can't provide an accurate measure of who is GOAT
-So therefore we have to look at the variables which would always be subjective
-Thus the GOAT debate is a subjective one

 

[jg153040]

Just following the stats doesn't mean GOAT for the following reason:

-Any experiment needs variables to be constant for a fair test.
-For example if comparing the growth of two plants, with one in darkness while the other is in light- is not a fair comparison
-Like this there are other variables in tennis which can vary and fluctuate for different opponents- for example different levels of competition
-Just looking at stats ignores the other variables
-So therefore it can't provide an accurate measure of who is GOAT
-So therefore we have to look at the variables which would always be subjective
-Thus the GOAT debate is a subjective one

I agree with this. But you can't objectively measure those variables. But you can measure stats quite objectively.

So, why should we use variables that we can't measure ?

 

[Amritia]

I agree with this. But you can't objectively measure those variables. But you can measure stats quite objectively.

So, why should we use variables that we can't measure ?

I've just explained.
Ignoring these variables, just because they can't be measured by us, doesn't actually mean they don't exist.
So just looking at stats would be inaccurate- and furthermore assuming the variables don't exist is also subjective.

So just looking at the stats and pretending that means that is the full answer to the GOAT debate is also subjective.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Doesn't that just speak to how weak the other top competition was then? If Nadal could be number 1 based on clay results alone?

Well it was not weak enough to allow Nadal to be no 1.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

What I'm saying is Federer didn't directly stop Nadal from being number 1 by beating him H2H.

No he did it by doing better than Nadal at tennis.

 

[jg153040]

I've just explained.
Ignoring these variables, just because they can't be measured by us, doesn't actually mean they don't exist.
So just looking at stats would be inaccurate- and furthermore assuming the variables don't exist is also subjective.

So just looking at the stats and pretending that means that is the full answer to the GOAT debate is also subjective.

Fine, you can form your opinion based on those. I respect freedom. I just value opinions based on things you can't measure less than those based on things you can measure.

It's not only hard to measure those variables, it's hard to even prove they had any effects on stats. Maybe if a player had tougher competition he would raise his game and still win the same.

I don't pretend they don't exist, I just say it's pointless to use them if you can't measure them objectively and can't even prove they exist, in the sense that they affected the outcome. Also maybe those variables have negative effect on the outcome. Maybe if Federer had tougher competition he would become better player also mentally, so he would beat Nadal and Djokovic even more and won more than 17 slams.

The thing is if you can't measure it, we can just make stuff up. I can use anything. Fed has better style, he has better hair.

Sure, you can, but I don't put the same value to those opinions.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I think Nadal is the greatest of all time on clay, taking into account the variables. That's my opinion, you are free to disagree.

And a lot of people think Federer is the greatest overall, and you are free to disagree.

 

[tennisaddict]

And a lot of people think Federer is the greatest overall, and you are free to disagree.

Exactly. And if anything, making inferences based on what one can measure is much more sane and logical than using subjective criterion and feelings. And most people in the world are sane.

 

[Sysyphus]

Its not a story that 3 players in todays game will go down as all-time greats. To say they are only ATGs because today's field is awful, thats a story. You seem to claim that a players success is dependent upon who else is playing at the time, I say that players create their own success. This seems to be where we differ in opinion.

I agree, they will go down as all-time-greats because of their stats.
I can't think your serious regarding that players success isn't dependent on who else is playing at the time though. Of course it is. Isn't that the argument you guys use against Fed anyway? His success would have been lower if he peaked at the same time as more all-time-greats. So that's a bit contradictory in my opinion. Otoh, If he played only players on the level of the 100-500 ranked players, then he would have won a lot more than he has.

 

[Sysyphus]

Exactly. And if anything, making inferences based on what one can measure is much more sane and logical than using subjective criterion and feelings. And most people in the world are sane.

Agreed with this. It's easy to simply pay attention to the fact at hands, so why cloud it with purely subjective conjecture?

 

[Dave1982]

I really love both Fed & Nadal but have always considered Fed slightly ahead of Nadal when talking GOAT. Obviously if Nadal were to win a few more slams, especially away from RG then there's no doubt it becomes a more difficult decision & it might even tip the balance in Nadals favor.

In regards to Fed though, I just feel he was able to really dominate the sport for at least 3-4 years & in doing so became universally known in ways similar to Jordan, Ali & Schumacher to name a few. Obviously Nadal had 2010 & Djokovic 2011 which were incredible years for each of them but to date they've really only had that style of dominance for a single season....sure there's still a chance they could build on that but just at the minute it is what it is.

The h2h between Fed & Nadal is an interesting one & it's beyond doubt now that Fed will never really even that up to a point where it's close. In my opinion though Its not a huge factor because tennis is about winning titles as opposed to having a pure dominance over one opponent. Feds consistency has meant that he's continued to win titles whilst Nadal has become susceptible to random losses on a slightly more regular basis.

Anyways just my thoughts on it, love them both & would love for hem to win a few more slams each & not really fussed who history will remember as the better of the two. They are both great & I've thoroughly enjoyed watching them play against each other & others.

 

[dlk]

I acknowledge that Fed is GOAT until Nadal ties his GS record; but if/when that occurs, Rafa is GOAT. If Rafa only gets 16, Fed remains a smidge higher. I was so surprised when he lost to Stan last JAN.

 

[BringBackSV]

So you are saying it is unreasonable to pose the question then?

One thing I can be sure about however is that you like to argue for the sake of an argument. I mean you write on this thread not about the actual issue but making contrary arguments about the actual issue being discussed. And then you have the chutzpah to have an 'issue' with some Federer fans in turn having an issue to being disagreed with....

Unreasonable? No but bordering on pointless perhaps. Anyway, carry on.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Unreasonable? No but bordering on pointless perhaps. Anyway, carry on.

So what's your stance on the original question of the thread then? Does 14 cut it for you and 15 make it confusing? Or would 18 against 14 allay any doubts on the issue?

I'm interested in what it would take for you to acknowledge Federer as the better player.

 

[BringBackSV]

So what's your stance on the original question of the thread then? Does 14 cut it for you and 15 make it confusing? Or would 18 against 14 allay any doubts on the issue?

I'm interested in what it would take for you to acknowledge Federer as the better player.

Better in what regard? That is a rather general question. Fed is better on HC/Grass, Rafa is better on clay. Rafa is better head to head and Fed has more GS titles.

Please understand that my issue with the notion of a GOAT is not limited to Fed vs Rafa and their relative successes. Based on what I've seen to date from them, I just don't see a realistic chance that I would ever simply consider Fed to be better. I think they are both at a similar level and I don't see that changing (realistically) regardless of what either of them does going forward.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Better in what regard? That is a rather general question. Fed is better on HC/Grass, Rafa is better on clay. Rafa is better head to head and Fed has more GS titles.

Please understand that my issue with the notion of a GOAT is not limited to Fed vs Rafa and their relative successes. Based on what I've seen to date from them, I just don't see a realistic chance that I would ever simply consider Fed to be better. I think they are both at a similar level and I don't see that changing (realistically) regardless of what either of them does going forward.

Better in terms of being...a tennis player...! Federer will always have a losing h2h against Nadal and it is churlish to over argue it. Likewise against the field, at this point in time, Federer has a clear advantage over Nadal. As tennis is a game played against the field, I don't think it is unreasonable to state categorically that Federer is the better player.

Though fair enough, you are more than welcome to your opinion.

 

[BringBackSV]

Better in terms of being...a tennis player...! Federer will always have a losing h2h against Nadal and it is churlish to over argue it. Likewise against the field, at this point in time, Federer has a clear advantage over Nadal. As tennis is a game played against the field, I don't think it is unreasonable to state categorically that Federer is the better player.

Though fair enough, you are more than welcome to your opinion.

So Fed is better against the field on clay? That's interesting. Anyway, as I said I'd consider him better on 2 of the 3 surfaces but not head to head anywhere but indoors.

 

[Netspirit]

Fanboi wars?

 

[jg153040]

Better in what regard? That is a rather general question. Fed is better on HC/Grass, Rafa is better on clay. Rafa is better head to head and Fed has more GS titles.

Please understand that my issue with the notion of a GOAT is not limited to Fed vs Rafa and their relative successes. Based on what I've seen to date from them, I just don't see a realistic chance that I would ever simply consider Fed to be better. I think they are both at a similar level and I don't see that changing (realistically) regardless of what either of them does going forward.

Fine, you can have your opinion, but it is based on something you can't measure.

Federer has every important record and Nadal is not even close in some of them.

So, you used other stuff, you can't measure to elevate Nadal. Like h2h, and injury factor, competition, but you can't really put a number on that.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion, but then don't be upset if we also use things we can't objectively measure. In that case I can use whatever I want. Fed's streaks, style, W is the holy grail of tennis and other stuff, like him not losing consistently to journeymen at slams and so on...

But, I see those kind of discussions pointless, so I only use pure stats. But, I've said, you are welcome to use things we can't measure, I just don't value such opinions a lot.

Goat has a different meaning for you, which is fine. I've said, you can call Fed moat, or goat, or best, or most records. Call it whatever you want, as long as you admit Fed has most important records. That is the best we can do. The rest we can't really measure. Fine, don't call Fed goat or best, call him most successful. This is semantics really.

I can have most money in the world and you can say that doesn't mean I'm the richest. I won't argue with you there, as long as you admit I have the most money. Call it whatever you want if you don't like the accepted definition of the word rich.

So, we don't really disagree that much.

 

[jg153040]

So Fed is better against the field on clay? That's interesting. Anyway, as I said I'd consider him better on 2 of the 3 surfaces but not head to head anywhere but indoors.

I see what you mean. But how can you measure things such as h2h? How can you decide how many slams h2h is worth? We don't have any objective formula.

The same goes for other things like competition factor for example.

I will be happy to accept this, if you show me a good way to measure this.

We can add Nadal 2 slams for the h2h for example. But why 2, why not 20? How do you get the number?

I can say, Fed doesn't lose to journeymen consistently and his h2h vs journeymen is a lot better at slams, so I can add 2 slams to him, or 20?

How can you measure it?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

So Fed is better against the field on clay?

I do not think anyone has said so. But he is really good against the field on clay.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

So Fed is better against the field on clay? That's interesting. Anyway, as I said I'd consider him better on 2 of the 3 surfaces but not head to head anywhere but indoors.

This is where you want it both ways. Yes Nadal clearly has an enviable record on clay. I would go so far as to crown him clay GOAT, though you may not agree.

By the same token when one looks at the sport holistically you can jump to the same conclusion with regards to Federer. That's why I and many others label him the GOAT!

You want recognition for Nadal's wonderful records on clay, so be it, though it cuts both ways.

 

[BringBackSV]

This is where you want it both ways. Yes Nadal clearly has an enviable record on clay. I would go so far as to crown him clay GOAT, though you may not agree.

By the same token when one looks at the sport holistically you can jump to the same conclusion with regards to Federer. That's why I and many others label him the GOAT!

You want recognition for Nadal's wonderful records on clay, so be it, though it cuts both ways.

The issue isn't whether or not I recognize/acknowledge Fed's achievements, that's never been an issue for me. Rather, this comes down to (for you) the fact that I don't draw the same conclusions based on those achievements.

 

[BringBackSV]

Fine, you can have your opinion, but it is based on something you can't measure.

Federer has every important record and Nadal is not even close in some of them.

So, you used other stuff, you can't measure to elevate Nadal. Like h2h, and injury factor, competition, but you can't really put a number on that.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion, but then don't be upset if we also use things we can't objectively measure. In that case I can use whatever I want. Fed's streaks, style, W is the holy grail of tennis and other stuff, like him not losing consistently to journeymen at slams and so on...

But, I see those kind of discussions pointless, so I only use pure stats. But, I've said, you are welcome to use things we can't measure, I just don't value such opinions a lot.

Goat has a different meaning for you, which is fine. I've said, you can call Fed moat, or goat, or best, or most records. Call it whatever you want, as long as you admit Fed has most important records. That is the best we can do. The rest we can't really measure. Fine, don't call Fed goat or best, call him most successful. This is semantics really.

I can have most money in the world and you can say that doesn't mean I'm the richest. I won't argue with you there, as long as you admit I have the most money. Call it whatever you want if you don't like the accepted definition of the word rich.

So, we don't really disagree that much.

That's really not what I'm saying actually. Also, for me this is not just about Fed and Rafa, even though I know it is to the OP.

 

[BringBackSV]

I see what you mean. But how can you measure things such as h2h? How can you decide how many slams h2h is worth? We don't have any objective formula.

The same goes for other things like competition factor for example.

I will be happy to accept this, if you show me a good way to measure this.

We can add Nadal 2 slams for the h2h for example. But why 2, why not 20? How do you get the number?

I can say, Fed doesn't lose to journeymen consistently and his h2h vs journeymen is a lot better at slams, so I can add 2 slams to him, or 20?

How can you measure it?

I think you are making my point for me, somewhat at least.

 

[Gary Duane]

These discussions always seem to loop. There are two sides, and each side continues to stress the same talking points.

Something like a H2H can obviously be measured. 23/10 is two numbers, and obviously it is way more lopsided than 16/17, far better than 33/0.

We can also analyze those numbers according to surface and see how many wins are in peak years for either player. Even then it gets complicated, because Nadal peaked early, Fed later.

But if you are going to compare the two players, leaving out the H2H is ignoring a really big elephant. Because Fed's H2H against Nadal is his ONLY statistical weakness.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Yes and the traditional way to look at it is to use h2h as a tiebreaker. The team with the most points wins the championship regardless if they lost matches to no 2.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

If Nadal stays at 14 or 15 will hardcore Nadal fans concede GOAT status to Fe...

These discussions always seem to loop. There are two sides, and each side continues to stress the same talking points.

Something like a H2H can obviously be measured. 23/10 is two numbers, and obviously it is way more lopsided than 16/17, far better than 33/0.

We can also analyze those numbers according to surface and see how many wins are in peak years for either player. Even then it gets complicated, because Nadal peaked early, Fed later.

But if you are going to compare the two players, leaving out the H2H is ignoring a really big elephant. Because Fed's H2H against Nadal is his ONLY statistical weakness.

I think you miss the point, or at least my point about H2H's. As far as I am concerned the h2h is an immutable reality which proves the Federer Nadal match up favours Nadal. Yes you can argue the finer points about the h2h and make a case that the number is not quite as one sided as suggested, but for me that is an intellectually dishonest argument. At the end of the day the result stands as it is.

In the same vein however, Federer has greater success (considerably) against the field. Granted Nadal's career is not over and he may well catch Federer on some of his stats, but we all know he never will on many, such as weeks at No 1 for instance. This is the important point, as tennis is a game played against the field I unequivocally feel that Federer is the better player.

The head to head is like an accounting accrual if you will, a footnote, with not much more importance than used tournament balls. Yes, if we lived in a world where tennis was a gladiatorial sport between just Nadal and Federer it would have its proper place and we could declare a victor. We don't though and the importance that hardcore Nadal fans put it on it to undermine Federer is as intellectually dishonest as pretending that that the head to head statistic could, would or should be any different.