Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I agree completely.
The WTF is harder to win than the Olympics in terms of average match difficulty.
The Davis Cup is irrelevant in terms of a player's relative achievements next to another in the sense Federer and Nadal comparisons are done primarily because you can win the Davis Cup without even playing in most of the matches or, as Nadal has done, being completely absent from the final.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
be ready then!
Agassi has won all of them (Davis Cup, Olympics, WTF). He considers Olympics to be almost as important as slams, and he's very fond of his Davis Cup wins.
Aggasi never talks about his WTF...I don't think it matters that much to him, and I don't think he'd miss it if it wasn't there. It just doesn't hold the same prestige and value to players as many Federer supporters think. of course the top players will talk up the WTF in the lead up to the event...it's an important tour event that they need to support. But Slams, olympics and Davis Cup mean more to players than WTF. WTF is basically another Masters in a round robin format.
Last edited:
xFedal
Legend
What if Nadal gets 3 channel slams, career double slam?
Bukmeikara
Legend
So if Agassi dont like his WTF we have to go with his opinion and not with those of other tennis greats that say that the WTF is incredible tournament, coming short only to the slams. The solo fact that you have to beat back to back 4 of top 8 players for the year say a lot !!!!
borg number one
Legend
Winning Wimbledon would be very different for Nadal. If he were to win Wimbledon as part of another Channel Slam in 2014, talk of him being possibly the greatest ever will become rampant. The general public pays much more attention to Wimbledon than the other majors.
irishnadalfan1983
Hall of Fame
Not for me - arguments can be made on both sides really.
cknobman
Legend
Agassi also was a habitual drug user on tour, does that make it ok and gospel?
You do realize Davis cup is a team event and players are not even required to participate in all the events? Showing up for one match once your team has made it to the finals means two spits in my opinion.
The olympics can have players ranked outside of the top 200 in them.
xFedal
Legend
I don't think you realise this but nobody has 3 slams on every surface that something even Laver or Fed couldn't do and if Nadal can get Wimbledon it will add to his legacy as the most versatile player.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
9 French Opens on a total of 14 Grand Slams is exactly why there is a dent in Nadal's claim to ever being the greatest..
xFedal
Legend
But the dent can be taken of with 3 Channel slams. Thus becoming the most versatile player.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
Well, that is a matter of opinion.. everything on this board is an opinion for that matter..
If he wins 3 channel slams, that would be an incredible feat, but not a feat that makes him GOAT in my opinion.
Nadal's slam tally is just not balanced enough at this point. Even if Nadal gets to 17 slams with 2-9-3-3 slams (which would mean he loses RG 2015 by the way), that just won't cut it for me personally.
Problem for me personally is that I am a big clay court fan and although i will won't debate the question whether Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever (I think he is), I feel that the clay court playing field is not as strong as in the 90's. Of course I will never be able to prove this, so it's a matter of opinion, but that for me, combined with his lobsided grand slam record, is why i will not consider him "greatest ever" in the nearby future.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes and no. Yes because many casual fans and a few experts will point to the H2H which will just influence the general population thus making it a consensus, but the YEC's and time spent as #1 are just as important IMO. It's just that many "fans" will never look that deep. They will always look for the simple answer, but not necessarily the right one, and that is the H2H. At the end of the day, it is really only an opinion. There is not a right or wrong. If you were to try to convince me that slams and masters are equal in your opinion (and I know you don't think that but lets say you do for my purposes) then I would have to say you were wrong. There comes a point when an "opinion" is just wrong, but to say that it is wrong about the importance of the H2H vs the YEC or YE#1 is reaching at least. I would still call that an opinion IMO.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
That's not true, it's a fact that Roger Federer has won 17 Grand Slam titles. :lol:
In the ''nearby future'', should Nadal win Wimbledon and then the 2015 AO, might you consider him the greatest? At this point, he would have 7 non clay Slam wins and at least three wins on all the different core surface types, so he'd have almost as many as Federer, have won as many non fave Slams as Sampras and have the career Slam and comprehensive results across all the core surfaces.
Also, achieving as such would likely give him a further YE #1 accolade and many more weeks at #1, so 4 years overall and probably 200 or so weeks as the #1.
xFedal
Legend
3 slams on every surface you can't be more versatile then that? And 2 of each slam ?
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Right, so if Nadal did those thing as you say, he'd have 2 of each Slam (two career Grand Slams), won 3 across all core Slam surfaces, have almost the most Slam championships ever, have won Slams in 11 consecutive years, have around 200 + weeks as the world #1 and have ended the year as the world #1 four times.
These things could happen in the nearby future.
FormerNadalFan
Rookie
Seriously man....how can we stop these unbelievable stupid "GOAT" threads? How many do we need? What's the number???? 20 million? 50 billion???? What is it???"? What will make you "my player is the best ever" knuckleheads stop with the tireless nonsense?????????????
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Seventeen.
xFedal
Legend
Yess and he automatically wins 2 more French opens due to his "aura". Only concern is Wimby at the moment lets see how does.
Nadal needs to stay around till 33 if he does I won't be surprised if he got to 20 slams.
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Nadal is chasing history so his motivation and determination just might be that much more. Once he's reached and/or passed 18, I think he may consider retiring until another hot shot in 2024 comes along and passes Nadal's Slam record.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
Lol, you got me there.. facts are not a matter of opinion.. interpreting facts on the other hand...
Answer:
"Even if Nadal gets to 17 slams with 2-9-3-3 slams (which would mean he loses RG 2015 by the way), that just won't cut it for me personally."
Agreed, and Nadal then has a very legitimate claim to GOAT, but because of his lobsided gramd slam record, he would have to win 1 or 2 more than Federer, say 18 or 19 in total. If he ends up with 2-9-4-3 or 3-9-3-3 I will gladly admit to Nadal being GOAT (given that Federer stays at 17 of course).
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Sure, it goes without saying that barring injury he may add nicely to his RG collection, though that's in the less nearby future.
Yeah, Nadal probably has good chance to get to 17, not that it really matters to me.. 16/17/18, what's really the difference??
I think people get too hung up on numbers as if it states absolutely everything that one needs to know. 16 is very similar to 17 and Nadal can already be argued to be the best of his era even though he's only at 14. The same goes for if Nadal gets to 18, it doesn't automatically mean that Federer can't be argued to be the best of his era because he'll have other arguments going for him.
On balance though, I'd say Nadal is on target to be the best of his era.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Those things go hand in hand though with him achieving a potential 7-9 split by the 2015 AO. So you're saying he'd at least be a legit contender (already is, even) but in your eyes wouldn't be the GOAT still. That seems fair. Also, if that split is 2-9-3-2, he'd have a double CareerGS.
Last edited by a moderator:
jelle v
Hall of Fame
Yes, and as you said, both Federer and Nadal can legitimately be argued as GOAT, problem is that everybody will emphasize things they find important, so it probably will be a never ending debate if Nadal gets stuck in the range of 16-18 slams. And who doesn't like another GOAT thread?!
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
True, almost everyone will try to confirm their biases using the appropriate metrics.
I have recently talked to a few people and been surprised by some of things they say, such as changing their tune on who they'd see as the best if Nadal were to pass Federer's total and things like that, as though to suggest that originally they might have ''conceded'', but with Nadal getting closer it's time to move the goal posts.
It's interesting to see how people adjust their perspectives depending on the personal urgency of the situation.
It works in a sort of reverse too, with many fans (presumably of Nadal) quick to already declare Nadal as the best of his era even just based on his current accomplishments and not even taking into account what he might still go on to win in the future.
As always, the popcorn tastes good.
I have recently talked to a few people and been surprised by some of things they say, such as changing their tune on who they'd see as the best if Nadal were to pass Federer's total and things like that, as though to suggest that originally they might have ''conceded'', but with Nadal getting closer it's time to move the goal posts.
It's interesting to see how people adjust their perspectives depending on the personal urgency of the situation.
It works in a sort of reverse too, with many fans (presumably of Nadal) quick to already declare Nadal as the best of his era even just based on his current accomplishments and not even taking into account what he might still go on to win in the future.
As always, the popcorn tastes good.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
namelessone
Legend
There is no such thing as GOAT.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Lol, you got me there.. facts are not a matter of opinion.. interpreting facts on the other hand...
Answer:
"Even if Nadal gets to 17 slams with 2-9-3-3 slams (which would mean he loses RG 2015 by the way), that just won't cut it for me personally."
Agreed, and Nadal then has a very legitimate claim to GOAT, but because of his lobsided gramd slam record, he would have to win 1 or 2 more than Federer, say 18 or 19 in total. If he ends up with 2-9-4-3 or 3-9-3-3 I will gladly admit to Nadal being GOAT (given that Federer stays at 17 of course).
Federer needs to win another RG to be the GOAT. Only 1 clay slam is not enough. Nadal found a way to beat Fed at WIM so why couldn't Fed find a way to beat Nadal at RG?
His slam count is too padded by HC majors. He had the privilege of 2 majors on HC to rack up slam wins. If there were 2 on clay, Nadal would already have over 20 majors...
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Yeah but what's the point of playing the "if this, if that" game? The fact is there are two slams played on HC and the one on clay and that's just the way it is. And many would argue that Federer's 9 HC slams>Nadal's 9 clay slams given how much more proficient the competition is on HC compared to clay.
irishnadalfan1983
Hall of Fame
irishnadalfan1983
Hall of Fame
I understand it but I just don't feel that makes him GOAT.
I find people using the 9/14 as a negative against Nadal is funny - you'd swear they weren't playing tennis or something.
You can make argument Fed has only 1 clay slam therefore not GOAT.
In summary I am not sure who is GOAT - I don't think there is one.
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
1) Federer/Laver
2) Sampras/Nadal
3) BOrg
4) ROsewall
5) Lendl
When it come to achievements..
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
What about Connors?
90's Clay
Banned
I have no problem with anyone putting Nadal as GOAT of the open era now:
1. Hes systematically and throughly DOMINATED the guy who is supposed to be GOAT in Fed for a decade. (Fed can't beat the guy)
2. Hes dominated a surface more than anyone in history
3. Hes a h2h winning advantage over the top 30 guys in the world
4. He has the Masters title
5. Career Slam
6. Olympic Gold in Singles
7. Dominated ALL main rivals at slams when its mattered most (Again Something Fed couldn't do)
8. Highest winning %
Fed has a long time at #1 and a few more slams mainly because his top rivals were never as strong as Nadal's. Nadal has a consistent year round DJoker he has to fend off. Fed only had a mug Roddick who had more holes in his game than a pin cushion, and Pre Puberty Nadal still learning to play off of clay at the time really, not yet reaching all surface prime and Geriatric Retirement home slow Agassi- A Sampras era holdover. There are some reasons why Fed has a few advantages over Nadal.
Not to mention Nadals injuries helped Fed break the record because as we all know he NEVER Would have done so if Nadal stood in his way.
I can also understand people Putting Fed as #1 of this generation, but to me there is a greater case for Nadal now. And within a year this issue will be put to be anyways.
Now that Fed for all intents and purposes is going to lose the greatest of his era tag (barring career ender for Nadal), it will either be Nadal as GOAT of open era or Co-GOAT with Sampras since both established they were the best of their respective eras. Again, Something Fed won't/can't claim
1. Hes systematically and throughly DOMINATED the guy who is supposed to be GOAT in Fed for a decade. (Fed can't beat the guy)
2. Hes dominated a surface more than anyone in history
3. Hes a h2h winning advantage over the top 30 guys in the world
4. He has the Masters title
5. Career Slam
6. Olympic Gold in Singles
7. Dominated ALL main rivals at slams when its mattered most (Again Something Fed couldn't do)
8. Highest winning %
Fed has a long time at #1 and a few more slams mainly because his top rivals were never as strong as Nadal's. Nadal has a consistent year round DJoker he has to fend off. Fed only had a mug Roddick who had more holes in his game than a pin cushion, and Pre Puberty Nadal still learning to play off of clay at the time really, not yet reaching all surface prime and Geriatric Retirement home slow Agassi- A Sampras era holdover. There are some reasons why Fed has a few advantages over Nadal.
Not to mention Nadals injuries helped Fed break the record because as we all know he NEVER Would have done so if Nadal stood in his way.
I can also understand people Putting Fed as #1 of this generation, but to me there is a greater case for Nadal now. And within a year this issue will be put to be anyways.
Now that Fed for all intents and purposes is going to lose the greatest of his era tag (barring career ender for Nadal), it will either be Nadal as GOAT of open era or Co-GOAT with Sampras since both established they were the best of their respective eras. Again, Something Fed won't/can't claim
Last edited:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
The level of competition is subjective, all the record books care about is numbers and at the moment Federer>Nadal although that may change in the next couple of years. And Nadal has now beaten Djokovic 4 times in a row in the slams so what makes you think Nole is such a big rival for him anyway?
90's Clay
Banned
Djokovic is a year round machine and a much tougher opposition than Roddick and has achieved far more across all the surfaces opposed to Roddick. So I don't think its subjective at all. Djoker of the last 3-4 years is great competition than any of Fed's contemporaries of 03-07. Nadals conquests of rivals at the top (Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer,Berdych etc)>>> Federer's conquest of rivals at the top (Old Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, etc)
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
But I'm sure you would agree that it's not Fed's fault that the competition back then wasn't quite as strong- after all you can only play who's on the other side of the net.
90's Clay
Banned
Very true but it was that no so strong competition which inflated Fed's resume which cannot be ignored either.
I would overlook that if Fed had more quality slam wins over Nadal (Outside of the early Wimbledon young Nadal days when he just got on tour) but he didn't
Couple that with the fact Fed essentially needed Nadal to go out with injury for him to swoop in and win slams those last few years. He doesn't get a lot of points for that in my book
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic will his choking in finals isn't that great competition wise...besides that the rest of the field for Nadal's most dominant years has been a joke. In 2010 before the WTF he only played the combined top 4 5 times. Some tough competition, Davydenko and Del Potro were also injured.
He didn't play Murray in 2012 or 2013 either e.g. Murray's best years. But keep banging on about this strong competition.
Federer's era had more depth, the top tier players nowadays are better. But in Fed's day the second and third tier players were better. It was mostly even. Djokovic and Nadal in 2007 were both playing excellent tennis as well, Nadal was certainly in his prime and Djokovic was close to his - the AO 2008 was one of his most impressive wins.
You also neglect that Federer has met Murray and Djokovic nearly as many times as Nadal has anyway...
He didn't play Murray in 2012 or 2013 either e.g. Murray's best years. But keep banging on about this strong competition.
Federer's era had more depth, the top tier players nowadays are better. But in Fed's day the second and third tier players were better. It was mostly even. Djokovic and Nadal in 2007 were both playing excellent tennis as well, Nadal was certainly in his prime and Djokovic was close to his - the AO 2008 was one of his most impressive wins.
You also neglect that Federer has met Murray and Djokovic nearly as many times as Nadal has anyway...
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
What do you think were Federer's most impressive slam victories?
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I think what some of this boils down to is that Djokovic is actually being overrated as a rival and that most are overrating the current era. The ''strong'' era ended in 2013.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
''Murray and Federer are not the players they used to be.'' - Stan Wawrinka (slightly paraphrased).
90's Clay
Banned
2007 Wimbledon was the most impressive because he beat Nadal to attain it. The other slam wins consisting of beating Roddick or Post 2005 Hewitt who was done shouldn't be impressive feats because he SHOULD beat those guys on a regular basis. He SHOULD beat an ailing Agassi in his mid 30s.
If he was the greatest ever he should also beat Nadal at least on occasion yet he didn't manage to notch another slam after Wimbledon 2007
2011 French Open Semis over Djoker was impressive as well since Djoker was peaking that year.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Contextually, Roger Federer's most impressive win could be Wimbledon 2012 -- he beat Djokovic and Murray (both certainly prime and arguably mid peak) to win the title for the loss of just two sets and some will argue that 2012 Federer, as good as he was, doesn't compare to Federer in his peak years.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
What about his 07 US Open win over Nole?
jelle v
Hall of Fame
I see what you're trying to do, but your logic is flawed.
