Is Nadal the greatest if he exceeds Fed's slam count?

Nadl is the GOAT over Fedr if he gets:

  • He's already is ;)

  • 20 slams

  • 21 slams

  • 22 slams

  • 23 slams

  • 24 slams

  • 25 slams

  • Impossible


Results are only viewable after voting.

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Just curious what percentage of folks think he would/wouldn't be the GOAT if he actually does it and exceeds Fed's slam count in the future.
Say Fed finishes on 20 for the sake of the poll.

How many ahead would he need to be for you?

As GOAT is not an official title and is basically just individual/consensus opinion, it would be nice to see how things might stack up for Fed if the current momentum on tour continues.

Fire away.
 
Absolutely. And I think when everything is said and done. Nadal will deserve to be regarded as the greatest of all time. He has had to work incredibly hard for his success, a lot harder than Federer has had to. He’s had to come back from injuries and adjust his game to suit other surfaces.

His success is magnified based on these points and he deserves to win more majors than Federer. He’s similar to Cristiano Ronaldo in that they have had to work insanely hard to get to and maintain their level
 

vex

Hall of Fame
Here’s the truth bomb on this topic:

1) Fed retains slam Count = undisputed GOAT

2) Tie: A large segment will consider Fed GOAT due to the vast non-slam achievement gap as well as Rafa’s clay heavy numbers. A slightly smaller segment will consider them co-GOATS. A minority will weakly claim Rafa is GOAT based on the misleading H2H stat.

3) Rafa passes Fed in slams: Rafa will eventually be considered the GOAT. The Fed fan base is massive and will complain for a decade but years later the masses will, ironically, use the same logic Fed fans use in every debate today and simply say 21>20. A smaller segment will consider them co-GOATs due to the non slam factors.

There you have it
 

Rafa's OCD

Semi-Pro
no matter what, the lopsided French Open count is precisely why Nadal won't ever (and shouldn't) be considered better than Federer. if Nadal does equal or pass Federer in the Slam tally, it'll be overwhelmingly because of one Slam (and along with the AO, a Slam in the bottom half of the prestige list). like it or not, that also plays a role in this discussion. Federer has 7 titles at the most prestigious Slam. Nadal has 2 and before this year hadn't been past a 4th round there in 7 years. outside of the Rafael Nadal fanbase, the French Open just isn't weighted all that heavily in the all-timer discussions. similarly, Novak's lopsided Aussie tally is one of the things that would have made it difficult for him to be considered greatest ever even if he hadn't fallen off a cliff two years ago.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
As I wrote in another thread, Nadal's dominance at the French is a double edged sword. It has solidified him as the best of all time on any single surface but also kind of limits him to that title. Federer has more slams and better records at every other grand slam.

I would say even if Nadal gets to 21, the distribution problem will make the GOAT debate becomes kind of a toss up.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
no matter what, the lopsided French Open count is precisely why Nadal won't ever (and shouldn't) be considered better than Federer. if Nadal does equal or pass Federer in the Slam tally, it'll be overwhelmingly because of one Slam (and along with the AO, a Slam in the bottom half of the prestige list). like it or not, that also plays a role in this discussion. Federer has 7 titles at the most prestigious Slam. Nadal has 2 and before this year hadn't been past a 4th round there in 7 years. outside of the Rafael Nadal fanbase, the French Open just isn't weighted all that heavily in the all-timer discussions. similarly, Novak's lopsided Aussie tally is one of the things that would have made it difficult for him to be considered greatest ever even if he hadn't fallen off a cliff two years ago.
As I wrote in another thread, Nadal's dominance at the French is a double edged sword. It has solidified him as the best of all time on any single surface but also kind of limits him to that title. Federer has more slams and better records at every other grand slam.

I would say even if Nadal gets to 21, the distribution problem will make the GOAT debate becomes kind of a toss up.
How many more non-clay slams does Rafa need to satisfy the balance arguments in your view?

I mean he has a good shot at another Wimbledon just now. Who knows what the future holds tbh
 

Rafa's OCD

Semi-Pro
How many more non-clay slams does Rafa need to satisfy the balance arguments in your view?

I mean he has a good shot at another Wimbledon just now. Who knows what the future holds tbh
as I said above, I don't think he can do it. he's moved into the compiler phase of his career. he'd have to pull off something that either he's never done before or amass to such an extent that he puts considerable daylight between he and Roger. there's no way in hell he's winning a calendar year Slam, and I can't see him running off another 10 Slams or something equally absurd post age 32.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Fed will always be a better player for me but if Nadal passes the slam count he's a greater one, it's the most important metric in this era.
 
As I wrote in another thread, Nadal's dominance at the French is a double edged sword. It has solidified him as the best of all time on any single surface but also kind of limits him to that title. Federer has more slams and better records at every other grand slam.

I would say even if Nadal gets to 21, the distribution problem will make the GOAT debate becomes kind of a toss up.
I see what you are saying but let's say Nadal wins Wimby (hypothetical at this stage, I know) - is there another man that has won at least three slams on the three different surfaces in the open era? Without Wimby this year, there wouldn't be too many that have won the two in all three surfaces that Nadal has won.

What I'm saying is that his distribution really only becomes a problem if he is missing a slam / surface like Pete did. But he has shown he is capable right throughout his career on all three. I agree with you though that an extra Wimby, USO and AO wouldn't hurt.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
no matter what, the lopsided French Open count is precisely why Nadal won't ever (and shouldn't) be considered better than Federer. if Nadal does equal or pass Federer in the Slam tally, it'll be overwhelmingly because of one Slam (and along with the AO, a Slam in the bottom half of the prestige list). like it or not, that also plays a role in this discussion. Federer has 7 titles at the most prestigious Slam. Nadal has 2 and before this year hadn't been past a 4th round there in 7 years. outside of the Rafael Nadal fanbase, the French Open just isn't weighted all that heavily in the all-timer discussions. similarly, Novak's lopsided Aussie tally is one of the things that would have made it difficult for him to be considered greatest ever even if he hadn't fallen off a cliff two years ago.
If anything this will be the opposite in the future. As grass courts continue to die off worldwide Wimbledon will be regarded as the oddity and an outlier surface.

All in all the best you can hope is that people continue to view all slams as equal as they do now
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
How many more non-clay slams does Rafa need to satisfy the balance arguments in your view?

I mean he has a good shot at another Wimbledon just now. Who knows what the future holds tbh
Good question. I feel he needs to get to 5 at at least one more slam. A few more spread out between the other two, and his resume would start to look a lot more well-rounded.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Just curious what percentage of folks think he would/wouldn't be the GOAT if he actually does it and exceeds Fed's slam count in the future.
Say Fed finishes on 20 for the sake of the poll.

How many ahead would he need to be for you?

As GOAT is not an official title and is basically just individual/consensus opinion, it would be nice to see how things might stack up for Fed if the current momentum on tour continues.

Fire away.
Nadal and Federer were not GOAT's in any case. They never won the Grand Slam, and at their age now, the granddaddies can beat up on many with ease of wind sending a piece of paper flying, but they are long beyond the potential to win the Grand Slam, if they ever had it to begin with.
 

Rafa's OCD

Semi-Pro
Nadal and Federer were not GOAT's in any case. They never won the Grand Slam, and at their age now, the granddaddies can beat up on many with ease of wind sending a piece of paper flying, but they are long beyond the potential to win the Grand Slam, if they ever had it to begin with.
I don't necessarily disagree with this but because of the sheer dominance Federer enjoyed for basically 5 straight years in the early-to-mid 2000s plus his fairly unexpected resurgence in the late twilight of his career, he will likely be considered greater than Laver.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Everyone's numbers are inflated due to this HORSECRAP era where the main younger generation competition is some 5'7" nerd 20 year old intern at Google.
Federer obviously not the GOAT. Nadal, wouldn't be good on true fast surfaces and like Fed he's starting to pad against total MUGS. Nole was on the GOAT path but got distracted.

Pete would be GOAT without his blood condition, overall GOAT is probably Laver or Pancho.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
I see what you are saying but let's say Nadal wins Wimby (hypothetical at this stage, I know) - is there another man that has won at least three slams on the three different surfaces in the open era? Without Wimby this year, there wouldn't be too many that have won the two in all three surfaces that Nadal has won.

What I'm saying is that his distribution really only becomes a problem if he is missing a slam / surface like Pete did. But he has shown he is capable right throughout his career on all three. I agree with you though that an extra Wimby, USO and AO wouldn't hurt.
Yeah it seems to me that, in the end, Federer and Nadal's careers are going to be different by type rather than degree. They will both have achieved greatness at the highest level but in very different ways.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Assuming Fed does not add more, the milestone he set is 4 higher than the next best player at that time (Fed-20 and Nadal 16 after AO 18)

If Rafa gets 23-24 majors , he would be establishing new bench marks and it would be hard to deny he is the GOAT

Milestone is not achieved by merely equalling or barely crossing the earlier benchmark .
 

Daniel Andrade

Hall of Fame
I know that it seems a bit unfair for Nadal but if Nadal gets to 20, even having a more masters 1000, I wouldn't consider him the absolute GOAT, there would be discussion of course, but Fed still has things Nadal doesn't (as usual when comparing different types of players).

For me if Nadal wants to be considered the absolute GOAT he needs to surpass him in GS numbers, that is at least one more. 21.

But I voted for 22 because that disipates the discussion and then it would be obvious.
 

BGod

Legend
Borg with 11 Slams is still often rated ahead of Pete.

It's all about the spread. I voted 25 because I can't imagine Nadal only winning 8 Slams at the French till he's 40.

WTFs also matter, even though it's diluted with Bo3 Final.

Federer: 6-1-8-5-6
Nadal: 1-11-2-3-0

Then you have weeks at #1.

So yeah, if I add 8 more Slams like so: 3-13-4-5 and he finally gets say 2 WTFs and is close on weeks at #1, then maybe yeah. You still couldn't ignore Federer having more titles at 2 Slams and equal at 1. That's the thing.\

Weeks at #1: 310>180 Federer
Aussie: 6>1 Federer
French: 11>1 Nadal
Wimbledon: 8>2 Federer
USO: 5>3 Federer
WTFs: 6>0 Federer

What am I suppose to do with that?
 
Top