Nadal cannot be GOAT even if he wins 17 or more slams

Heres why.

Many have questioned the flawed viewpoint "how a player can be regarded as the best of all time if he's not conclusively the best of his time" because it is irrelevant to and *******s the purpose of the professional tennis circuit (the ATP Tour).

What is the purpose of the ATP Tour? According to the ATP World Tour Media Guide: the ATP World Tour is an 11-month long season of 62 tournaments where the world’s best players battle the field of competitors for the biggest titles and the No.1 ranking - for the ultimate accolade of finishing the season as the ATP World Tour No. 1. In other words, the ATP player's goal is to achieve dominance over the entire field of competitors by winning the biggest titles and reigning as the No. 1 player.

In the big picture, the Federer-Nadal rivalry, matches and H2H are merely a secondary consequence of this primary purpose of the ATP Tour. The ATP Tour is not about head-to-head rivalries (e.g., Nadal’s losing H2H record to Davydenko) because it is not a one-on-one competition between personal rivals. On the ATP Tour, there is no convention or tradition of using H2H records to measure greatness of players. For example, in 1999, both the ATP and the ITF crowned Andre Agassi the greatest player of that year based on his big titles and ATP ranking - even though Agassi was beaten 1-4 by Pete Sampras (Sampras won their Wimbledon final, WTF final, Cincinnati semifinal, LA final while Agassi won only a WTF roundrobin match).

For 137 years, the greatest tennis players have been primarily evaluated by their (a) biggest titles won and (b) duration as the top player - because these are primary measures of dominance over the entire field of their era relative to other eras in tennis history. That's why, in June 2009, Martina Navratilova said: "(The Greatest Player Of All Time) a combination of how many grand slams have you won, how many tournaments have you won, how many years you were number one, and (Roger Federer has) got all those combinations. (Federer's) body of work is phenomenal..." This link shows how the intelligent Ivan Lendl summarized his tennis career (he didn't bother to include minor facts such as his 22 'Masters1000' titles nor did he highlight that he led Czechoslovakia to Davis Cup victory in 1980).
http://tinyurl.com/ndpqt7t

The more intelligent question to ask is: how can Rafael Nadal be in consideration for the "best ever" or the "greatest of all time" when Nadal is not conclusively the best player of his own Nadal era (2005 French Open to 2013 US Open)?

To understand why Federer is the greatest player in Nadal's era, compare the results of both players only in the Nadal era from 2005 French Open to 2013 US Open. Federer still has the better and more comprehensive overall results on the most important measures of greatness in the Nadal era. This is amazing considering that Federer’s prime was 2003 Wimbledon to 2007 World Tour Finals (only 2.5 years was in Nadal era) while Nadal's prime has been since 2008 (6 years).

World No. 1 Ranking:
- Year-End No.1: RF 4 vs RN 2
- Total Weeks No. 1: RF 232 vs RN 102 (No. 7 in ATP history)
- Consecutive Weeks No. 1: RF 167 vs RN 56 (No. 10 in ATP history)
- Lost No.1 ranking while in prime: RF 0 (prime: mid-2003 to 2007) vs RN 2 (prime: since 2008; lost No.1 to Federer and to Djokovic).

Grand Slam Championships:
- Total points using today’s ranking points: RF 42,185 vs. RN 36,150
- Titles won: RF 13 vs. RN 13
- Finals lost (runner up): RF 7 vs RN 5
- Semifinals lost: RF 8 vs RN 3
- Quarterfinals lost: RF 5 vs RN 4
- R4 lost: RF 1 vs RN 2
- R3 lost: RF 0 vs RN 1
- R2 lost: RF 1 vs RN 2
- R1 lost: RF 0 vs RN 1
- Slams skipped: RF 0 vs RN 4 (Nadal avoided four potential R1 losses)
- Different Slams with at least 3 titles: RF 3 (Wmbdn, USO, AO) vs RN 1 (FO)
- Years won at least 3 Slam titles: RF 3 (also won YEC in 2 of those years) vs RN 1
- Total finals: RF 20 vs RN 18
- Years reached all four slam finals: RF 3 vs RN 0
- Consecutive slam finals: RF 10 (18 finals in 19 consecutive slams) vs RN 5
- Consecutive slam semifinals: RF 20 vs RN 5
- Consecutive slam quarterfinals: RF 33 vs RN 11
- Slam winning percentage: RF 89.8% (194-22) vs RN 89.7% (156-18)

Year-End Championship (YEC: World Tour Finals and Tennis Masters Cup):
- Total points: RF 8,200 vs. RN 2,200
- Titles: RF 4 vs RN 0
- Finals lost (runner up): RF 1 vs RN 1
- Total YEC played: RF 8 vs RN 5

Five biggest championships in tennis (Grand Slams plus YEC):
- Total points: RF 50,385 vs. RN 38,350
- Titles won: RF 17 vs. RN 13
- Finals lost (runner up): RF 8 vs RN 6

Overall tournaments:
- Total titles: RF 49 vs RN 54 ( (36 are clay or 67%)
- Total finals lost (runner up): RF 27 vs RN 21

Overall match record:
- Total match win-loss: RF 562-95 (85.5%) vs RN 557-90 (86.1%)
- Match-winning streaks: RF 41 (2006-07) and RF 35 (2005) vs RN 32 matches (2008)
- Bagel sets lost (0-6): RF 1 vs RN 8
- Most consecutive matches lost to rival: RF 5 (2008-09 to Nadal; during Fed's mononucleosis season) vs RN 7 (2011-12 to Djokovic; including record 3 straight Slam finals lost)

Awards:
- Laureus World Sportsman of the Year: RF 3 vs RN 1
- Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship: RF 7 vs RN 1
- Fans' Favourite: RF 8 vs RN 0

[Note: Masters 100 events were not included as they are not the biggest tennis titles (top tier championships). As for the Davis Cup and the Olympics, there is no tradition or consensus on using these secondary measures and/or team events in measuring any of the past greatest players. Furthermore these events have low value - the ATP tennis authority places a value of only 750 points for an Olympic gold medal and 625 points for the Davis Cup championship (if the player played all 8 singles matches).]

The comparison data indicates that Nadal is not the greatest player of his own 'Nadal era' since 2005 French Open. Federer is. Nadal's winning head-to-head records (over Federer and other top players) failed to help him dominate his own era because he lost relatively more often to other players (which Federer in his prime would have routinely dismissed). For example, in his last four slam events, Nadal in his prime lost in the first round (2013 Wimbledon) and lost in the second round (2012 Wimbledon). Bottom line, Nadal was less successful (than Federer) at dominating the overall field of players in what matters on the ATP Tour: Grand Slams, Year-End Championships and World No.1 Rankings even in his own Nadal era!

If Federer is the greatest player of the Nadal era, then Federer must be the greatest player of the Federer era from 2003 Wimbledon to the present - once you add the 2 years of Roger’s results before 2005 French Open.

The actual starting point of this golden era is 2003 Wimbledon, when the Federer era began. Federer (17), Nadal (13), Djokovic (6), and Murray (2) together account for 38 of the past 42 Grand Slam championships - Federer by himself won over 40% (17) of these biggest titles! Before Nadal won his first slam, Federer won 57% of the preceding 7 slam tournaments (4 titles from 4 finals) and was the No. 1 player for only 70 weeks. When Nadal won the 2005 French Open and became the No. 2 player, Federer dominance of the slams increased to an unprecedented 63% of the next 19 slam tournaments (12 titles from 18 finals). After that, Federer still reached two slam finals, winning one title. With Nadal around, Federer was No.1 player for 232 total weeks to Nadal's mere 102 weeks (even young Djokovic will soon beat Nadal's 102 weeks). In other words, Nadal not only failed to slow down Federer, his presence allowed Federer's greatest success!

The following links provide a clear picture that shows why Federer’s career has been more successful - both in depth and breath - than Nadal's career.
http://tinyurl.com/lylz2t4
http://tinyurl.com/k787cqg
http://tinyurl.com/l9dyk2

These links are to the Open Era records (from 1968) and the ATP Tour records (from 1972). Search/find to see how often and where Federer and Nadal's names pop up. On several measures, there are still other great players with better records than Nadal.
http://tinyurl.com/lsc54wz
http://tinyurl.com/mnqnst

Federer is not just the "presumptive GOAT", he is the acclaimed GOAT. For example, Tennis Channel acclaimed Federer the GOAT in March 2012 on the strength of his then 16 major titles, career grand slam, year-end No.1 five times, 284 total weeks as No.1, and being the only player to reach all four major finals in three different years. Within seven months, Federer raised the bar to 302 weeks No.1 and 17 major titles - including seven Wimbledon titles, the most prestigious title in tennis.
http://tinyurl.com/6ozmrnm

Because of the holes in Nadal's record, his supporters sensationalize his head-to-head record with Federer on the irrational belief that beating Federer the GOAT somehow magically entitles the deficient Nadal to (a) compensate for the holes in Nadal's resume; (b) inherit Federer's GOAThood without having to achieve Federer's results; and (c) use their H2H record as the tie-breaker if Nadal ties Federer's slam total. It does not. It does not make up for the fact that Nadal has big holes in his resume such as duration as No.1 (a primary criterion of GOAThood) and Year-End Championship titles (the biggest title in tennis after the slams). And neither does secondary, low-valued events such as Olympics and Davis Cup compensate for Nadal's deficiencies on these primary measures.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
No such thing as GOAT but if Rafa wins 17 slams and Roger doesn't add more then Nadal will be considered greater than Federer. Simple as that. The 21-10 is too much.
 

Crose

Professional
If he has 18 slams and has that 21-10 H2H with Fed you still wouldn't consider him the GOAT? Good to know.
 
No such thing as GOAT but if Rafa wins 17 slams and Roger doesn't add more then Nadal will be considered greater than Federer. Simple as that. The 21-10 is too much.


what about being no.1 for a long time and dominating the field(which nadal only does on clay?)
what about year end championships. Tennis is not boxing to look at just the h2h. It simply hides the holes in nadals resume about his lack of accomplishments in other areas of the game.
 

McEnborg

Semi-Pro
Shady, lots of holes in your argument. Nadal has greater lifetime winning percentage, 21-10 record against Fed, more tournaments won per events entered, better record against two best players of his era, more Masters' wins and.....EIGHT AND TWO record against Federer in the biggest of big matches....the Grand Slams. Case closed my friend.
 
Shady, lots of holes in your argument. Nadal has greater lifetime winning percentage, 21-10 record against Fed, more tournaments won per events entered, better record against two best players of his era, more Masters' wins and.....EIGHT AND TWO record against Federer in the biggest of big matches....the Grand Slams. Case closed my friend.


Nadal's winning head-to-head records (over Federer and other top players) failed to help him dominate his own era because he lost relatively more often to other players (which Federer in his prime would have routinely dismissed). For example, in his last four slam events, Nadal in his prime lost in the first round (2013 Wimbledon) and lost in the second round (2012 Wimbledon). Bottom line, Nadal was less successful (than Federer) at dominating the overall field of players in what matters on the ATP Tour: Grand Slams, Year-End Championships and World No.1 Rankings even in his own Nadal era!



Because of the holes in Nadal's record, his supporters sensationalize his head-to-head record with Federer on the irrational belief that beating Federer the GOAT somehow magically entitles the deficient Nadal to (a) compensate for the holes in Nadal's resume; (b) inherit Federer's GOAThood without having to achieve Federer's results; and (c) use their H2H record as the tie-breaker if Nadal ties Federer's slam total. It does not. It does not make up for the fact that Nadal has big holes in his resume such as duration as No.1 (a primary criterion of GOAThood) and Year-End Championship titles (the biggest title in tennis after the slams). And neither does secondary, low-valued events such as Olympics and Davis Cup compensate for Nadal's deficiencies on these primary measures.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
what about being no.1 for a long time and dominating the field(which nadal only does on clay?)
what about year end championships. Tennis is not boxing to look at just the h2h. It simply hides the holes in nadals resume about his lack of accomplishments in other areas of the game.
Do you know how many weeks did Borg spend at #1? 106 or 109, no? But he was the GOAT of his era. And do you know how many weeks did Lendl spend at #1? 286 weeks? Yet he isn't in the GOAT discussion.

Nadal has won virtually everything to be won in tennis except the WTF. Federer was already considered greater than Sampras even before he overtook Pete's record weeks at #1. If Nadal wins another AO, he'd have won at least 2 titles from each Slam. That's huge!! Double career slam, the first in Open Era! That's something that Roger couldn't do. Djokovic highly unlikely will achieve the feat in his career.
Sorry, but Rafa will be considered greater than Federer if he wins AO and take his slam count to 15 or more. He doesn't even need to overtake Fed's slam count to be overtake the Swiss great in the GOAT ladder.

Nadal or his fans won't even need to say a thing if Nadal wins that many slams. Guys like Wilander, McEnroe and a few others already consider the Spaniard greater even with just 13 slams.
But this doesn't mean you stop being a Fed fan, no?
 

KillerServe

Banned
Very true! Effectively what the OP is saying is you can't get rewarded for being injured, which is what his fans are doing when they say "but if he wasn't injured all those years, then ... ". Yes it's possible Nadal would have had even more #1 weeks had he not been injured, but woulda coulda shoulda. Your health and consistency are a big part of your 'greatness'. No escaping it. And no rewarding it.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Very true! Effectively what the OP is saying is you can't get rewarded for being injured, which is what his fans are doing when they say "but if he wasn't injured all those years, then ... ". Yes it's possible Nadal would have had even more #1 weeks had he not been injured, but woulda coulda shoulda. Your health and consistency are a big part of your 'greatness'. No escaping it. And no rewarding it.
so pure luck deserves significant recognition :confused:
 

KillerServe

Banned
so pure luck deserves significant recognition :confused:
Luck is what it is by nature and over the long haul evens out. Don't you dare imply Nadal was never lucky either. Everyone has luck and bad luck. To say one player has more luck consistently than others, undermines the very definition of luck, especially when considering entire careers over many years.
 
Last edited:

SuperHead

Rookie
Luck is what it is by nature and over the long haul evens out. Don't you dare imply Nadal was never lucky either. Everyone has luck and bad luck. To say one player has more consistently than another, undermines the very definition of luck, especially when considering entire careers over many years.
Luck is not the only reason why Nadal is playing fabulously- there are many more reasons to it!
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
Regardless of the way it's presented, this will always be an eternal debate as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal fans pretty much hate each other. As far as I'm concern, I think greatness is not only achieved by the overall slam count. Total amount of weeks as #1 shows how much you were able to dominate your sport on a rather consistent basis, which is why Federer and Sampras are 2 of the greatest in my book. Winning a slam or 2 and not doing much for the rest of the year isn't exactly a great display of consistency. Most Nadal fans think the WTF are a joke, probably because he never won one. What I like the most about the WTF is that you only play the top 8, so you can't really have a "lucky/weak draw" to make it to the end.

I think Nadal is the clay goat, no doubt about that. But in terms of overall achievements, he's still got a long way to reach what Roger Federer and Pete Sampras have accomplished. Let's wait and see what he does before his career is over.
 
Most Nadal fans think the WTF are a joke, probably because he never won one. What I like the most about the WTF is that you only play the top 8, so you can't really have a "lucky/weak draw" to make it to the end.
Sounds like Federer fans devaluing the FO and it's "poverty" surface and ignoring h2h. I wonder what they would say if Fed had a winning record vs Nadal and a bunch of FO's...

and can't you lose in the WTF and still win the tournament? That's why I think it's silly for WTF to be as important as Federer fans make it out to be, not bc Nadal hasn't won it yet. In fact, him winning it wouldn't change a thing in my mind. The WTF reminds me of American football's Pro Bowl.
 

KillerServe

Banned
In this thread, all you're talking about is luck. Luck is... Luck was... blah blah blah... In fact you're arguing with other people about luck! So what do you expect me to think?
So your answer is nowhere did you read the word 'only' in my posts? How many posts did I make with the word 'luck' in them? Who brought up the word 'luck' in the thread? Perhaps it would do you good to read a little more carefully and try to understand what people are posting before injecting your own wild interpretations.
 
Last edited:

SuperHead

Rookie
So your answer is nowhere did you read the word 'only' in my posts? Perhaps it would do you good to read a little more carefully and try to understand what people are posting before injecting your own wild interpretations.
Oh I read your posts quite carefully and understood all of them. Do you deny that they were about luck ??
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Luck is what it is by nature and over the long haul evens out. Don't you dare imply Nadal was never lucky either. Everyone has luck and bad luck. To say one player has more luck consistently than others, undermines the very definition of luck, especially when considering entire careers over many years.
what you said makes no sense!

luck by its very nature tends towards randomness and most certainly does not necessarily even out (at least in this lifetime)!

Nadal has been very unlucky with his health and being born with foot defects that have been affecting him negatively since he started playing tennis.

Federer on the other hand has been extremely lucky regarding health!
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
Sounds like Federer fans devaluing the FO and it's "poverty" surface and ignoring h2h. I wonder what they would say if Fed had a winning record vs Nadal and a bunch of FO's...

and can't you lose in the WTF and still win the tournament? That's why I think it's silly for WTF to be as important as Federer fans make it out to be, not bc Nadal hasn't won it yet. In fact, him winning it wouldn't change a thing in my mind. The WTF reminds me of American football's Pro Bowl.
The number of weeks as #1 is a lot more revealing about constantly winning than your record against a particular opponent. Will Roger's record be tainted because of that statistic? Probably. I'm not devaluating Rafa's record on Clay, anyone with a brain can say he's the clay goat, most of Roger's defeat against Nadal were on clay. If we forget about this year where Nadal's record is just awesome, can we really say he was dominating grass and hard courts? I simply don't think so, and that certainly plays a part in the amount of weeks as #1.

Agree with you on the WTF, the formula isn't perfect, but I like the idea behind it.
 
what you said makes no sense!

luck by its very nature tends towards randomness and most certainly does not necessarily even out (at least in this lifetime)!

Nadal has been very unlucky with his health and being born with foot defects that have been affecting him negatively since he started playing tennis.

Federer on the other hand has been extremely lucky regarding health!


OFcourse Federer is lucky which is why he is inherently the GOAT. Everything falls in place for him and mother nature wants him to be GOAT in tennis unlike Nadal who is fighting against nature to be GOAT. Thats why nature always protests by giving him physical pain which he calls injuries. Accept your place spanish clown and surrender before you **** nature off and you get annihilated by a strike of lightning.
 
The fact that you can lose even once and still win the tournament renders it obsolete. It's a showcase, much like the Pro Bowl, or All-Star game.
 

Clarky21

Banned
MAYBE NOT, BUT IT COULD: THEREFORE EXHIBITION, AN ELITE ONE, BUT EXHIBITION NONE THE LESS...


THANKS FOR PLAYING.
Exactly. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it couldn't. The WTF is so overrated it's laughable. There is no other tournament like it where you can lose 2 matches yet still win the tournament. Fed fanatics can try as they might to dispute this fact, but they're just wasting their time.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Exactly. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it couldn't. The WTF is so overrated it's laughable. There is no other tournament like it where you can lose 2 matches yet still win the tournament. Fed fanatics can try as they might to dispute this fact, but they're just wasting their time.
No you cant! and remember this is against the top 8 in the world.
 

KillerServe

Banned
what you said makes no sense!

luck by its very nature tends towards randomness and most certainly does not necessarily even out (at least in this lifetime)!

Nadal has been very unlucky with his health and being born with foot defects that have been affecting him negatively since he started playing tennis.

Federer on the other hand has been extremely lucky regarding health!
Nadal has been very lucky, Federer has been very unlucky. See how that works? Random noise does even out to flatness over many measurements.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
some people so sad

When you bring in words like "prime" and "of all time," you need to realize THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE ANSWER

If Nadal wins 4 more slams before he retires, he will be called GOAT by many. Others will say Roger. Simple as that.
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
Rafa needs to win the Olympic Doubles to have any kind of credibility.
Bah!

I won't accept Nadal as the GOAT if he gets to 20 slams until he makes 42 consecutive 2nd round appearances at the Slams.

I don't think that this amazing Federer stat is talked about enough.
 
what about being no.1 for a long time and dominating the field(which nadal only does on clay?)
what about year end championships. Tennis is not boxing to look at just the h2h. It simply hides the holes in nadals resume about his lack of accomplishments in other areas of the game.
I agree that nadal is not the GOAT yet but you are basically saying that nadal could do anything and still would not be the GOAT.

what if nadal wins the calender slam next year? is he still not the GOAT? (I don't think that will happen but just hypothetically)

Nadal is not the GOAT nor is he top 3 right now (laver and pete are IMO still aheas) but that fed fans are making a precautionary excuse in case nadal ties him in slams is really not fair.

I agree there are not only slams that count.

currently it is:

weeks at one: fed
slams: fed
tournaments won: fed
year end won: fed
h2h: nadal
masters won: nadal

so fed currently leads most categories. weeks at one and YEC will stay but nadal has still an outside shot at slams and tournaments won.

if nadal has more tournaments won and ties him in slams it would be:

weeks at one: fed
YEC won: fed
slams: tied
tournaments won: nadal
h2h: nadal
masters won: nadal

if that would happen (I don't believe it will) most people would regard nadal the GOAT easily. but as of now he is not.
 

statto

Professional
Shady, your "or more" is problematic.

I can maybe buy someone saying if it's 17 all in slams then Fed's weeks at #1 and YECs cancel out the H2H and Rafa's Masters superiority. But when you start saying he could win even more and still not be in contention that just smacks of blatant fanboyism. If Nadal gets to 18 slams:

Nadal will have more slams than Federer.
Nadal will have more masters titles than Federer.
Nadal will have a crushing H2H against Federer.
Nadal will be closer than he currently is to Federer in both weeks at #1 and number of years #1.
Nadal will have won multiple davis cups to Federer's 0.

I don't see how all that can be overcome by Federer having won the YEC multiple times (and that's assuming Nadal never wins it).
 

Bertie B

Professional
For example, in 1999, both the ATP and the ITF crowned Andre Agassi the greatest player of that year based on his big titles and ATP ranking - even though Agassi was beaten 1-4 by Pete Sampras (Sampras won their Wimbledon final, WTF final, Cincinnati semifinal, LA final while Agassi won only a WTF roundrobin match).
At the 1999 WTF Agassi went into the final undefeated, beating Sampras along the way. Perhaps if they had the same format in LA, Cincy, and Wimbledon, Agassi would've won the rematch & tournament same as Sampras. WTF = exhibition where losers, like Pete Sampras in 1999, are crowned champions.

For example, in 1999, both the ATP and the ITF crowned Andre Agassi the greatest player of that year based on his big titles and ATP ranking - even though Agassi was beaten 1-4 by Pete Sampras
* In 1995 Pete Sampras was crowned greatest player of that year nevermind that Agassi was ranked #1 for the majority of the 52 weeks, COMBINED with winning h2h against Sampras.

* In 1998 Pete Sampras was crowned greatest player of that year nevermind he was one of 4 slam winners, had a losing record against one of those of guys (Rafter) for the year, and had to jet around the world to score bonus points.

...FOOL. Federer got his # anyway. hehehehe...should've saved that energy for Roland Garros.
 
Last edited:

granddog29

Banned
Only in your fantasy World. Nadal with 17 or more slams will be considered the GOAT by virtual everyone in the real World. Many are already calling him that with 13, with 17 or 18 it would be a no doubt kind of thing. As many or more slams than Roger, tons more Masters, all the biggest titles (except WTF for now, but Federer doesnt have olympic singles gold or Davis Cup), the only guy ever with multiple majors at a grass, clay, and hard court slam, 9 years and counting of winning atleast one major in a row, and total ownage of Federer in both overall and major head to head, and the only guy with 8 plus titles at one major, the only one who would be compared to Nadal at all would be Laver. Federer would be eliminated from any GOAT discussions completely, except of course maybe on TW, LOL!
 

granddog29

Banned
I honestly think at this point Nadal will be regarded as the GOAT by most people when he just reaches 15 slams (despite that i think he will win atleast 18 ). I would bet money that if Tennis Channel or some other similar expert survey comes out with another all time list after Nadal has won atleast 15 majors he would be placed on top.
 
Top