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

[granddog29]

Same with his winning record against Federer. 13 of the 21 wins Nadal has against Federer came on clay. The importance of that is only lost on Nadal *****.

Actually it is only Feddies that care so much about. I already proposed this on another thread but though but lets pretend they played only 5 matches on clay. This would actually be an incredibly small amount considering they have met 13 times on hard courts, and 3 on grass, and the grass season is much shorter than the hard court or clay court one, and it would really make Federer an extremely weak clay courter who was barely better than Sampras now. Nadal would still lead the head to head 13-8, and the slam head to head something like 4-2 or 5-2 (assuming 1 or 2 matches at RG). Federer would still be Nadal's lapdog, despite that he is now reaching Nadal much less often on clay (considering the period of the season it takes up) than Nadal would be Federer anywhere else.

As it is this constant Feddie excuse that Nadal is the one who is never showing up is an urban legend on their part. Nadal was there in the finals of every Wimbledon he played from 2006-2011, even though in 2006 he was in no way supposed to be anywhere near a final. Federer by contrast was supposed to reach the final vs Nadal in 2010 and 2011, and failed to, and likely saved himself a couple additional losses if he had. Nadal has reached Federer 13 times on hard courts, and there are many times Federer didnt reach Nadal, as well as Nadal not reaching Federer. Feddies will say oh poor Roger was old, yet except Nadal aged 18-22 to be reaching slam finals on hard courts when the so called hard court GOAT Roger at that age couldnt even get past the freaking round of 16 of the U.S Open, LOL! Nadal has even reached Federer in the semis or finals of the WTF 3 times, despite having to miss the event a couple times injured.


The higher truth is the only place some people dont readily except that Nadal completely owns Federer in their head to head is on Tennis Warehouse. In the real World nobody even questions this obvious truth, even those who do (or once upon a time did as there are barely any left) backed Federer as the GOAT.

 

[90's Clay]

Fed has a LOSING h2h vs. Nadal on hardcourts (with a ton of matches played vs. each other along with hard courts being Fed's best surface ). 'nuff said.

Fed is also lucky he didn't play Nadal more on grass or he would probably have a losing h2h there as well.

 

[granddog29]

While Nadal on both hard courts and grass has achieved more than Federer has on clay. I said this on another thread but:

Best surfaces: Nadal on clay >>>> Federer on grass
2nd best surfaces: Federer on hard courts >>>>> Nadal on grass (for now)
3rd best surfaces: Nadal on hard courts >>>>> Federer on clay

 

[NatF]

Fed has a LOSING h2h vs. Nadal on hardcourts (with a ton of matches played vs. each other along with hard courts being Fed's best surface ). 'nuff said.

Fed is also lucky he didn't play Nadal more on grass or he would probably have a losing h2h there as well.

You do realize that most of their hardcourt meetings have happened since 2010 right? He led Nadal off clay up until this year, which if you hadn't noticed has been a stinker.

Sampras has losing records to much worse players (as you continually state) than Nadal.

 

[90's Clay]

You do realize that most of their hardcourt meetings have happened since 2010 right? He led Nadal off clay up until this year, which if you hadn't noticed has been a stinker.

Sampras has losing records to much worse players (as you continually state) than Nadal.

And a lot of their hc matches played before Fed's prime even ended. Nadal posted his first HC win over Fed when he was 17 or 18? And it continued on after that

 

[EatMyForehand]

While Nadal on both hard courts and grass has achieved more than Federer has on clay. I said this on another thread but:

Best surfaces: Nadal on clay >>>> Federer on grass
2nd best surfaces: Federer on hard courts >>>>> Nadal on grass (for now)
3rd best surfaces: Nadal on hard courts >>>>> Federer on clay

Wasn't there an exhibition between federer and nadal in which half the court was clay and the other half was grass?

Unfortunately Fed lost

 

[90's Clay]

You do realize that most of their hardcourt meetings have happened since 2010 right? He led Nadal off clay up until this year, which if you hadn't noticed has been a stinker.

Sampras has losing records to much worse players (as you continually state) than Nadal.

Fed has losing records against other guys as well. Losing one or two matches vs. some questionable guys isn't anything. But when you got a 10-21 losing h2h vs. your main rival, thats bad

 

[Topspin_80]

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).

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.

It's hard to fathom why you waste so much time writing such a long winded nonsensical post.
Could that be just hate, envy????

According to the header, Nadal (in your biased opinion) can not be considered the best even if he wins more than 17 slams.

That is quite a moronic mouthful.

So, if Nadal wins the next 8 slams, that will be 2 CYGS, and suddenly retires, he'll have 21 slams, but not enough time as a#1 to top the list.

Then, with 21 slams to his name and 2 CYGS, you'd probably still consider Federer a better player?????????????????

Check with your local physician, might be giving free lobotomies, I strongly advise you to get one, it'll do you good.

 

[NatF]

And a lot of their hc matches played before Fed's prime even ended. Nadal posted his first HC win over Fed when he was 17 or 18? And it continued on after that

Fed has losing records against other guys as well. Losing one or two matches vs. some questionable guys isn't anything. But when you got a 10-21 losing h2h vs. your main rival, thats bad

Federer led Nadal off clay up till this year. No one can be expected to have a good head to head with Nadal when you play him 15+ times on clay.

 

[robert.s]

Fed has a LOSING h2h vs. Nadal on hardcourts (with a ton of matches played vs. each other along with hard courts being Fed's best surface ). 'nuff said.

Fed is also lucky he didn't play Nadal more on grass or he would probably have a losing h2h there as well.

Federer has played Nadal on his favourite conditions plenty of times. Can you tell me how many wins does Nadal has over Federer on fast hard court, grass and indoor hard courts, wich are commonly known as best suited for Roger's game?

Let me remind you that Federer has 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 6 World Tour Finals and 5 Cinncinati Masters. So, statistically, he played his best tennis on those courts.

I'll answer for you. Nadal beat Federer on Wimbledon 2008 and on Cincinnati 2013 (Federer was 32). That's 2 out of 8 matches. So, on his favourite conditions, Federer has been very dominant against Nadal. The same applies for Nadal too. He has dominated Federer when the played on clay and slow hard courts.

How come you're saying that Federer couldn't handle Rafael Nadal when he, in fact, is unbeaten against him in one of the surfaces they played on?

In fact, you can split the courts into fast courts and slow courts. Fed had the edge on the faster ones, Nadal on the slower ones. The thing is - and here's another problem with the H2H - Nadal had the major advantage of playing Federer were he felt the most comfortable.


"Fed is also lucky he didn't play Nadal more on grass or he would probably have a losing h2h there as well".

Sure, Federer, 7 time Wimbledon champion, was lucky that Rosol ended up on Nadal's side of the draw in 2012.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

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.

Bag

of

Wind.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

tl;dr ...



.

 

[90's Clay]

Federer has played Nadal on his favourite conditions plenty of times. Can you tell me how many wins does Nadal has over Federer on fast hard court, grass and indoor hard courts, wich are commonly known as best suited for Roger's game?

Let me remind you that Federer has 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 6 World Tour Finals and 5 Cinncinati Masters. So, statistically, he played his best tennis on those courts.

I'll answer for you. Nadal beat Federer on Wimbledon 2008 and on Cincinnati 2013 (Federer was 32). That's 2 out of 8 matches. So, on his favourite conditions, Federer has been very dominant against Nadal. The same applies for Nadal too. He has dominated Federer when the played on clay and slow hard courts.

How come you're saying that Federer couldn't handle Rafael Nadal when he, in fact, is unbeaten against him in one of the surfaces they played on?

In fact, you can split the courts into fast courts and slow courts. Fed had the edge on the faster ones, Nadal on the slower ones. The thing is - and here's another problem with the H2H - Nadal had the major advantage of playing Federer were he felt the most comfortable.


"Fed is also lucky he didn't play Nadal more on grass or he would probably have a losing h2h there as well".

Sure, Federer, 7 time Wimbledon champion, was lucky that Rosol ended up on Nadal's side of the draw in 2012.

Oh stop with the excuses. Fed only had a CLEAR advantage indoors. Anything outdoors and you can't give the h2h advantage over Nadal. Nadal started beating Fed on hard courts at 18 years of age..

And Fed is lucky he didn't meet Nadal more wimbledon.

You really think Fed would have beat Nadal at any of the following wimbledons:

2009 (If Nadal played
2010
2011


....yea exactly. If Fed played Nadal any of those years at wimbledon, hes got a 2-4 h2h vs. Nadal at wimbledon. ROFLMAO


Im not even sure Fed would have managed many AO or USO titles from 2004-2007 either if Nadal was more competent at the hardcourt slams during that time period like he is now

We already know Fed is 0-2 vs. Nadal at the AO

 

[tennisaddict]

Fed has losing records against other guys as well. Losing one or two matches vs. some questionable guys isn't anything. But when you got a 10-21 losing h2h vs. your main rival, thats bad

Having H2H with your rivals, but not winning as many important titles is not going to put Federer as the GOAT, only the majors and the weeks at number 1 and WTF have made him the GOAT,

Novak will likely have positive H2H with Nadal, Murray, Delpo and everyone else in the next few years, yet he may end up with max 12 majors. No one will consider Novak the GOAT at 12 majors.

 

[Raz11]

While Nadal on both hard courts and grass has achieved more than Federer has on clay. I said this on another thread but:

Best surfaces: Nadal on clay >>>> Federer on grass
2nd best surfaces: Federer on hard courts >>>>> Nadal on grass (for now)
3rd best surfaces: Nadal on hard courts >>>>> Federer on clay

Nadal on Hard Court is arguably = Federer on clay. Federer has made as many clay finals as Nadal on hard yet there is two hc slams. Not to mention that Federer was only losing to Nadal. But since Nadal has the extra hc slam at us open, Nadal is slightly ahead there.

 

[dooknookem]

Why do people keep listing WTF as a GOAT criterion? What the ****?!?!

 

[surfvland]

Too long for me to read. Can you sum up what you're trying to say?

Dude... my first real chuckle of the day.

 

[sam_p]

Having H2H with your rivals, but not winning as many important titles is not going to put Federer as the GOAT, only the majors and the weeks at number 1 and WTF have made him the GOAT,

Novak will likely have positive H2H with Nadal, Murray, Delpo and everyone else in the next few years, yet he may end up with max 12 majors. No one will consider Novak the GOAT at 12 majors.

Nadal leads Djoko 22-15 in h2h, doubt he will catch him. I don't think the clock will turn back to 2011 anytime soon.

 

[surfvland]

Dude... my first real chuckle of the day.

Bottom line for me is Fed is GOAT unless Nadz eclipses his slam title record.

 

[MIKEPANTELAKIS]

All I needed to do was read the OP's signature to see the meaning of this. All it is is a biased point of view. Granted it's based on factual stats, however Rafa has done things that Federer couldn't do, as well as Fed did things that Rafa couldn't.

The fact is Rafa makes a genuine case for GOAT.

The truth is even though I'm a Rafa fan, I can think clearly and still give Fed the nod FOR NOW. I think Rafa is closing in fast. Anyone that says otherwise is IGNORANT!

 

[granddog29]

Wasn't there an exhibition between federer and nadal in which half the court was clay and the other half was grass?

Unfortunately Fed lost

That is to be expected. Apart from diapered never should have been past the 2nd round if this wasnt such a weak grass era Nadal in 2006, Federer has had a nightmarish time trying to beat Nadal on just plain grass. So of course a combined grass and clay court, Nadal would win.

 

[Federer20042006]

Actually it is only Feddies that care so much about. I already proposed this on another thread but though but lets pretend they played only 5 matches on clay. This would actually be an incredibly small amount considering they have met 13 times on hard courts, and 3 on grass, and the grass season is much shorter than the hard court or clay court one, and it would really make Federer an extremely weak clay courter who was barely better than Sampras now. Nadal would still lead the head to head 13-8, and the slam head to head something like 4-2 or 5-2 (assuming 1 or 2 matches at RG). Federer would still be Nadal's lapdog, despite that he is now reaching Nadal much less often on clay (considering the period of the season it takes up) than Nadal would be Federer anywhere else.

As it is this constant Feddie excuse that Nadal is the one who is never showing up is an urban legend on their part. Nadal was there in the finals of every Wimbledon he played from 2006-2011, even though in 2006 he was in no way supposed to be anywhere near a final. Federer by contrast was supposed to reach the final vs Nadal in 2010 and 2011, and failed to, and likely saved himself a couple additional losses if he had. Nadal has reached Federer 13 times on hard courts, and there are many times Federer didnt reach Nadal, as well as Nadal not reaching Federer. Feddies will say oh poor Roger was old, yet except Nadal aged 18-22 to be reaching slam finals on hard courts when the so called hard court GOAT Roger at that age couldnt even get past the freaking round of 16 of the U.S Open, LOL! Nadal has even reached Federer in the semis or finals of the WTF 3 times, despite having to miss the event a couple times injured.


The higher truth is the only place some people dont readily except that Nadal completely owns Federer in their head to head is on Tennis Warehouse. In the real World nobody even questions this obvious truth, even those who do (or once upon a time did as there are barely any left) backed Federer as the GOAT.

I'm not saying Federer would be leading the head to head, I'm just saying it's more lopsided than it would otherwise be because they've played a disproportionate number of matches on clay.

When they're not playing on clay or in Miami, their matches are quite a bit different. By that, I mean Federer actually has a chance. Even with Nadal in scary form, and Federer coming off the most horrendous period of his career in probably 10 years, it was competitive in Cincinnati. Dubai 2006 was competitive. Wimbledon 2008 and Australian Open 2009 were competitive. Those matches all could have gone either way.

And it's kind of the same with the ones Federer won. Wimbledon 2006 and 2007, WTF 2010 final, Masters Cup 2006 SF. Federer won more decisively in 2007 SF and 2011 RR. Indian Wells last year.

So it's basically a coin flip if they play off clay, so long as it's not on the sandpaper of Miami.

Nadal's clay would push him ahead in a balanced number of matches on each surface, but he wouldn't be demolishing Federer 21-10, which is what people make such a big deal out of. If it were something like 18-14, I doubt people would be placing the crown on Nadal's head at the moment. There'd be a long way to go.

 

[dooknookem]

So it's basically a coin flip if they play off clay, so long as it's not on the sandpaper of Miami.

you are buggin son lol

 

[granddog29]

Nadal on Hard Court is arguably = Federer on clay. Federer has made as many clay finals as Nadal on hard yet there is two hc slams. Not to mention that Federer was only losing to Nadal. But since Nadal has the extra hc slam at us open, Nadal is slightly ahead there.

There are 2 hard court slams so divide 3 by 2 if you wish. That makes 1.5. Still more than Federer's 1 clay slam. Anyway is there anyone who seriously believes if there was a 2nd clay slam Federer would have won it 2 times to equal Nadal's 3 hard court slams? Yeah exactly. All would agree Federer would have been lucky to win a hypothetical 2nd clay slam even once to even reach 2 clay slams in that case. I know some will chant about all of Federer's RG runner ups, but Nadal has other major finals on hards he has lost too in addition to his titles, and the hard court field of today is way deeper than the clay court field. Other than Nadal, Federer (and Nadal himself) had no competition on clay until Djokovic 2011 to today. Federer also didnt even have Djokovic, his biggest clay competition, in his half at RG any year until 2011, which gave him even more of a free pass to all those finals. Either way winning > making finals.

Nadal also has 8 hard court Masters already vs only 6 for Federer. Federer only has 10 career titles on clay period, so Nadal already has 12 Slams + Masters + Olympic Gold on hard courts, 2 more than the total number of tournament titles period Federer has on clay!! It is not like Federer doesnt play quite a few 250 and 500 events on clay through his career too I would add. OK the one point you could argue is there are more hard court Masters than clay, but lets face it nobody prioritizes all the hard court Masters (Federer included) when there are so many spread out so far over a year, especialy the post U.S Opens which even Federer has barely won. Nadal also has a far greater variety, winning Masters in Indian Wells (multiple), Canada (multiple), Cincinnati, and Madrid on a very fast court. He is only missing 2 of the 6, plus the WTF. Federer on clay though couldnt win either Monte Carlo or Rome ever, iand at Rome numerous times he wouldnt have even had to play Nadal and still couldnt ever do it, and all his clay Masters have come at the Hamburg/Madrid event, so only 1 out of 3 was he ever successful in winning even if he has 6 total.

On top of all that Nadal can easily beat anyone on hard courts, and any player in a hard court major. The same is not true of Federer on clay, and he needed to avoid Nadal to win his only clay court major. Nadal did not avoid anyone who likely would have beaten him at any of the 3 hard court majors he won, and has beaten everyone who matters multiple times in hard court majors, Federer and Djokovic included.

All in all I cant see any case for Federer to be better on clay than Nadal on hard courts. Maybe they could still be considered relatively close, but even if so that wont remain.

 

[robert.s]

Oh stop with the excuses. Fed only had a CLEAR advantage indoors. Anything outdoors and you can't give the h2h advantage over Nadal. Nadal started beating Fed on hard courts at 18 years of age..

And Fed is lucky he didn't meet Nadal more wimbledon.

You really think Fed would have beat Nadal at any of the following wimbledons:

2009 (If Nadal played
2010
2011


....yea exactly. If Fed played Nadal any of those years at wimbledon, hes got a 2-4 h2h vs. Nadal at wimbledon. ROFLMAO


Im not even sure Fed would have managed many AO or USO titles from 2004-2007 either if Nadal was more competent at the hardcourt slams during that time period like he is now

We already know Fed is 0-2 vs. Nadal at the AO

Nadal pre-2010 was an average hard court player. His performances at the USO and WTF showed that. He beat Federer at some master series a couple of times and you think he was better?

Federer vs Nadal outcome depends on when and where they play. If the conditions are fast, than any Federer before 2011 would have the edge in most of the matches. If the condition are slow, than it's Nadal who is the favourite. The facts DO NOT contradict this affirmation.

Federer is 8-2 in fast conditions of play vs Nadal. This is an irrefutable fact.

If I had to estimate, between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, I'd say:

US OPEN - prime for prime: Federer
Wimbledon - prime for prime: Federer
AO - prime for prime: Djokovic
Roland Garros - prime for prime: Nadal
World Tour Finals - prime for prime: Federer

 

[robert.s]

Oh stop with the excuses. Fed only had a CLEAR advantage indoors. Anything outdoors and you can't give the h2h advantage over Nadal. Nadal started beating Fed on hard courts at 18 years of age..

And Fed is lucky he didn't meet Nadal more wimbledon.

You really think Fed would have beat Nadal at any of the following wimbledons:

2009 (If Nadal played
2010
2011


....yea exactly. If Fed played Nadal any of those years at wimbledon, hes got a 2-4 h2h vs. Nadal at wimbledon. ROFLMAO


Im not even sure Fed would have managed many AO or USO titles from 2004-2007 either if Nadal was more competent at the hardcourt slams during that time period like he is now

We already know Fed is 0-2 vs. Nadal at the AO

Nadal pre-2010 was an average hard court player. His performances at the USO and WTF showed that. He beat Federer at some master series a couple of times and you think he was better?

Federer vs Nadal outcome depends on when and where they play. If the conditions are fast, than any Federer before 2011 would have the edge in most of the matches. If the condition are slow, than it's Nadal who is the favourite. The facts DO NOT contradict this affirmation.

Federer is 8-2 in fast conditions of play vs Nadal. This is an irrefutable fact.

If I had to estimate, between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, I'd say:

US OPEN - prime for prime: Federer
Wimbledon - prime for prime: Federer
AO - prime for prime: Djokovic
Roland Garros - prime for prime: Nadal
World Tour Finals - prime for prime: Federer

 

[Raz11]

There are 2 hard court slams so divide 3 by 2 if you wish. That makes 1.5. Still more than Federer's 1 clay slam. Anyway is there anyone who seriously believes if there was a 2nd clay slam Federer would have won it 2 times to equal Nadal's 3 hard court slams? Yeah exactly. All would agree Federer would have been lucky to win a hypothetical 2nd clay slam even once to even reach 2 clay slams in that case. I know some will chant about all of Federer's RG runner ups, but Nadal has other major finals on hards he has lost too in addition to his titles, and the hard court field of today is way deeper than the clay court field. Other than Nadal, Federer (and Nadal himself) had no competition on clay until Djokovic 2011 to today. Federer also didnt even have Djokovic, his biggest clay competition, in his half at RG any year until 2011, which gave him even more of a free pass to all those finals. Either way winning > making finals.

Nadal also has 8 hard court Masters already vs only 6 for Federer. Federer only has 10 career titles on clay period, so Nadal already has 12 Slams + Masters + Olympic Gold on hard courts, 2 more than the total number of tournament titles period Federer has on clay!! It is not like Federer doesnt play quite a few 250 and 500 events on clay through his career too I would add. OK the one point you could argue is there are more hard court Masters than clay, but lets face it nobody prioritizes all the hard court Masters (Federer included) when there are so many spread out so far over a year, especialy the post U.S Opens which even Federer has barely won. Nadal also has a far greater variety, winning Masters in Indian Wells (multiple), Canada (multiple), Cincinnati, and Madrid on a very fast court. He is only missing 2 of the 6, plus the WTF. Federer on clay though couldnt win either Monte Carlo or Rome ever, iand at Rome numerous times he wouldnt have even had to play Nadal and still couldnt ever do it, and all his clay Masters have come at the Hamburg/Madrid event, so only 1 out of 3 was he ever successful in winning even if he has 6 total.

On top of all that Nadal can easily beat anyone on hard courts, and any player in a hard court major. The same is not true of Federer on clay, and he needed to avoid Nadal to win his only clay court major. Nadal did not avoid anyone who likely would have beaten him at any of the 3 hard court majors he won, and has beaten everyone who matters multiple times in hard court majors, Federer and Djokovic included.

All in all I cant see any case for Federer to be better on clay than Nadal on hard courts. Maybe they could still be considered relatively close, but even if so that wont remain.

Like I said, it is arguable that they are equal not Federer is better on clay then Nadal on hard.

At the end, Federer was only losing to the greatest cc player of this generation while though Nadal could beat everyone on hard, he was also more vulnerable to more players on hard than Federer.

 

[timnz]

4 of his 6 WTF are best of 5-set format in the final. Even if nadal win 6 WTFs, all of them are 3-set format.

Relevance? What difference does it make how many of the sets there are? I agree that it should still be a 5 set final....but the ATP still issues the same number of points to the winner ever since they reduced the number of sets.

 

[granddog29]

Like I said, it is arguable that they are equal not Federer is better on clay then Nadal on hard.

At the end, Federer was only losing to the greatest cc player of this generation while though Nadal could beat everyone on hard, he was also more vulnerable to more players on hard than Federer.

Your last point is true but that is really only because there are alot more good players on hard than clay. Prime Nadal is really only vurnerable to Murray, Djokovic, or Federer on hard courts (well Federer is questionable even as an inclusion to be honest). Well Davydenko in non slam events,but there is no evidence in slams to speak of. Prime Federer was only vurnerable to Nadal and maybe a young Djokovic on clay, but there really was nobody besides Nadal even close to the level of the players I just mentioned on hard courts. Who are the other clay court specialists of Federers prime- Davydenko, Ferrer, pretty much a joke. He also benefited from almost never even having to play Djokovic (the only other really good clay courter of the Fedal era) at the French over the years, which aided him to make so many finals more easily without even any serious competition. Except for 2011 Djokovic always wound up in Nadals half.

I agree Nadal on hard courts and Federer on clay could be considered close to equal now, but as you yourself Nadals extra title at the U.S Open gives him the edge nonetheless, so if one has to choose it is still Nadal on hard courts > Federer on clay now, and a clearer gap between them will open up in the coming years.

 

[darrinbaker00]

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.

If you suffer from insomnia, just bookmark this post.

 

[dooknookem]

If you suffer from insomnia, just bookmark this post.

lolllllllll

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

If you suffer from insomnia, just bookmark this post.

^ This +1 - lol

 

[TMF]

Relevance? What difference does it make how many of the sets there are? I agree that it should still be a 5 set final....but the ATP still issues the same number of points to the winner ever since they reduced the number of sets.

A 5 setter makes it more challenging, physically and mentally. If it isn't, then women tennis should have 5 set format at the slams.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Relevance? What difference does it make how many of the sets there are?.

It is of no consequence. The chief complaint is from those who only NOW want to tear down the WTA as a reaction to two facts:

1. the greatest player of the past two generations is the blood-target of certain people.

2. Certain people have turned other players into their false "gods," but are ****ed they are dreadfully inferior to the aforementioned greatest player of the past 2 generations.

If the greatest player ended her last name with "ova" and sold candy on the side, certain people would say every aspect of the WTA--players, set numbers, etc--are the best ever witnessed.

 

[TheTruth]

Why do people keep listing WTF as a GOAT criterion? What the ****?!?!

Agreed. It only happens on TW though, thank goodness.

 

[monfed]

Didn't read the OP but I agree with the thread topic.

 

[Fedinkum]

If Nadal has more slams than any other players by the end of his career, you have to give him the GOAT title. But until then, Fed is GOAT!!:twisted::twisted::twisted:

 

[firepanda]

You're skewing it towards Federer. "...primarily evaluated by their (a) biggest titles won and (b) duration as the top player"? The number of titles and duration should correlate, not to mention longevity isn't a significant factor of greatness. I mean, Borg retired at 25 and people still regard him as an all time great.

Otherwise, I agree. Titles are what matter. Until Nadal reaches 16 or 17, Federer will be undoubtedly greater.

 

[mike danny]

Yes you can. You can absolutely lose two matches and still win the WTF. Not sure where you heard that you couldn't.

you have no base for saying this. since it has never happened in 40 years i think my argument is stronger than yours

 

[TMF]

If you suffer from insomnia, just bookmark this post.

Great work by the OP. Federer has accomplished so much that it takes times and effort to highlight all of his achievements.


To add, here's the latest stat list. Recently added Master Series titles to make Nadal fans happy.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Rafael Nadal 13*
4. Björn Borg 11
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Dkokovic 6*
= Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
= Rafael Nadal 18*
5. Björn Borg 16
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
=Novak Djokovic 11*

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10*
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5*
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4*
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Andy Murray 3*
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3*


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 33*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. Rafael Nadal 21*
= Novak Djokovic 21*
7. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
9. Boris Becker 18
10. Björn Borg 17


Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23*
2. Novak Djokovic 14*
3. Ivan Lendl 10
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5*
= Andy Murray 5*
= Boris Becker 5
9. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4*


GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 40*(41 if not for walk-over in 2004)
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
7. Novak Djokovic 26*
8. Rafael Nadal 25*
9. Boris Becker 23
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 36*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= 3. Novak Djokovic 18*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. = Andy Murray 11*
6. Pete Sampras 10
7. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6*

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Novak Djokovic 2012
Novak Djokovic 2013
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31


Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Roger Federer 259*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Year-End Championship finals
1. Ivan Lendl 9
2. Federer 8*
= Boris Becker 6
4. Pete Sampras 6
5. Ilie Năstase 4
= Bjorn Borg 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
9. Lleyton Hewitt 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Novak Djokovic 99+*
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80


Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 77*
= John McEnroe 77
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. = Rafael Nadal 60*
10. Boris Becker 49

Most Master Series or equivalent win
1. Rafael Nadal 26(mostly 3 set final)
2. Ivan Lendl 22
3. Roger Federer 21
4. John McEnroe 19
5. Andre Agassi 17
= Jimmny Connors 17
7. Bjorn Borg 15
8. Novak Djokovic 14
9. Boris Becker 13
10. Pete Sampras 11

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

 

[10is]

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.

Excellent analysis! Bravo!

 

[JoelDali]

Rafa is GOAT If he defeats Date Krum.

 

[Morj]

....My God, the level of denial some people will reach. If Nadal hits 15 slams and 200 weeks at no. 1 then he is better than Fed.

Lol at the ridiculous "Davydenko" argument. Davydenko's not even a slam champ, of course his H2H with Nadal is an anomaly. Its insignificant.

But when you are comparing players like Fed and Nadal, two players who have achieved more than anyone else (except for maybe Laver), who are both GOAT contenders, than after a point a couple slams here or there doesn't matter.

Clearly if Nadal has absolutely dominated Federer, and also has nearly the same overall achievements, how can you still argue Federer is better?

 

[rajah84]

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.

In tennis, greatness is measured by dominance over your main rivals. Nadal has achieved this, Federer not. That makes Nadal the best of his generation.

 

[cork_screw]

Too long for me to read. Can you sum up what you're trying to say?

Lol. I thought I was studying for an exam.

But yeah, it's hard to dispute the 237 consec wks #1 and total of 300+. That is pretty damn impressive.

 

[sonicare]

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.

Agreed. And davydenko will be co-goat with nadal.

I say if h2h can override everything, count me in as declaring davydenko and nadal as co-goats.

While we are at it, hrbaty should get a mention as a goat candidate too. Positive h2h with both roger and rafa.

 

[tennisaddict]

....My God, the level of denial some people will reach.

Clearly if Nadal has absolutely dominated Federer, and also has nearly the same overall achievements, how can you still argue Federer is better?

All this talk of equalling Fed only by reaching 15 is crap talk by McEnroe and Nadal fan base.

What do you mean 'nearly same' overall achievements.

2 major difference and 200 weeks at number 1 are not small. Murray, Hewitt have had such an illustrious career and they dont even have that.

Even 1 major difference is highly highly significant.

 

[Sentinel]

In tennis, greatness is measured by dominance over your main rivals. Nadal has achieved this, Federer not. That makes Nadal the best of his generation.

But Nadal is being beaten by Nole. So even Nadal is not the best of his generation.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

In tennis, greatness is measured by dominance over your main rivals.

No not really. It is commonly measured by dominance over the field.

 

[Morj]

All this talk of equalling Fed only by reaching 15 is crap talk by McEnroe and Nadal fan base.

What do you mean 'nearly same' overall achievements.

2 major difference and 200 weeks at number 1 are not small. Murray, Hewitt have had such an illustrious career and they dont even have that.

Even 1 major difference is highly highly significant.

Mcenroes not the only one who thinks that so you can stop pretending. Being GOAT means you are the best. If Nadal is 2nd in slam count and also completely dominates the guy who is in 1st then it is hard to argue Nadal isn't the best.

Not saying Nadal can do it, personally I dont think he will win another slam, but I can at least acknowledge that 15 slams makes him the greatest. It just annoys me when Federer fans try and act as though every single one of his records needs to be broken in order to be GOAT