Shady_Sawyer
Rookie
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.
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.
