With Nadal's 3 month absence from tennis, it has made me realize why Federer is truly the greatest player of all time. Federer is great for a number of reasons, but I believe one of his biggest arguments for GOAT is his amazing consistency during his prime. I'm not just going to list records he's broken but stuff like 23 consecutive grand slam semis is absolutely astonishing.
For all tennis players out there who have ever played a tournament, you know how hard it is to go out there day after day and play your best. We all know that there are some days when we're just not on our game and I'd have to imagine that Federer had some off days between 2004-2008( imo his "prime" years). To be able to continue to win and play at such a high level consistently is something that no other player has ever been able to do.
No let's examine some of the common arguments that people will raise
1. He's playing in a weak era.
The whole notion of weak and strong eras is a joke. There is no way to compare players from across generations because the game has changed so much. Today's tennis players are by far fitter and stronger than tennis players were 10-15 years ago. The training for professional athletes as a whole has gotten much stricter and much better due to science and technological advances. To compare Federer to a guy like Lendl or someone else who played tennis back in the 1980s is a joke. Every new era of tennis players or professional athletes in general are better than they were 5 or 10 years ago and they will continue to get better. Federer played in his own era, which had plenty of top players and he continually dominated everyone. Even with the new wave of young players coming up he still remains dominant.
2. His H2H with Nadal is 10-18 which discredits him as GOAT.
First off is his H2H will Nadal truly 10-18? Well it depends on how you look at it. I would consider Nadal to be by far the greatest player to even play on clay. Nadal has been LUCKY (yes I said it) to win a few other grand slams due to persistence and largely due to changes in the court surface. There is NO WAY Nadal could have won a Wimbledon on the old low bouncing grass of 10-15 years ago. So back to Nadal being the best on Clay. His H2H with Federer on his best surface is 12-2. I'll admit that's impressive and shows how much he has dominated Federer on his best surface. But looking at every other surface we see that Federer actually leads the H2H 8-6 AND thats not even taking into account that in general Federer goes much deeper into clay court tournaments where he is likely to face Nadal whereas Nadal is more inconsistent and doesn't face Federer as frequently in Hard court and grass court tournaments.
The only strike against him here is that he struggled against the best player on clay ever. Besides that, he is clearly a better player and a more consistent one than Nadal is.
3. Well Nadal still beats him in big GS matches and overall I still think Nadal is better, largely because I have little knowledge of tennis and like to jump on bandwagons.
Nadal's prime was during Federer's decline. Simple as that. After 2008 Federer had a few rough years in which he contracted mono (people tend to forget about that being as he actually played through his illness instead of losing in the 2nd round of Wimbledon and then not playing for the next 3 months...) and generally struggled in maintaining num 1 form. He was still going deep in nearly every tournament he played in, but he had issues a few times in GS against Nadal. Again the facts are skewed because when Nadal isn't in top form or is slightly injured he doesn't play. We've already seen 2-3 times in his career where Nadal has taken extended absences from tennis due to injury or whatnot. Federer has NEVER retired from a match and has only withdrawn from a match ONCE in his career. He has had no major injuries and plays a full schedule every year. Imagine if Nadal had tried to play the olympics and then tried to play the US open at below 100%? He would have gotten wrecked... so instead of attempting to play he just bails on a bunch of tournaments. Sure it makes it look better on his overall record because he avoids the loses he would have gotten, but essentially it's a cop out and its an admittance that he is physically weak and refuses to play unless he's 100%. Federer has never taken a break and has always fought through pain and illness.
For all tennis players out there who have ever played a tournament, you know how hard it is to go out there day after day and play your best. We all know that there are some days when we're just not on our game and I'd have to imagine that Federer had some off days between 2004-2008( imo his "prime" years). To be able to continue to win and play at such a high level consistently is something that no other player has ever been able to do.
No let's examine some of the common arguments that people will raise
1. He's playing in a weak era.
The whole notion of weak and strong eras is a joke. There is no way to compare players from across generations because the game has changed so much. Today's tennis players are by far fitter and stronger than tennis players were 10-15 years ago. The training for professional athletes as a whole has gotten much stricter and much better due to science and technological advances. To compare Federer to a guy like Lendl or someone else who played tennis back in the 1980s is a joke. Every new era of tennis players or professional athletes in general are better than they were 5 or 10 years ago and they will continue to get better. Federer played in his own era, which had plenty of top players and he continually dominated everyone. Even with the new wave of young players coming up he still remains dominant.
2. His H2H with Nadal is 10-18 which discredits him as GOAT.
First off is his H2H will Nadal truly 10-18? Well it depends on how you look at it. I would consider Nadal to be by far the greatest player to even play on clay. Nadal has been LUCKY (yes I said it) to win a few other grand slams due to persistence and largely due to changes in the court surface. There is NO WAY Nadal could have won a Wimbledon on the old low bouncing grass of 10-15 years ago. So back to Nadal being the best on Clay. His H2H with Federer on his best surface is 12-2. I'll admit that's impressive and shows how much he has dominated Federer on his best surface. But looking at every other surface we see that Federer actually leads the H2H 8-6 AND thats not even taking into account that in general Federer goes much deeper into clay court tournaments where he is likely to face Nadal whereas Nadal is more inconsistent and doesn't face Federer as frequently in Hard court and grass court tournaments.
The only strike against him here is that he struggled against the best player on clay ever. Besides that, he is clearly a better player and a more consistent one than Nadal is.
3. Well Nadal still beats him in big GS matches and overall I still think Nadal is better, largely because I have little knowledge of tennis and like to jump on bandwagons.
Nadal's prime was during Federer's decline. Simple as that. After 2008 Federer had a few rough years in which he contracted mono (people tend to forget about that being as he actually played through his illness instead of losing in the 2nd round of Wimbledon and then not playing for the next 3 months...) and generally struggled in maintaining num 1 form. He was still going deep in nearly every tournament he played in, but he had issues a few times in GS against Nadal. Again the facts are skewed because when Nadal isn't in top form or is slightly injured he doesn't play. We've already seen 2-3 times in his career where Nadal has taken extended absences from tennis due to injury or whatnot. Federer has NEVER retired from a match and has only withdrawn from a match ONCE in his career. He has had no major injuries and plays a full schedule every year. Imagine if Nadal had tried to play the olympics and then tried to play the US open at below 100%? He would have gotten wrecked... so instead of attempting to play he just bails on a bunch of tournaments. Sure it makes it look better on his overall record because he avoids the loses he would have gotten, but essentially it's a cop out and its an admittance that he is physically weak and refuses to play unless he's 100%. Federer has never taken a break and has always fought through pain and illness.
