Remember: 4 sets in 6 tries, +15 years

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
We get it. Rafa dominates Fed on clay. Congrats. (y)

Every time you bring Fed down, you lessen the other guys... every single time.

If Fed is not that good, then those wins were not that great, and the losses? Ouch.
When did i say Fed isn't good ?

I'm just pointing out the impossibility of being GOAT when you're getting destroyed in your absolute prime by a teenager, time and time and time again, and never being able to reverse that trend for the entirety of your career.
 
When did i say Fed isn't good ?

I'm just pointing out the impossibility of being GOAT when you're getting destroyed in your absolute prime by a teenager, time and time and time again, and never being able to reverse that trend for the entirety of your career.
On clay. Don't short sell Rafa on his dominance on clay. You ARE doing that when you think Fed should be able to beat him.
 
Roger dominates on grass, and yet Rafa still beat him (almost twice, if it wasn't for an injury in the fifth set)

Don't bring that nonsense injury stuff up.

Yes, Rafa is awesome, and he is awesome on every surface. He is better (way better) on his best surface than Fed is on his best surface. However, there is another surface called hard courts, and that is the main surface tennis is played on.

So while your point about Rafa being miles better than Fed on clay stands, it is laughable to say that because of this, Fed can not be the greatest ever, but Rafa can.

If you truly have to have this mythical Goat winner, let the slams do the talking.
 

Yugram

Hall of Fame
Don't bring that nonsense injury stuff up.

Yes, Rafa is awesome, and he is awesome on every surface. He is better (way better) on his best surface than Fed is on his best surface. However, there is another surface called hard courts, and that is the main surface tennis is played on.

So while your point about Rafa being miles better than Fed on clay stands, it is laughable to say that because of this, Fed can not be the greatest ever, but Rafa can.

If you truly have to have this mythical Goat winner, let the slams do the talking.
Where Nadal leads 3-1 in Slam h2h.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Whatever.

The truth of the matter is Rafa is GOAT, but doesn't have the statistics to prove it thanks to his fame-craving, idiot simpleton uncle.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
I will never get how obsessed so many people are with losses to certain players, and mostly to good players on top of that.

Maybe I would understand it a bit more if someone loses to mugs over and over again, but still it is about WINS in the end and not about LOSSES.

If Federer cannot be GOAT because of some H2H stats, then another one has to be GOAT, and someone like the OP has to bring forward arguments for him instead.

But since Federer has the best numbers (as of now) that wouldn’t be possible apart from subjective and invented standards.

H2H is irrelevant for many reasons. It’s about matchups anyway, and also it would be an invalid double count as the H2H wins over Federer already brought Nadal/Djokovic forward in the Slam race. If they are that much better in H2H and still behind in the Slam race, the difference against the rest of the field must be even bigger in Federer’s favour. And with the same right one could ask: "How can someone with so many more problems against the lesser field be GOAT?"

No, over and over it’s proven again why total number is the only fair measurement. And I promise, if Nadal and/or Djokovic will overtake Federer, I will recognize it.
 
Last edited:

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
If i could make an argument for the reverse, ie Fed being GOAT, is that he followed his own path without being dominated by a family member or a coach, and developed his game the way he judged best.

Rafa let himself being manipulated/dominated by those around him because he liked the fame it brought, and never cared to break free, even when it became clear it was affecting his performances.

He never truly was his own man like Fed was.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
GOAT arguments require such circular logic.

Player A is best because he beat Player B who is the GOAT!

So wait, who's the GOAT?

If Player B is not the GOAT because player A beat him, then player A must be GOAT!

But wait, if player B isn't the GOAT, it's not that impressive that player A beat him.

This little chain is what has sustained these arguments for nearly a decade. Meanwhile I can't really find the reason why you should even look at the big picture. Tennis is structured in a set of tournaments, meaning what matters is tournament wins. If wins vs specific players is all that mattered, then we would not have tournaments, we would have matchups and a ranking like how UFC and boxing does.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
GOAT arguments require such circular logic.

Player A is best because he beat Player B who is the GOAT!

So wait, who's the GOAT?

If Player B is not the GOAT because player A beat him, then player A must be GOAT!

But wait, if player B isn't the GOAT, it's not that impressive that player A beat him.

This little chain is what has sustained these arguments for nearly a decade. Meanwhile I can't really find the reason why you should even look at the big picture. Tennis is structured in a set of tournaments, meaning what matters is tournament wins. If wins vs specific players is all that mattered, then we would not have tournaments, we would have matchups and a ranking like how UFC and boxing does.
Nailed it! I tried to explain exactly this over and over again for many years now.

So don’t expect your great post will have any effect unfortunately. The illogical circle will occur again and again, no matter if debunked long before.

Another common logical failure is when someone believes that just by looking at some results he could declare if an era is weak or not. The best argument against this would be a football (soccer) league. Everyone knows that he highest and the lowest football league both can be close or lopsided. So how on earth can the points distribution say anything about the absolute quality of the participants?
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
GOAT arguments require such circular logic.
Perhaps.

But ask yourself this: if Rafa came on the circuit around 1998, like Fed did, and Fed only came in 2004, what would be the final statistics ?

Rafa would have obtained the same successes as Fed, if even better: he certainly would have made 3-4 channel slams, and would start losing to Fed only around 2008-2009, as Fed needed 4-5 years to enter his prime.

We could be talking 2-3 slams a year for Rafa for 8-9 years, then only 1 a year. The statistics would be insane.

Or even 1-2 grand schlems for Rafa !
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
We get it. Rafa dominates Fed on clay. Congrats. (y)

Every time you bring Fed down, you lessen the other guys... every single time.

If Fed is not that good, then those wins were not that great, and the losses? Ouch.
No one said he isn't good. He's obviously an all-time great.

Just not the GOAT.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Anyone with a brain that saw that 2007 final knows Fed was on his way to defeat as his tank was running on dry.

Fed's in love with first strike tennis, but can't sustain it against the absolute best for more than 3-4 sets, even in his prime.
You talking about the Wimbledon Final in 2007? Did we watch the same match? My brain computed a 6-2 final set score where Federer saved 4 BPs (two instances of 15-40 in back to back games) and then broke Nadal with one of the best points of the match at 3-2 and basically served 4 aces to hold serve at 4-2. And for good measure he broke him again. Anyone with a brain who watched that final set saw Federer come up with really good tennis in pressure moments when it mattered. I mean if you're going to troll at least have some half truths in there. Don't try to completely falsify what actually happened.
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
You talking about the Wimbledon Final in 2007? Did we watch the same match? My brain computed a 6-2 final set score where Federer saved 4 BPs (two instances of 15-40 in back to back games) and then broke Nadal with one of the best points of the match at 3-2 and basically served 4 aces to hold serve at 4-2. And for good measure he broke him again. Anyone with a brain who watched that final set saw Federer come up with really good tennis in pressure moments when it mattered. I mean if you're going to troll at least have some half truths in there. Don't try to completely falsify what actually happened.
Exactly. Nadal simply ran out of gas.
 

Tenez101

Hall of Fame
Anyone with a brain that saw that 2007 final knows Fed was on his way to defeat as his tank was running on dry.

Fed's in love with first strike tennis, but can't sustain it against the absolute best for more than 3-4 sets, even in his prime.
You can see the absolute relief on Fed’s face after winning the fifth set in 2007. He knows he got damn lucky. Rafa, on the other hand, was in tears in the locker room after that match bc he knew he had that match, but his body just wouldn’t cooperate. The facts are Nadal’s peak grass form > Federer’s peak grass form.
 
Last edited:
You can see the absolute relief on Fed’s face after winning the fifth set in 2007. He knows he got damn lucky. Rafa, on the other hand, was in tears in the locker room aftef that match bc he knew he had that match, but his body just wouldn’t cooperate. The facts are Nadal peak grass form > Federer’s peak grass form.
Availability is highly underappreciated, and in the case of Rafa, has always been the biggest flaw to his resume. That being said, looks like he is making up for it on the back end.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
Clay is the surface on which (unless your entire game is reliant upon your serve) the better player, the player more suited to the surface, is more likely to come out on top, where upsets are less likely to happen given you have to do most of the heavy lifting off the ground.

Federer losing 6 times to probably the greatest clay court player ever is not that massive an anomaly, especially considering were it not for that one dude he would probably have like 4 or 5 Roland Garros titles.

If that same thing were to happen on other surfaces where upsets are more likely to happen then it would probably be more damning. Lendl at Wimbledon for example. In his 7 best Wimbledon results (2 finals, 5 semis) he won just 4 sets against 5 different guys.

Federer's fortunes at Roland Garros have been altered by one man, you can't really say the same for too many others at any other major at which their success has been tapered. That's pretty special in itself.
 
Make a case for Fed's GOAThood?
I dont believe in the "tiger" thing, but if I did, it would be based on slam count. If it is a tie, then so be it. If Rafa ends with the most, I wont argue it.

As far as making a case for Fed, he set the stage, set the bar, and as of now, has the numbers to back it up. When he no longer does, I will have to accept that, and give props to those who pass him. That being said, I do believe (as Rafa falls into this category as well), that Fed is more than just numbers and his resume shows that off the court in tennis.
 

Breakpointerer

Hall of Fame
Not that it's news because it's been the case since Rafa turned pro as a teenager. What the OP is saying is, that deficit in Fed's resumé does not warrant him being the GOAT.
Tennis is played outside of clay too though. It's the total career that should be taken into account.
(Not saying Fed is GOAT, btw. I don't believe in GOAT concept.
 
Not that it's news because it's been the case since Rafa turned pro as a teenager. What the OP is saying is, that deficit in Fed's resumé does not warrant him being the GOAT.
My point is that Rafa is so incredible on clay (no other sport has anything comparable to these accomplishments) that knocking Fed for losing to him on clay is ridiculous.
 
Why is Nadal allowed to be considered peak on grass or HC only after he wins there? Therefore, Fed wasn't peak on clay till 2009. Nadal wasn't good enough that year to make it to him.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
I dont believe in the "tiger" thing, but if I did, it would be based on slam count. If it is a tie, then so be it. If Rafa ends with the most, I wont argue it.

As far as making a case for Fed, he set the stage, set the bar, and as of now, has the numbers to back it up. When he no longer does, I will have to accept that, and give props to those who pass him. That being said, I do believe (as Rafa falls into this category as well), that Fed is more than just numbers and his resume shows that off the court in tennis.
Case not proven.
D-

In the first place, according to the ATP table, it's not only about slams. Secondly, winning 20 out of 78 slams played iS dismal for someone who some say is the GOAT. I would say, Federer has set the bar very low indeed. What exactly does he achieve off the court in tennis? Because his numbers don't add up, his fans bring in the arbitrary off court something or other that no one can put a finger on.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
My point is that Rafa is so incredible on clay (no other sport has anything comparable to these accomplishments) that knocking Fed for losing to him on clay is ridiculous.
That is a ridiculous point to make. So because Federer is average on all surfaces, because he has 1 slam title more than Rafa that entitles Federer to be the GOAT? ROFL
 
Case not proven.
D-

In the first place, according to the ATP table, it's not only about slams. Secondly, winning 20 out of 78 slams played i dismal for someone who some say is the GOAT. I would say, Federer has set the bar very low indeed. What exactly does he achieve off the court in tennis? Because his numbers don't add up, his fans bring in the arbitrary off court something or other that no one can put a finger on.
ATP table? :-D :-D :-D

Average on all surfaces. :-D:-D:-D

Yes, lets just dismiss the most weeks at number one, the most titles, the most WTFs, the most slams, and everything else because he could not beat Rafa on clay.

But you know what, I dont care if you, or if the majority of people think Rafa is better. Fine, I can live with that. Just dont drag the other ATG's down simply because you feel this way.
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
Why is Nadal allowed to be considered peak on grass or HC only after he wins there? Therefore, Fed wasn't peak on clay till 2009. Nadal wasn't good enough that year to make it to him.
My understanding is that Federer has been at his absolute peak since 2004, an incredible 16-year period of top condition. Nadal's grass peak was from 2008-2011, hard court peak from 2009-2014 and maybe 2017-19. Clay peak has lasted since 2005.
In those respective time frames he is 1-0 against Federer on grass, 7-3 on hard and 14-2 on clay (22-5). Incredible dominance peak for peak, whilst Federer leads 11-1 in matches not played at peak

Quite remarkable how a player as technically mediocre as Fred managed to get anointed GOAT - testament to has scrappy play and ability to eke out the odd match here and there.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
ATP table? :-D :-D :-D

Average on all surfaces. :-D:-D:-D

Yes, lets just dismiss the most weeks at number one, the most titles, the most WTFs, the most slams, and everything else because he could not beat Rafa on clay.

But you know what, I dont care if you, or if the majority of people think Rafa is better. Fine, I can live with that. Just dont drag the other ATG's down simply because you feel this way.
You should know better that it's percentages that count. Of course he's got the most titles and the most weeks at #1 than his nearest rivals who are 5-6 years his junior in age.

I refer you to my post #42
 
Top