Seems Jim Courier is on the "Nadal may be GOAT" train as well

[Omega_7000]

When one ex-player says Nadal is GOAT, there a slew of threads by Nadal fangirls claiming how they were right. It's hilarious and amusing at how desperate they are for attention.

There would be 10 more threads by Fed fans for every thread created by a Nadal fan if Fed fans started posting threads when an ex-player claimed Fed was the GOAT....but they are not as insecure and desperate for attention.

 

[iChen]

I quit reading here. This is a legitimate surface so it renders any discussion fruitless. When people dismiss a total and legitimate surface their arguments can't be considered (imo). The thing is, this "argument" has gone on so long that many people are actually starting to believe it.

Because his resume isn't deep enough. Davis + Olympics, really good achievements to be honest. But he should at least try to get to 3-4 slams in another surface, whether hard or grass, prob hard though, to at least be included in top 3 greatest of all time conversation.

 

[jg153040]

I quit reading here. This is a legitimate surface so it renders any discussion fruitless. When people dismiss a total and legitimate surface their arguments can't be considered (imo). The thing is, this "argument" has gone on so long that many people are actually starting to believe it.

So, what is the problem? If everything is legit, why don't people give Fed the goat status, since he has most achievements?

 

[TheTruth]

To be honest ı just hated when they talk like Fed was kind of a god but now even as a Nadal fan ı dont like that they try to downgrade Fed trying to show Nadal as a goat. ( which at this stage he clearly isnt ) The reality is somewhere in the middle. I mean they always play the same stupid game,they will call Laver the greatest again when the dust settles down.Thats why ı never take what they say all that seriously.

Fed fans in my book also needs to say calm stop coming with idiot stuff like if we dont count clay ( desperate stuff )
Grass and clay is the natural surfaces of the game.Hard courts only created because it is cheap.İt would still be a stupid thing to say if we dont count hard courts though.

Agree completely. Nadal is not the GOAT and neither is Fed or Djokovic. These commentators are the ones who started this mess and now don't even have the decency to let Fed enjoy his career before they start tearing him down.

However, they can say whatever they want. I fault the people who bought into it and now are angry that they're changing their tune. If you've watched tennis long enough you would have known this was a placebo theory in the first place.

If you thought their opinion was legitimate before then I don't understand why these people's opinions have suddenly turned to garbage.

Be careful what you believe (as given to you by others).

 

[The Dark Knight]

So, what is the problem? If everything is legit, why don't people give Fed the goat status, since he has most achievements?

Because this was his main competition. A guy who himself felt outclassed:

"I fell right on the back end of the golden generation, and so that was just the cards that were dealt,"


Andy Roddick

 

[NatF]

I quit reading here. This is a legitimate surface so it renders any discussion fruitless. When people dismiss a total and legitimate surface their arguments can't be considered (imo). The thing is, this "argument" has gone on so long that many people are actually starting to believe it.

Thats your mistake then. I didn't dismiss it at all but you people are too defensive to even attempt to understand any point against your beloved Rafa.

You don't actually care about who the GOAT is, but the fact remains that the GOAT should be better than borderline top 10 all time when it comes to 2/3 of the surfaces. Thats why people say, "Take away clay" not because it's not legitimate but because in the context of a discussion on the GOAT what can be said about Nadal and clay? He's the greatest there, on the other surfaces he doesn't measure up.

Would you have a problem if someone said, "Nadal can't be the GOAT because his accomplishments aren't balanced enough in comparison to other contenders." Thats essentially what people are trying to say when they try and discuss Nadal's achievements without clay. No one says it's not a legitimate surface. The fact that Sampras didn't win on clay disqualifies him in a lot of peoples eyes. So obviously clay is seen as a legitimate surface.

 

[Jeffrey573639]

No offense to Courier. I like him (generally) but I agree with TheTruth, that many commentators including Courier aren't showing respect to Fed. It might be immature but Fed is currently 5 slams ahead of Rafa, which is you know, more than Courier won in his career.

 

[TheTruth]

When one ex-player says Nadal is GOAT, there a slew of threads by Nadal fangirls claiming how they were right. It's hilarious and amusing at how desperate they are for attention.

There would be 10 more threads by Fed fans for every thread created by a Nadal fan if Fed fans started posting threads when an ex-player claimed Fed was the GOAT....but they are not as insecure and desperate for attention.

You obviously don't read my posts, if you're referring to me, because I have never, ever believed in the GOAT theory before, during, or after Nadal. So, you're dead wrong. I think the commentators sold fans a bunch of bull and now many are hurt at this perceived slight that Federer may not be the GOAT after all.

Personally, I don't understand why people care so deeply about who is the GOAT, it's going to change anyway. It always does.

 

[TheTruth]

Because his resume isn't deep enough. Davis + Olympics, really good achievements to be honest. But he should at least try to get to 3-4 slams in another surface, whether hard or grass, prob hard though, to at least be included in top 3 greatest of all time conversation.

Then Federer should get more clay slams. He did grow up on the surface.

 

[Omega_7000]

You obviously don't read my posts, if you're referring to me, because I have never, ever believed in the GOAT theory before, during, or after Nadal. So, you're dead wrong. I think the commentators sold fans a bunch of bull and now many are hurt at this perceived slight that Federer may not be the GOAT after all.

Personally, I don't understand why people care so deeply about who is the GOAT, it's going to change anyway. It always does.

Actually for once I agree with you and that post was not directed towards you. This was not such a big deal until some commentators started to hype it up and now they have to keep up the hype in order to sell themselves and the tennis brand.

You cannot have a GOAT because you just cannot compare different eras with different surfaces, technology, medical enhancements, mindsets etc. etc...all you can have is the most successful player and I don't think there should be any argument as to who that is. Everything else is purely subjective (style, personality, attitude, mannerisms)

I believe that Fed is the most accomplished across a variety of surfaces IN HIS ERA....and that's all he or any player can do.

 

[TheTruth]

So, what is the problem? If everything is legit, why don't people give Fed the goat status, since he has most achievements?

That's the question you all need to answer. Why are so many people backtracking when Nadal is not even near to Federer's records? Are some of the things that you all are trumpeting irrelevant in the GOAT debate? What really matters in crowning a GOAT? What do the experts weigh as more important? We know that it's not just slam total, or Emerson would have been above Laver. So, if you guys want to believe that such a thing exists, then you'll have to take the good with the bad instead of summarily dismissing it as bandwagoning and hype (which it is), but it is not what many said when they crowned Fed the GOAT. They crowed then, thinking it was true and now they are confused when the powers to be snatch it away from them.

They giveth and they taketh away. That's the reality.

 

[iChen]

Then Federer should get more clay slams. He did grow up on the surface.

Doesn't matter. Fed's got enough Aus/US slams. 2 surfaces > 1.

 

[jg153040]

That's the question you all need to answer. Why are so many people backtracking when Nadal is not even near to Federer's records? Are some of the things that you all are trumpeting irrelevant in the GOAT debate? What really matters in crowning a GOAT? What do the experts weigh as more important? We know that it's not just slam total, or Emerson would have been above Laver. So, if you guys want to believe that such a thing exists, then you'll have to take the good with the bad instead of summarily dismissing it as bandwagoning and hype (which it is), but it is not what many said when they crowned Fed the GOAT. They crowed then, thinking it was true and now they are confused when the powers to be snatch it away from them.

They giveth and they taketh away. That's the reality.

Yes, the current hype is the main reason. Then people went back to Laver. But compared to Laver there wasn't such a player like Federer. People will backtrack for Nadal and Djokovic too. But I think Fed and Laver are staying.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Personally I don't think grass is . Who the fawk really plays on grass?

The grass season is like a month long . It's just stupid

I agree with this.

I think it's the American bias of us having champions on the faster courts plus the fact that we tend to like huge offensive tennis.

Let's face it. No one grows up on grass, trains on grass, or even regularly plays on grass, except for a select few. In fact, there are only 6 grass tournaments on the whole ATP schedule (and two overlap with two others) and only Wimbledon is above the 250 level.

I get the Wimbledon is a hugely traditional tournament, and I personally love Wimbledon. But clay is a far, far more significant surface than grass, and in many parts of the world it's the MOST significant. It's infuriating to me when people discount Nadal's FO wins cause they're on clay. If anything, it's lots of Wimbledon wins that tend to overrate a slam count more than FO wins.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Doesn't matter. Fed's got enough Aus/US slams. 2 surfaces > 1.

Well they are both hard courts . So lets take that away from him?

I don't understand what the fascination with "fast " is? Like somehow it's "better"?

In fact I think it's worse .....it takes less strategy and less athletic skill.

And the days of Sampras and ivanesovic were boring . Ace ace ace or big serve and then a volley . Horribly boring and brain dead and it's the reason tennis was slowed down.

Viewership was at an all time low .

Now we have the most exciting matches of all time .....from fed vs Nadal , to djokovic vs Nadal......hey wait a minute maybe the common thread here is just
That Nadal is the most exciting player that ever existed .

We have wimby 2007, 2008.....we have Djoker vs Nadal at the AO and possibly the most exciting FO match ever with Joker vs Nadal this summer .

 

[FrontHeadlock]

And the days of Sampras and ivanesovic were boring . Ace ace ace or big serve and then a volley . Horribly boring and brain dead and it's the reason tennis was slowed down.

Viewership was at an all time low .

I hated those years at Wimbledon.

I like some contrast, but seeing service winner after service winner isn't interesting. It's particularly uninteresting when important points that would otherwise have been high quality ended up as aces 80% of the time.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

And you know better?

Courier,Agassi,mcenroe,Becker ,wilander,Navratilova .......and the list goes on and on.

Remember, when Nadal is ranked above Federer, the usual suspects scream that the ex-players must be:

"bandwagoners."

"liars."

"jealous (of Federer)."

"delusional"

...or any other insults in a long line of attacks, all used for one--and only one reason.

 

[wangs78]

At the end of the day, people have short memories, including former top players. They look at how Nadal just came back from a long layoff and won practically everything in sight (not surprisingly, on clay) and suddenly they're thinking, Nadal's the GOAT. If Roger had won Wimby or if he wins the USO, I guarantee the Couriers, McEnroes will very quickly change their tune and say "well, for Roger to have won his 18th, at his age, against this competition, yes he is the GOAT". We really have to wait until each of their careers is over. Then let's have the debate. Right now, history is still being written. Sheesh

 

[TMF]

Then Federer should get more clay slams. He did grow up on the surface.

No he doesn't. Greatest player doesn't have to be perfect, and no one is. Jordan has his own flaw but that nullify since he has the most complete resume.

 

[NatF]

McEnroe was calling Roger the GOAT during the Wimbledon semi final with Djokovic last year. Now Nadal's come back and won 6 clay titles there's a new GOAT. Laughable really.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

McEnroe was calling Roger the GOAT during the Wimbledon semi final with Djokovic last year. Now Nadal's come back and won 6 clay titles there's a new GOAT. Laughable really.

So, you take issue with a person changing his mind? Last anyone checked, that was quite natural.

 

[NatF]

So, you take issue with a person changing his mind? Last anyone checked, that was quite natural.

I find it laughable he changes his mind so easily, makes it seem it never really believed it the first place. I also find Nadal's comeback pretty unworthy of suddenly having the GOAT label attached. As do you no doubt as you find the Grand Slam the only critera for absolute greatness.

You constantly deride Federer's supporters for even entertaining the notion he might be the GOAT. Yet you don't aim any criticism at McEnroe for forgetting his history?

That seems very odd to me. Almost like you have an agenda. And I have no issue with McEnroe's comments, I simply find it funny that the wind can blow strongly and change his mind.

 

[zagor]

Remember, when Nadal is ranked above Federer, the usual suspects scream that the ex-players must be:

"bandwagoners."

"liars."

"jealous (of Federer)."

"delusional"

...or any other insults in a long line of attacks, all used for one--and only one reason.

Actually, I've been calling McEnroe in particular a delusional bandwagoner on this forum back in 2009, when he couldn't stop yapping about Fed being the GOAT (he was even doing it with Borg, Laver and Sampras present, he acted like an idiot).

He's a hypejob, period, doesn't matter whether I'm the fan of the player he's currently trying hype or not.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I find it laughable he changes his mind so easily, makes it seem it never really believed it the first place. I also find Nadal's comeback pretty unworthy of suddenly having the GOAT label attached. As do you no doubt as you find the Grand Slam the only critera for absolute greatness.

You constantly deride Federer's supporters for even entertaining the notion he might be the GOAT. Yet you don't aim any criticism at McEnroe for forgetting his history?

That seems very odd to me. Almost like you have an agenda. And I have no issue with McEnroe's comments, I simply find it funny that the wind can blow strongly and change his mind.

It all depends what goat means to you.

If its stats that matter to you most then it's fed but if its quality then it's Nadal.

For example the 2008 greatest match of all time at Wimbledon is simply 1 slam on the stats or just another match in the 20-10 h2h.

But to me it's worth far more than just a match. It's the greatest match of all time . It's worth more to me than 50 slams against the Bagdatis' of the world.

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

It all depends what goat means to you.

If its stats that matter to you most then it's fed but if its quality then it's Nadal.

For example the 2008 greatest match of all time at Wimbledon is simply 1 slam on the stats or just another match in the 20-10 h2h.

But to me it's worth far more than just a match. It's the greatest match of all time . It's worth more to me than 50 slams against the Bagdatis' of the world.

"the 2008 greatest match of all time at Wimbledon". I see you kept referring at it, and even put up a picture of SI issue. There, it is written by...Jon Weirthem. Looks like you took it from the guy and ran with it since then. Jon who? Is he the owner of the Gospel of the Truth? He called it so, does it mean it was so? Apparently, he forgot the Wimby of previous year where Fed defeated Rafa. Not shabby that final at all, IMO.

This Jon guy is probably a bandwagoner.

I see no reason why that Wimby has to be the greatest match.

What about the BigMac-Borg final with the 5th set ending in 19-17 or something like that? Many other matches are also worthy of the greatest match title as well.
Unless there is an absolute reason that Wimby final beat all the others, I would take Jon's words as hyperbole. Just funny that you seem to take it as Gospel of Truth. It is NOT.

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Well expressed.



Exactly; Federer was promited not because he was a GOAT--but due to men's tennis being in such sorry shape (no "Tennis Boom" for this generation), that the guy who just happened to win a few majors was "promoted" to being a GOAT, when he certainly did not have the creditials to hold that title.



Agreed--and in Jordan's case, it is just the opposite: since his retirement, few attempt to rewrite NBA history with Kobe or LeBron, because by NBA standards of GOAT, they have not reached that level. In Federer's case, it was always clear he was not GOAT, but again, sagging interest in men's tennis was the trigger to promote Federer.



...or 10, 20..30 years. Unlike others, Federer never had an accomplisment which is seen as the ultimate accomplishment which stands the test of time.

Wanna use Laver's words again to see who's the greatest? LOL. Save us the poetic, philosophic, nonsense. Get to the point. You don't like Fed? Fine. You don't think Fed is GOAT worthy? Fine. Then who? Who has better numbers? Show me a list with a bunch of categories of achievements. Don't come up with one such as CYGS. BTW, that's ONE criteria. You criticize Fed's fans to have only ONE criteria for their support, well don't copycat them.

 

[natalia]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=75938

 

[JoelDali]

Dennis is the true GOAT.

 

[TMF]

First, who are those greats who denigrate Fed? Their resume, is it even remotely comparable to Fed's? Very convenient for you to point out that they don't agree that Fed is not worthy of GOAT. However, these exact same guys just said the opposite in the past. If they hyperboled then, why wouldn't they hyperbole now? Do you even follow tennis the last 20 years? Or just this year? Of course, someone who just steps in and watches Fed play this year would say he's not worthy of GOAT. Tons of reasons to explain. I don't need to do so. You probably understand them yourself. Fed is at the tail's end of his career. Do you expect him still perform at the same level when he was 24-26 year old?
Second, even to follow your claim that Fed's numbers or achievements are NOT worthy, then show me a list of players MORE WORTHY WITH THEIR NUMBERS. Show it to me and convince me by numbers. I don't need bs excuses, no development issue, no family drama, no injury bs. Just numbers. Support your claim that X player is better than Fed by showing me his BETTER numbers.

VPhuc tennis fan,
All the great one are true champions, tremendous achievements, mind boggling records/stats. Of all the goat in other sports, they share the common criteria. Anyone who deny Federer lacking are dishonest.

When people see the name such as Jordan, Gretzky, Federer or Rice, they know these guy are the giant in their sport. If they don't, they haven't watch enough to know.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Save us the poetic, philosophic, nonsense.

You only reveal your own insecurity with posts of this nature.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

................

 

[Deleted member 307496]

He's entitled to his opinion, but the vast majority of people won't agree with him.

 

[Federer20042006]

Nobody disputes Nadal may be the clay court GOAT.

But tennis isn't only played on clay. And Nadal isn't even in the GOAT discussion on any other surface.

Federer's in the discussion on 2 of the 3 major surfaces. Even if you break them down further, he has all-time elite slow hardcourt, fast hardcourt, indoor, and grass credentials.

Personally, I don't have Federer #1 on any of those surfaces, but I have him top 3 on all of them. And he's top 10 on clay for me, too.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Nobody disputes Nadal may be the clay court GOAT.

But tennis isn't only played on clay. And Nadal isn't even in the GOAT discussion on any other surface.

Federer's in the discussion on 2 of the 3 major surfaces. Even if you break them down further, he has all-time elite slow hardcourt, fast hardcourt, indoor, and grass credentials.

Personally, I don't have Federer #1 on any of those surfaces, but I have him top 3 on all of them. And he's top 10 on clay for me, too.

Who do you have as #1 on fast outdoor hard?

Fed has 5 USO, 2 Canada, 5 Cinci

Pete has 5 USO, 0 Canada, 3 Cinci

He's arguably #1 for them all except slow HC.

 

[Crisstti]

You're right. We could have someone who has say 10 slams, and a winning h2h against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray due to playing them at the tail end of their careers. Commentators will be selling them as a possible GOAT and the forums will be flooded with the same thing.

Nadal doesn't have a winning head to head against all of them due to "playing them at the end of their careers". It isn't the case with even one of them.

It's because Nadal's achievements are mostly based on his insane clay numbers, he's barely top 10 for achievements on hards/grass combined. Clay is an important surface and I don't think many would dispute that Nadal is all time greatest clay courter. I actually enjoyed this years clay season more than any other part of the year so far. But when comparing him to the greatest of the greats he comes up short on 2/3's of the surfaces. Constantly reading terribad Nadal fans saying "h2h" and "best win percentage" etc...is annoying when it's largely a product of him being invincible for 3 months of the year.

Djokovic is arguably more specialized than Nadal with most of his slams and titles being on HC. But Djokovic isn't even close to being considered a tier 1 great let alone the GOAT.

I assume I'll be getting stick for this post. But I'll try and explain my point more concisely. Nadal is a fantastic player who has achieved alot, even off clay his achievements are greater than any other player today bar Federer and Djokovic. However for those that indulge in the GOAT debate, finding his numbers overly skewed towards clay isn't exactly illogical, especially considering who he's often compared to. He's the greatest single surface player of all time. And that has an impact on his numbers and percentages. If you take away Federer's grass titles his career is still borderline tier 1.

No one ever mentions taking away grass or hardcourt because no player bar peak Federer was ever even close to as strong on those surfaces as Nadal. No player ever sweeps the hardcourt masters every year or goes undefeated.

I don't see how that should be held against him.

Also, I don't think it's the same thing to say there isn't enough balance on his resume to insist to "take out clay" out of any statistic.

Not having (this far at least) won more off clay goes against him, legitimately imo, in goat debates, I've got no problem with that. But there are "holes" like this also for every other goat candidate, including Federer.

Because his resume isn't deep enough. Davis + Olympics, really good achievements to be honest. But he should at least try to get to 3-4 slams in another surface, whether hard or grass, prob hard though, to at least be included in top 3 greatest of all time conversation.

Why should he, but Federer shouldn't do more at RG?.

 

[Crisstti]

"the 2008 greatest match of all time at Wimbledon". I see you kept referring at it, and even put up a picture of SI issue. There, it is written by...Jon Weirthem. Looks like you took it from the guy and ran with it since then. Jon who? Is he the owner of the Gospel of the Truth? He called it so, does it mean it was so? Apparently, he forgot the Wimby of previous year where Fed defeated Rafa. Not shabby that final at all, IMO.

This Jon guy is probably a bandwagoner.

I see no reason why that Wimby has to be the greatest match.

What about the BigMac-Borg final with the 5th set ending in 19-17 or something like that? Many other matches are also worthy of the greatest match title as well.
Unless there is an absolute reason that Wimby final beat all the others, I would take Jon's words as hyperbole. Just funny that you seem to take it as Gospel of Truth. It is NOT.

Point is however, there are some matches that are greater than others, and that cannot be reflected on mere statistics.

Did he think Nadal was the greatest before this years French Open?
He could certainly make a case for that, but not sure why doing something 8 times would make a huge difference over doing something 7 times and already being considered the greatest clay-courter ever.
I'd be much more inclined to raise my view of Nadal upward if he won Wimbledon or the U.S. Open again or became year-end #1 again.

It also meant he's the only player to have won slams 9 years in a row.

 

[clayqueen]

Courier was just questioned by the ITV Tennis anchorman in the UK, whether Nadal could be considered the greatest ever, and Courier pretty much said that he might just be, if you look at his achievements so far and the fact that he's dominated the H2H with his strongest rivals (Federer, Djokovic, Murray).

Courier said Nadal can't play any of the other guys in the GOAT conversation (aside from Fedrerer) like Sampras and Laver because tey are in different eras, but his superior H2H against all his main rivals in his era works in favour of him being considered the greatest ever.

I do hope the Federer fans won't rip poor Jimbo to shreds (like McEnroe) for daring to have an opinion that suggests Nadal may well be greater than Fed, and the possible GOAT.

The facts speak for themselves that no matter what, Rafa is the greatest of this era. It's not rocket science.

 

[clayqueen]

Take out his wins on clay and look at the h2h's again, especially against Djokovic.

This is what a weekend hacker thinks - well, Nadal leads Djokovic 4-3 in the last 7 matches therefore he's better.

This is what we think - 4-3 and all 7 on clay. Gooby, please, when was the last time Nadal beat Djokovic on a hard court? 2010, was it?

That's EXACTLY what Nadal has been doing in the last couple of years. When it's clay he faces them in every possible tournament. Come hard courts - he catches an injury and is out for 7 months. Until Monte Carlo starts.

Why not take out hard courts and see who's got the better h2h. Why do people think that clay should be isolated in a separate compartment? Only Federer has dominated on his favourite surfaces and even on those surfaces, apart from indoors he did not dominate Rafa. Rafa is 6-2 against Federer on outdoor h/c and 1-2 on grass. Djokovic and Murray do not dominate on any surface.

 

[Federer20042006]

Who do you have as #1 on fast outdoor hard?

Fed has 5 USO, 2 Canada, 5 Cinci

Pete has 5 USO, 0 Canada, 3 Cinci

He's arguably #1 for them all except slow HC.

Pete has more USO finals, so I give him the edge.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

TBH, former-players-turned-commentators where contemplating the possibility of federer being GOAT much earlier in federer's career than Rafa's own stage in his career at the moment. so this shouldnt be too surprising.

Jim Courier, Jmac, and the like are just futureproofing their commentating careers.

 

[clayqueen]

TBH, former-players-turned-commentators where contemplating the possibility of federer being GOAT much earlier in federer's career than Rafa's own stage in his career at the moment. so this shouldnt be too surprising.

Jim Courier, Jmac, and the like are just futureproofing their commentating careers.

There'll never be a GOAT, though. Greatest of the era can be more easily ascertained than of all time.

Federer's got gaps in his resume, i.e being owned by one of his peers and winning only 1 clay slam.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

There'll never be a GOAT, though. Greatest of the era can be more easily ascertained than of all time.

Federer's got gaps in his resume, i.e being owned by one of his peers and winning only 1 clay slam.

good thing Nadal only has gaps in his season and not his resume.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Pete has more USO finals, so I give him the edge.

Wouldn't that logic place Fed ahead of Pete on grass?

 

[Magnus]

Nadal is fotm. When he starts losing some more (and he will) people will write him off again and jump over to the next fotm

 

[zagor]

The facts speak for themselves that no matter what, Rafa is the greatest of this era. It's not rocket science.

Eh, no, that's very debatable and premature.

 

[Magnetite]

He's got a point. Nadal is one of the greatest ever.

Nadal's H2H is usually skewed because he generally wins on clay, but often doesn't get far enough to play his rivals off clay.

That's common knowledge, but still works in Nadal's favor, especially since he went into Roger's house (Wimbledon), and stole his lunch money.

If there is a GOAT it's Roger, but Nadal is definitely in the discussion.

The funny thing is, that even if Nadal wins 4-5 more slams, and gets another 100 weeks at #1, there's still a debate on who is the GOAT. It's not clear cut. So really he can't be considered the absolute GOAT right now.

 

[The_Order]

Wouldn't that logic place Fed ahead of Pete on grass?

He is ffs.

Fed = grass GOAT (equal most WIM titles, but has more finals + more grass titles)
Pete = fast HC GOAT (Won first USO 1990 and last in 2002, that's 12 years where his game has held up on that surface)
Novak = slow HC GOAT (equal most AO titles, but has beat Fed there and Nadal and also Murray, Fed has never beat Nadal at AO and his only win against Novak was when he was still a kid)
Nadal = clay GOAT (don't need to explain anything here it's almost unanimous apart from die hard Borg fans or pure Nadal haters)

 

[Federer20042006]

Wouldn't that logic place Fed ahead of Pete on grass?

Well, Pete has 2 more USO finals, whereas Federer has only 1 more Wimbledon final.

Anyway, if I had to pick a GOAT for each:

Slow HC - Agassi
Fast HC - Sampras
Grass - Sampras
Indoors - Becker
Clay - Nadal

 

[6-3 6-0]

So, you count only the slams for judging performances on a surface? RFederer is by far the greatest HC player, plus also the greatest grass courter (arguable with PSampras, but he is grass GOAT IMHO). Look at his win % on these surfaces, no. of titles, his streak (unbeaten on grass for 5 years, ridiculous win/loss record on HCs in his prime years, 6 YECs). Not to mention he won 5 straight slams on both surfaces.

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

You only reveal your own insecurity with posts of this nature.

My own insecurity? LOL. Nah. I'd like to call it the way it is. No need to sugarcoat anything.
I scored above 95% in all my philosophy classes, but I believe there's a place for each single thing. Most of the times, straight to the point is the easiest.
Convoluted, fake poetic sentences, veiled insults, for God's sake, just say it out loud. We understand each other better like that.