Senario about Federer's claim to GOAT & Nadal

[samboy01]

Ok, I don't mean to do a fight, but I'm interested to find out what people think. Right now, based on stats alone, basically grandslam titles, weeks at no.1, consistancy, etc. Federer is without a doubt the GOAT.

Now here's the senario. Let's say Federer's rivalry against another all-time great Nadal ends 7-20 including 2-9 in grandslams (it's maybe extreme, but it's just a senario), would that be a valid reason to reconsider Federer's claim of GOAT status? The fact that he was owned by his biggest rival and never found a way to stop him? Or would the stats & titles alone, and consistency over the years, be enough?

Personally, I think if he's truly the GOAT, he would be able to find a way to do something about Nadal. So far he trails 7-14, and most importantly 2-6 in grandslams. I know that Federer fans will talk about surfaces & clay, but the fact remains that Nadal has beaten Federer in grandslams on hardcourt, grass and clay, while Federer has done it only on grass. So it's no excuse why Federer can't beat Nadal at the French Open, in 4 tries! Nadal did find a way to beat him at Wimbledon!

But back to the senario, what do you think?

 

[davey25]

Federer can never be the GOAT while he is owned by Nadal. If he doesnt somehow turn around the head to head in a significant way he is clearly not the greatest of all time. Laver, Borg, Sampras, Gonzales, Tilden, Budge, none of these guys were owned by the #2 player of their generation in their primes the way Federer has been. Even Rosewall you can say wasnt if you simply give him a 4 year prime between the Gonzales and Laver reigns despite being right around the top for about 20 years, after all that is all Federer's "supposed" prime was too.

If anything in the future Nadal is more likely to supplant Federer as the best player of this generation and make a run at being the greatest ever himself, than Federer turning around his glaring detriment of being Nadal's lapdog.

 

[jukka1970]

seriously this bull has got to stop, Nadal isn't even in the top 3 for GOAT. I'm sorry but GOAT doesn't mean you have to have a winning record against everyone. Hate to burst your bubbles. As for you Davey25, your posts have been shear crap for the most part on the forum. When Nadal starts grabbing some of these other records that Federer has, then we'll start talking more about it, and he's got a long way to go to get many of them.

 

[DownTheLine]

People have to understand how bad of a match up Nadal is for Federer. High balls to a one hander is one of the toughest shots in tennis and if you watch a game of Federer vs Nadal 95% of the balls are High topspin to Federers backhand.

Also take out Clay and the H2H is way different. Federer leads 5-4 last I recall.

 

[davey25]

seriously this bull has got to stop, Nadal isn't even in the top 3 for GOAT. I'm sorry but GOAT doesn't mean you have to have a winning record against everyone. Hate to burst your bubbles. As for you Davey25, your posts have been shear crap for the most part on the forum. When Nadal starts grabbing some of these other records that Federer has, then we'll start talking more about it, and he's got a long way to go to get many of them.

Nadal at this point is nowhere near being the GOAT, duh like this is groundbreaking news. That isnt the point. The point is no GOAT is owned and schooled repeatedly by the 2nd best player of his own generation. Federer is the only guy in even the top 8 all time who is basically his biggest rivals lapdog. That is the OP's post I believe. And I agree, no way can Federer be the GOAT while being the doormat for the #2 player of his own era.

Imagine Laver, Borg or Sampras in their primes being owned by the #2 players of their generation, LOL!

Unless Federer significantly turns around his head to head with Nadal no way is he the true GOAT. Whether Nadal ever reaches that point is completely irrelevant.

 

[DownTheLine]

seriously this bull has got to stop, Nadal isn't even in the top 3 for GOAT. I'm sorry but GOAT doesn't mean you have to have a winning record against everyone. Hate to burst your bubbles. As for you Davey25, your posts have been shear crap for the most part on the forum. When Nadal starts grabbing some of these other records that Federer has, then we'll start talking more about it, and he's got a long way to go to get many of them.

I agree 176%.

 

[samboy01]

seriously this bull has got to stop, Nadal isn't even in the top 3 for GOAT. I'm sorry but GOAT doesn't mean you have to have a winning record against everyone. Hate to burst your bubbles. As for you Davey25, your posts have been shear crap for the most part on the forum. When Nadal starts grabbing some of these other records that Federer has, then we'll start talking more about it, and he's got a long way to go to get many of them.

He already has most master series title record. He's gonna have most french open titles in no time. And guess what, at the same age as Federer, Nadal is ahead in almost every departement. This thread is not to bash Nadal (or Federer), it's only about the importance of a rivalry between to greats and if one can't be the best player in his own era, if he can still claim the "all-time" best player title just based on quantity of numbers. Please stay on topic.

 

[Chezbeeno]

I don't think Federer has to turn around his head-to-head with Nadal to the point where he has the winning record, he just has to win a few matches and show that Nadal doesn't own him anymore, if he can win a few consecutive matches against Nadal I'd be satisfied, I already am a Fed fan and I think he's the best but these are my thoughts about his rivalry with Nadal

 

[slicefox]

Nadal is probably around top 17-25 in the GOAT discussion, max.

Just because he can moonball to federer's backhand using babolat and polyester doesn't mean Federer is not a solid GOAT.

No player has ever had the domination, finesse, magic, talent, longevity, precision, persistence, results, and greatness as the great Roger had.

/thread

lock pls

 

[davey25]

I don't think Federer has to turn around his head-to-head with Nadal to the point where he has the winning record, he just has to win a few matches and show that Nadal doesn't own him anymore, if he can win a few consecutive matches against Nadal I'd be satisfied, I already am a Fed fan and I think he's the best but these are my thoughts about his rivalry with Nadal

I agree. He doesnt have to have a winning head to head vs Nadal but he has to beat him in some more slam finals. If not a French Open final, atleast a couple more slam finals at the other slams. If he were to meet Nadal in a U.S Open final and lose that too it would really make any "Federer the GOAT" argument seem ridiculous.

What kind of GOAT has ever lost a slam final on every surface to their biggest rival. If it was enough to eliminate Evert from being the female GOAT, it certainly should eliminate Federer. Many of her records amongst the women are even better than Federer's amongst the men after all, yet her pawnage at the hands of Navratilova (almost all of it ages 29 or older) eliminated her to most people from consideration.

 

[JoshDragon]

Federer can never be the GOAT while he is owned by Nadal. If he doesnt somehow turn around the head to head in a significant way he is clearly not the greatest of all time. Laver, Borg, Sampras, Gonzales, Tilden, Budge, none of these guys were owned by the #2 player of their generation in their primes the way Federer has been. Even Rosewall you can say wasnt if you simply give him a 4 year prime between the Gonzales and Laver reigns despite being right around the top for about 20 years, after all that is all Federer's "supposed" prime was too.

If anything in the future Nadal is more likely to supplant Federer as the best player of this generation and make a run at being the greatest ever himself, than Federer turning around his glaring detriment of being Nadal's lapdog.

How many slams did Pete win? How many were on clay?

How many decades ago did the other guys play? What kind of technology did they use? How can they even be compared to Roger?

 

[egn]

I crown this the most original topic ever. I mean seriously we haven't even made a dent in the surface on this topic. OP brings so much new evidence to the table.


Can we please use the damn search function, if you have a scenario involving Fed, Nadal, Fed+Nadal, Rivalry, H2H and GOAT. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT LEAST 30 TIMES BEFORE.

 

[slicefox]

I don't think Federer has to turn around his head-to-head with Nadal to the point where he has the winning record, he just has to win a few matches and show that Nadal doesn't own him anymore, if he can win a few consecutive matches against Nadal I'd be satisfied, I already am a Fed fan and I think he's the best but these are my thoughts about his rivalry with Nadal

Not fed's problem nadal doesn't show up to finals. They were no.1 and no.2, and nadal rarely showed up to finals. Federer has been in 19 of the last 20 finals (or something close to that). Nadal was only there a few times to contest.

However, Federer has been in plenty of finals with Nadal ON CLAY, on nadal's terms. They met on clay 12 or 13 times out of 21. Play more on hard courts and it would be Roger leading 2-1 head to head.

Only noob wussies ******* fed-haters can even bring up this argument. I"m sorry but you seem ******** to anyone over 15 years old and/or with a triple digit IQ.

 

[TMF]

It's ludicrous to use positive h2h record over one player and claim he's greater player and ignore everthing else(GS, wks at #1 or consistency dominating the field). Frankly, I see Nadal's greatness is equivalent to Serena. While Serena has 5 more gs, but men's GS has more weigh b/c of way more difficult to win plus having much greater competition. They both belong in tier II great and it something their fans should really be proud of. But only a fool would try to lump them in with Fed, Laver, Martina, Chris or Graf.

 

[veritech]

He already has most master series title record. He's gonna have most french open titles in no time. And guess what, at the same age as Federer, Nadal is ahead in almost every departement. This thread is not to bash Nadal (or Federer), it's only about the importance of a rivalry between to greats and if one can't be the best player in his own era, if he can still claim the "all-time" best player title just based on quantity of numbers. Please stay on topic.

Nadal has achieved more than Federer simply because Nadal was an early bloomer and Federer was a late bloomer. Ironically Nadal is the one having injury issues, despite being the younger, stronger player, which might bring his career to an end sooner than he expected.

Regardless of Nadal, Federer will be considered as the greatest of all-time. While Rafa may lead the H2H, what will matter at the end of their careers is how many slams they have. Rafa may have dominated Roger, but if he falls short in terms of slams, people will question Nadal, asking why does he have less slams than Roger? Why does Roger X amount of slams more than Rafa if Rafa owned him? H2H is a blemish, some consider huge and others tiny, but I don't think it matters too much in the end if you have the most important record of all: major titles.

Anyways, this GOAT discussion is entirely objective and debates (in particularly here at TW) will never, ever end. We all have too many different standards for GOAT and too many different perspectives. We should sticky a GOAT discussion so we never need to make another GOAT thread... (no offense to the OP)

 

[davey25]

People say Nadal was an early bloomer just because he didnt suck as a teenager like Federer did. Federer began his prime around turning 22. Indications seem to be that is the case for Nadal in many respects too, as around the time of 2008 French was the time his game went to a new level altogether.

Nadal is actually ahead of Federer's pace at the same age as we speak, something that people claimed would not be the case once Nadal was this old but still is.

 

[Jchurch]

LMAO. Does anyone honestly think that had Pete and Andre met on Clay and Rebound Ace that Sampras would have had such a commanding record?

Sampras never would have been able to take a match off of Rafa on clay. If it would have been 13 matches on Hard Court versus Clay, there is no way that Nadal would have beat Federer anywhere near as frequently.

EVEN NADAL says that the head to head is due to a huge amount of the matches being on clay. But I guess people on this board like Davey25 know more about Nadal than Nadal himself.

Go figure....

 

[samboy01]

Nadal has achieved more than Federer simply because Nadal was an early bloomer and Federer was a late bloomer. Ironically Nadal is the one having injury issues, despite being the younger, stronger player, which might bring his career to an end sooner than he expected.

Regardless of Nadal, Federer will be considered as the greatest of all-time. While Rafa may lead the H2H, what will matter at the end of their careers is how many slams they have. Rafa may have dominated Roger, but if he falls short in terms of slams, people will question Nadal, asking why does he have less slams than Roger? Why does Roger X amount of slams more than Rafa if Rafa owned him? H2H is a blemish, some consider huge and others tiny, but I don't think it matters too much in the end if you have the most important record of all: major titles.

Anyways, this GOAT discussion is entirely objective and debates (in particularly here at TW) will never, ever end. We all have too many different standards for GOAT and too many different perspectives. We should sticky a GOAT discussion so we never need to make another GOAT thread... (no offense to the OP)

Honey... sweety... girlfriend... We are humans, not robots. Just because 16 > 12 doesn't mean that there's nothing else envolved. We humans have the ability to ANALYZE. How did player won his 16, who was his overall competition, did he have a big rival, what was his level, etc. That's why many people rank Navratilova 18 over Graf 22 and M.Court 24, because they know that Navratilova won 18 against tons of rivals, while Graf had her main rival dismissed from the game, and M.Court won a lot at the Australian when the competition was weak. So Nadal doesn't necessarly need to reach 16, to be a GOAT contender. There are a lot of factors envolved, and his rivalry with Federer is one of those factors, masters series too. His career is still blossoming so let's see.

 

[davey25]

LMAO. Does anyone honestly think that had Pete and Andre met on Clay and Rebound Ace that Sampras would have had such a commanding record?

Sampras never would have been able to take a match off of Rafa on clay. If it would have been 13 matches on Hard Court versus Clay, there is no way that Nadal would have beat Federer anywhere near as frequently.

EVEN NADAL says that the head to head is due to a huge amount of the matches being on clay. But I guess people on this board like Davey25 know more about Nadal than Nadal himself.

Go figure....

So why cant Federer own Nadal on any surface the way Nadal does Federer on clay? That is what clearly defines Nadal's dominance over Federer. Breaking down the head to heads:

Clay: 10-2 Nadal
Grass: 2-1 Federer (Nadal's one win being 5 sets, and Federer's second win also being 5)
Hard Courts: 4-3 Federer

Federer cant own Nadal on any surface the way Nadal does Federer on clay. Federer tried for many years to beat Nadal at the French and couldnt. Nadal though managed to beat Federer in 3 slam finals on 3 different surfaces in the span of only 8 months. Nadal as a teenage clay court specialist was already beating Federer multiple times on hard courts. That is why Nadal owns Federer.

The clay excuse alone is just a cop out. Even if Sampras played about half his matches with Agassi on clay and rebound ace he wouldnt have a 7-14 head to head since he would own Agassi on all faster courts. Agassi has actually never played Sampras at his true best on rebound ace either, and Sampras is even 2-3 vs Agassi on clay.

 

[samboy01]

On hardcourt it's 3-3, and actually Nadal has the edge since he won their hardcourt grandslam meeting...

 

[veritech]

People say Nadal was an early bloomer just because he didnt suck as a teenager like Federer did. Federer began his prime around turning 22. Indications seem to be that is the case for Nadal in many respects too, as around the time of 2008 French was the time his game went to a new level altogether.

Nadal is actually ahead of Federer's pace at the same age as we speak, something that people claimed would not be the case once Nadal was this old but still is.

Exactly, Federer was a late bloomer who had difficulty finding his game at first and Rafa was an early one, making it dificult to compare the two when they were the same ages. For example, Federer at age 19 was still a headcase struggling on the circuit while Nadal was already a slam winner at that age.

The real question is if Nadal can keep up with winning slams during the latter stages of his career, just as Federer has done.

 

[veritech]

So why cant Federer own Nadal on any surface the way Nadal does Federer on clay? That is what clearly defines Nadal's dominance over Federer. Breaking down the head to heads:

Clay: 10-2 Nadal
Grass: 2-1 Federer (Nadal's one win being 5 sets, and Federer's second win also being 5)
Hard Courts: 4-3 Federer

Federer cant own Nadal on any surface the way Nadal does Federer on clay. Federer tried for many years to beat Nadal at the French and couldnt. Nadal though managed to beat Federer in 3 slam finals on 3 different surfaces in the span of only 8 months. Nadal as a teenage clay court specialist was already beating Federer multiple times on hard courts. That is why Nadal owns Federer.

The clay excuse alone is just a cop out. Even if Sampras played about half his matches with Agassi on clay and rebound ace he wouldnt have a 7-14 head to head since he would own Agassi on all faster courts. Agassi has actually never played Sampras at his true best on rebound ace either, and Sampras is even 2-3 vs Agassi on clay.

If Nadal is as dominant as you say he is, why hasn't he won more? Because the circuit doesn't revolve around Federer and Nadal. Nadal does edge out Federer, but has not consistently been able to handle the rest. Federer, despite his H2H with Nadal, has still been able to capture the most slam titles in history. In the end it's not how well you play against one person, but everybody and how consistent you are in doing so.

 

[slicefox]

On hardcourt it's 3-3, and actually Nadal has the edge since he won their hardcourt grandslam meeting...

oh you mean that one match where federer won more points?

yeah, he "owned' federer there.

 

[samboy01]

If Nadal is as dominant as you say he is, why hasn't he won more? Because the circuit doesn't revolve around Federer and Nadal. Nadal does edge out Federer, but has not consistently been able to handle the rest. Federer, despite his H2H with Nadal, has still been able to capture the most slam titles in history. In the end it's not how well you play against one person, but everybody and how consistent you are in doing so.

because he's still 24? think before you write.

 

[davey25]

Exactly, Federer was a late bloomer who had difficulty finding his game at first and Rafa was an early one, making it dificult to compare the two when they were the same ages. For example, Federer at age 19 was still a headcase struggling on the circuit while Nadal was already a slam winner at that age.

The real question is if Nadal can keep up with winning slams during the latter stages of his career, just as Federer has done.

Nadal has the French almost in the bag until atleast 2014 probably. So that is another 4 slams already.

Breaking down the others:

Wimbledon- This depends alot on guys like Murray, Soderling, Cilic, and Djokovic. First of all they really slam winning material as they only have 1 slam between each combined at this point. And also are these guys good enough on grass, as all are known more as hard courters. Federer is nearing the end of his line here. He might win it this year but probably not much chance in future years. If the first 4 I mentioned cant stop him Nadal could totally dominate here the next several years. I am guessing 2 or 3 more titles here.

U.S Open- He will never dominate here but his determination, consistency, and ability to beat anyone on a given day on hard courts should lead him to 1 or even 2 U.S Open titles.

Australian Open- This is a great surface for him. Still there are more guys who can beat him on hard courts than any other surface. Still he should have a good shot here until atleast 2014, so I say anywhere from 1-3 more titles here.

So all in all 9-11 more slams is quite realistic, which would bring him to 15-17. This might not take even tie Federer's total but given the head to head ownage, and the other stats it looks like Nadal will end up well ahead, I think nearly everyone would rate him over Federer in this case.

 

[vortex1]

oh you mean that one match where federer won more points?

yeah, he "owned' federer there.

******* logic at its finest. I bet you think Federer should also have won 2007 RG because he had all those breakpoints.

 

[TMF]

If Nadal is as dominant as you say he is, why hasn't he won more? Because the circuit doesn't revolve around Federer and Nadal. Nadal does edge out Federer, but has not consistently been able to handle the rest. Federer, despite his H2H with Nadal, has still been able to capture the most slam titles in history. In the end it's not how well you play against one person, but everybody and how consistent you are in doing so.

If they insist on arguing with you, then you should know in their world they believe:

Rafa >>>>>>>>>>> the sport or the entire playing field.

 

[davey25]

If Nadal is as dominant as you say he is, why hasn't he won more? Because the circuit doesn't revolve around Federer and Nadal. Nadal does edge out Federer, but has not consistently been able to handle the rest. Federer, despite his H2H with Nadal, has still been able to capture the most slam titles in history. In the end it's not how well you play against one person, but everybody and how consistent you are in doing so.

Nadal at this point is not a GOAT candidate though, and whether he ever gets there is aside the point. Nadal ruins Federer's greatest ever claims regardless how far his own career goes. The point is his ownage of Federer should already elminate Federer from being considered the greatest ever, unless Federer can significantly turn it around. Laver, Borg, Sampras, and other greats were never owned by the #2 player of their generation. They never had to stay up at night praying that the World #2 lost before the final at every event.

 

[samboy01]

If they insist on arguing with you, then you should know in their world they believe:

Rafa >>>>>>>>>>> the sport or the entire playing field.

Again, RAFA is only 24. Expecting him to already have the same numbers as Federer is ******** and almost IMPOSSIBLE. Get real!

 

[Chezbeeno]

Not fed's problem nadal doesn't show up to finals. They were no.1 and no.2, and nadal rarely showed up to finals. Federer has been in 19 of the last 20 finals (or something close to that). Nadal was only there a few times to contest.

However, Federer has been in plenty of finals with Nadal ON CLAY, on nadal's terms. They met on clay 12 or 13 times out of 21. Play more on hard courts and it would be Roger leading 2-1 head to head.

Only noob wussies ******* fed-haters can even bring up this argument. I"m sorry but you seem ******** to anyone over 15 years old and/or with a triple digit IQ.

Are you saying I seem ********? I don't think it's an argument, I'm a huge Fed fan, I was simply stating those thoughts for anyone who has doubts about Fed's claims to GOAT (I think he is) ( was also only half-heartedly posting this for kicks and to get my post count up so don't freak out)

 

[Jchurch]

So why cant Federer own Nadal on any surface the way Nadal does Federer on clay? That is what clearly defines Nadal's dominance over Federer. Breaking down the head to heads:

Clay: 10-2 Nadal
Grass: 2-1 Federer (Nadal's one win being 5 sets, and Federer's second win also being 5)
Hard Courts: 4-3 Federer

Federer cant own Nadal on any surface the way Nadal does Federer on clay. Federer tried for many years to beat Nadal at the French and couldnt. Nadal though managed to beat Federer in 3 slam finals on 3 different surfaces in the span of only 8 months. Nadal as a teenage clay court specialist was already beating Federer multiple times on hard courts. That is why Nadal owns Federer.

The clay excuse alone is just a cop out. Even if Sampras played about half his matches with Agassi on clay and rebound ace he wouldnt have a 7-14 head to head since he would own Agassi on all faster courts. Agassi has actually never played Sampras at his true best on rebound ace either, and Sampras is even 2-3 vs Agassi on clay.

Well this might be the easiest question ever posed to me.

Federer can't own Nadal on clay since Nadal is a better clay court player. Federer can't own Nadal on Grass since there aren't nearly enough grass court tournaments for Federer to do that. However, Nadal only beat Federer at Wimbledon in a close final that could have gone either way. Also, the match should have been suspended. When hawkeye doesn't work do to lack of light, that probably means that the match should moved to the next day. Heck they did this twice with Isner. Why not do it for the final? As for hard court, where was Nadal USO 05-09, AO 06-08, and a whole host of HC tourneys? Federer can't own Nadal since there aren't enough grass court tournaments and Nadal CAN'T show up on Federer's best surface.

Are you saying that Sampras wasn't at his best in 1995? I mean he did make his best of 3 slam Finals that year. If you will deny that Sampras was at his best at the DEAD PEAK OF HIS CAREER, then Nadal's win over Federer at the AO and Wimb are also negated.

 

[darrinbaker00]

I know I read like a broken record, but as long as Roger Federer remains RNB (Rafael Nadal's B****), I can't consider him GOAT.

 

[Chezbeeno]

I know I read like a broken record, but as long as Roger Federer remains RNB (Rafael Nadal's B****), I can't consider him GOAT.

see Slicefox that's the kind of ignorance you need to jump on

 

[Andyroddickfan]

hahaha, man i love reading slicefox's posts. He's #1

 

[TMF]

Again, RAFA is only 24. Expecting him to already have the same numbers as Federer is ******** and almost IMPOSSIBLE. Get real!

Sure, Rafa will win as much as Roger by the time he's finish. Sure, just like you believe Seles would win 24 GS if not for the stab. Whatever dude, you don't have the ball to put your money where your stinking mouth is...

 

[samboy01]

Sure, Rafa will win as much as Roger by the time he's finish. Sure, just like you believe Seles would win 24 GS if not for the stab. Whatever dude, you don't have the ball to put your money where your stinking mouth is...

I don't have the ball to put my money where my stinking mouth is? How do I do that, go back in time and stop Parche from stabbing Monica? or go forward in time to see how many slams Nadal will end with? Your post doesn't make sense, these things are out of my control, unless you think I'm God.

 

[davey25]

Well this might be the easiest question ever posed to me.

Federer can't own Nadal on clay since Nadal is a better clay court player. Federer can't own Nadal on Grass since there aren't nearly enough grass court tournaments for Federer to do that. However, Nadal only beat Federer at Wimbledon in a close final that could have gone either way. Also, the match should have been suspended. When hawkeye doesn't work do to lack of light, that probably means that the match should moved to the next day. Heck they did this twice with Isner. Why not do it for the final? As for hard court, where was Nadal USO 05-09, AO 06-08, and a whole host of HC tourneys? Federer can't own Nadal since there aren't enough grass court tournaments and Nadal CAN'T show up on Federer's best surface.

Are you saying that Sampras wasn't at his best in 1995? I mean he did make his best of 3 slam Finals that year. If you will deny that Sampras was at his best at the DEAD PEAK OF HIS CAREER, then Nadal's win over Federer at the AO and Wimb are also negated.

If you have ever seen Federer and Nadal play on grass you would not even try and suggest Federer is capable of a head to head on grass anything like Nadal has vs Federer on clay. You really think if they played 12 times on grass that Federer would have won 10, LOL! Fact is at the French Federer has had 4 cracks at Nadal, including once when Federer was at his peak and Nadal was 18 years old, and couldnt even take the match to 5 sets once. Nadal has had 3 cracks at Federer at Wimbledon and already won and taken another to 5.

As for hard courts Nadal was already beating Federer on hard courts when he was 17 and 19 years old, so the argument Federer could have ever owned Nadal there like Nadal does with Federer on clay goes out the window too.

Federer is simply not capable of owing Nadal on any surface like Nadal does to Federer on clay since he just isnt able to. Yet Nadal on his surface thoroughly owns Federer in a way that Federer cant on any other, and Nadal is the one who beat Federer in a slam final on every surface in 8 months.

So Nadal does own Federer period. And while that does not mean Nadal is a better player than Federer it is a huge mark against Federer's greatest ever claims. Imagine Laver or Sampras being owned by anyone in their primes like this.

At the 95 Australian Open Sampras's coach was dieing with brain tumours and he was breaking down crying in many of his matches. He was getting news about the condition during the event. In no way was this Sampras anywhere near his best. I cant believe he even made the final when he nearly lost in every round there. And at the 2000 Australian Open he was injured and had to miss the next 6 weeks.

 

[Ray Mercer]

Grand slams is all that matters. If Nadal wins 15 slams he still comes up short. Nadal's game is one dimensional as evidenced by his one hard court and grass title which is pathetic. 75% of his titles have come on one surface for crying out loud, that's pitiful.

Wimbledon 6>1
US Open 5>0
Australian 4>1

It's not even close. Nadal's a one surface wonder. He's this generation's Kuerten.

 

[veritech]

because he's still 24? think before you write.

Again, RAFA is only 24. Expecting him to already have the same numbers as Federer is ******** and almost IMPOSSIBLE. Get real!

Relax. I joined this thread thinking I wasn't going to get insulted, but I should've expected it.

Anyone in their right mind wouldn't expect Rafa to be equal with Roger in terms of slams and I most certainly did not mean that.

 

[davey25]

Sure, Rafa will win as much as Roger by the time he's finish. Sure, just like you believe Seles would win 24 GS if not for the stab.

You are one of the Seles trumpeters as well so I dont see what your point is.

 

[Valdez737]

OMG for realz nadal can beat Roger 100 times in roll Roger still goat nadal said him self a million times Roger is goat no matter if I beat him more times then he beats me!!

 

[veritech]

Nadal has the French almost in the bag until atleast 2014 probably. So that is another 4 slams already.

Breaking down the others:

Wimbledon- This depends alot on guys like Murray, Soderling, Cilic, and Djokovic. First of all they really slam winning material as they only have 1 slam between each combined at this point. And also are these guys good enough on grass, as all are known more as hard courters. Federer is nearing the end of his line here. He might win it this year but probably not much chance in future years. If the first 4 I mentioned cant stop him Nadal could totally dominate here the next several years. I am guessing 2 or 3 more titles here.

U.S Open- He will never dominate here but his determination, consistency, and ability to beat anyone on a given day on hard courts should lead him to 1 or even 2 U.S Open titles.

Australian Open- This is a great surface for him. Still there are more guys who can beat him on hard courts than any other surface. Still he should have a good shot here until atleast 2014, so I say anywhere from 1-3 more titles here.

So all in all 9-11 more slams is quite realistic, which would bring him to 15-17. This might not take even tie Federer's total but given the head to head ownage, and the other stats it looks like Nadal will end up well ahead, I think nearly everyone would rate him over Federer in this case.

I agree. If Rafa turns out to have similar numbers to Federer in the slam department, then the H2H would serve a more significant role.

 

[davey25]

Garnd slams is all that matters. If Nadal he still comes up short. Nadal's game is one dimensional hence why he can only has one hard court and grass title which is pathetic.

Wimbledon 6>1
US Open 5>0
Australian 4>1

It's not even close. Nadal's a one surface wonder. He's this generation's Kuerten.

and yet Federer is owned by a guy who is a one surface wonder and this generation's Kuerten. How can a so called GOAT be owned not only overall but in slams by a guy who is a one surface wonder and this generation's Kuerten (your own words). How can the supposed greatest ever be 2-6 in slams and 2-2 in NON CLAY slam finals against this generations Kuerten and a one surface wonder. You really think you are making Federer look better here, LOL!

 

[samboy01]

God > Santa Claus > Seles > Nadal > Michael Jackson > Whitney Houston > big gap > Tennis > big gap > Federer.

 

[davey25]

God > Santa Claus > Seles > Nadal > Michael Jackson > Whitney Houston > big gap > Tennis > big gap > Federer.

Just curious are you that youtube poster wh00 or something who posts Seles videos. Only asking due to the Whitney Houston reference. Then again this poster is a big Williams fan too so probably not.

 

[Andyroddickfan]

yo davey, where in ottawa do you play?

 

[Ray Mercer]

and yet Federer is owned by a guy who is a one surface wonder and this generation's Kuerten. How can a so called GOAT be owned not only overall but in slams by a guy who is a one surface wonder and this generation's Kuerten (your own words). How can the supposed greatest ever be 2-6 in slams and 2-2 in NON CLAY slam finals against this generations Kuerten and a one surface wonder. You really think you are making Federer look better here, LOL!

Buddy, Nadal hasn't even won more than one wimbledon or australian, that's pitiful. He has never even come close to winning the US Open. Nadal is owned by Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga and Blake at slam play. Does this mean he's an inferior player. Had Nadal met Federer at the US Open from 2005-2009 he would have been owned, see the master cup matches.

GRAND SLAM TOTAL IS ALL THAT MATTERS

 

[samboy01]

What's funny, is that if Nadal beats Federer in this year's Wimbledon final, the *******s will find an excuse that the grass is playing too slow, despite the tons of aces and players holding serve easily, even 70-68 without a break. There will always be an excuse!!!

 

[Spider]

There is no one player who is the greatest of all time. You cannot be the greatest ever if you get owned by a player in your own generation.

Federer is without a shadow of a doubt the most succesful player at slams. Not the greatest ever but the most successful player at slams.

 

[Ray Mercer]

What's funny, is that if Nadal beats Federer in this year's Wimbledon final, the *******s will find an excuse that the grass is playing too slow, despite the tons of aces and players holding serve easily, even 70-68 without a break. There will always be an excuse!!!

You're a ****ing idiot. Federer is 29 years old and past his prime. Nadal should be putting up Federer 2006 like stats right now. The fact that Murray kicked the **** out of him at the Aussie speaks volumes about Nadal's dominance. The guy just can't dominate outside clay.