But it doesn't go with someone who hasn't won the French Open, or hasn't won US Open... and someone has to be the best. For someone to be the best ever, it's important to remember they need not be perfect.
Senario about Federer's claim to GOAT & Nadal
- Thread starter samboy01
- Start date
But it doesn't go with someone who hasn't won the French Open, or hasn't won US Open... and someone has to be the best. For someone to be the best ever, it's important to remember they need not be perfect.
For me they need. Not perfect, but flawless in the key department and Federer is not.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
If H2H is irrelevant for one player, then it's irrelevant for ALL players.
Maybe you ought to go to Law School first.
"Best of all time" has to do with best at winning Slams. It has nothing at all to do with best at beating a certain player. Do you finally get it now?
I assume you meant key departments?
At any rate, there is nobody who was flawless in all key departments. And yet someone has to be the best ever.
No, I don't think someone HAS to be the best ever if he does not deserve it clearly.
Are you a troll or something like that?
We are talking about Federer not being the best of all time and the argument is that he is losing too much against his main rival, Nadal. You are reaching with your out of subjects posts.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Which, again, has nothing at all with being the best of all time.
H2H has nothing at all to do with being the best of all time. Nobody claims that Borg was not the best on clay because he lost to Panatta twice at the French Open. Nobody claims that Sampras was not the best on grass because he lost to Krajicek at Wimbledon. Best of all time has to do with one's overall achievements and records and NOT who you beat or lost to.
So give it up already. Everyone here already thinks you're a troll so why don't you quit while you're behind?
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
and how does having a losing head to head against one player equate to that player not being the best at something?
I suppose nadal really isn't the best clay courter of this generation since he has a losing head to head against davydenko???
From what I have read, you are the one considered like the troll. I already noticed it when you made your ridiculous thread with Federer after the French Open.
Being the best of all time has something to do with H2H and a lot of people will agree with this. You won't, because you are a Federer fanboy, but I, and a lot of other people, will agree.
Not on clay.
no one claimed that Fed was the GOAT on clay....
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Oh, really? Then why do a lot more people here disagree with you than agree with you? In fact, the ONLY people here that agree with you are ALL *********s! Hmmm....I wonder why? Why is it that ONLY the *********s keep bringing up the H2H with Federer? Oh, yeah, because you've got nothing else to hang your hat on!
Oh, and if H2H is the be all and end all, I guess Nadal can't possibly be the best ever on clay since he's never beaten Borg nor Vilas nor Muster nor Kuerten on clay!
Exactly, and Federer only has a losing H2H to Nadal on clay.
Thanks for disproving your point.
Exactly, and Federer only has a losing H2H to Nadal on clay.
Thanks for disproving your point.
Are you doing it on purpose? Drakie said that, according to my logic, Nadal is not the the best on clay because he has a losing H2H against davydenko, which is wrong on clay.
But if Nadal had a 7-14 H2H against Davydenko on clay, I would not call him the best of all time on clay.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Nadal doesn't have a winning record against Gaudio on clay, so I guess Nadal can't be the best on clay. :???:
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, but you are trying to use the Nadal - Fed H2H against Fed overall, whereas the only surface Nadal leads on is clay.
So, going by the logic you used which I just quoted, the Nadal - Fed H2H is no big deal, since Nadal only leads on clay.
Tennis include clay. Unless you want to argue that Federer is the best of all time on hardcourt or grass, but not just the best of all time.
That's the whole point of this thread. It IS debatable. Right now, Nadal owns Federer, but it's not THAT bad... but what if it keeps getting worse like the senario that I put... IMO, it would definitely be a big factor.
Last edited:
To be the best of all time, you don't have to be the best on all surfaces.
Are you really suggesting that for someone to be the best ever, they have to be the best ever on hardcourt, clay, and grass? :shock:
Praetorian
Professional
How about we just say there is no GOAT? All of it is subjective anyways, as there is not metric to truly, unequivocally determine who is the greatest. If Nadal is the GOAT in your mind, so be it, Fed, so be it. At some point, someone is going to have a winning record over Nadal, and someone over that person, so on and so forth.
My criteria for GOAT: undefeated record for LIFE, winning EVERYTHING they enter, even at the age of 80, whupping on young 20 somethings. Impossible, yep, so is determining the GOAT. Everything else is just wasteful arguing.
My criteria for GOAT: undefeated record for LIFE, winning EVERYTHING they enter, even at the age of 80, whupping on young 20 somethings. Impossible, yep, so is determining the GOAT. Everything else is just wasteful arguing.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Correct, which is why, based on your logic, gaudio is the best clay courter of this generation and all time, since he has a winning record against Nadal.
If you are trying to play smart and be a pain in the neck who are trolling, try at least to get your facts right. Just an advise.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Federer is WAY better on clay than Nadal is on hardcourts.
When was the last time Nadal made 4 consecutive US Open finals?
Oops....he hasn't even made a single one!
When was the last time Nadal made 4 consecutive US Open finals?
Oops....he hasn't even made a single one!
I mean Gaudio has not a winning record over Nadal and I would like you to stop making up wrong stats to try to find a flaw in what I say.
I will stay on my position. Federer H2H against Nadal is a blemish to be the undisputed best of all time.
Did this thread say that if a random average player has a 1-0 or 4-3 head to head against Federer or Nadal, that it means they can't be GOAT? No.
We are talking about ALL-TIME CHAMPIONS, and we are talking that if a champion ends up 7-20 and 2-9 in slams against his biggest rival, and can't do anything about it except get his ass kicked over and over again, how would that affect his legacy. Right now, it's not THAT bad, but if Nadal continues beating Federer again this year at Wimbledon, at the US Open, Australia, etc. then believe me, it will look pretty bad to be owned by another all-time great like that. A GOAT should find a way to do something about it.
Nadal could have been Federer's ***** at Wimbledon, but he found a way to beat him. So there's no excuse for Federer at the French. And like I said, the thread is not about now, but rather if it continues like this overall in slam meetings (no matter where).
We are talking about ALL-TIME CHAMPIONS, and we are talking that if a champion ends up 7-20 and 2-9 in slams against his biggest rival, and can't do anything about it except get his ass kicked over and over again, how would that affect his legacy. Right now, it's not THAT bad, but if Nadal continues beating Federer again this year at Wimbledon, at the US Open, Australia, etc. then believe me, it will look pretty bad to be owned by another all-time great like that. A GOAT should find a way to do something about it.
Nadal could have been Federer's ***** at Wimbledon, but he found a way to beat him. So there's no excuse for Federer at the French. And like I said, the thread is not about now, but rather if it continues like this overall in slam meetings (no matter where).
Scenario 1 (Federer's current profile -- NON-GOAT)
AO:
4W, 1F, 2 SF
RG:
1 W, 3 F, 1 SF
wimby:
6W, 1F
USO:
5W, 1F
Tennis Masters:
4W, 1F
Master's 1000
Clay: 5 W, 5F, 1 SF
Non-clay: 11W, 1F
H2H:
Rafael Nadal : 7-14
Novak djokovic: 9-5
Juan Carlos ferrero : 9-3
Fernando Gonzalez : 12-1
David Nalbandian : 10-8
David Ferrer: 10-0
Andreas Seppi : 6-0
Gael Monfils : 5-0
Nikolay Davydenko : 13-2
Andy Roddick : 19-2
Mikhail Youzhny : 10-0
Marat Safin : 10-2
Miscellaneous:
23 consecutive SF in Grandslams, 18 out of last 20 finals
If Fed has lost in the SF of every tournament he lost to Nadal in the finals, then according to some ******** logic, he has a stronger case for GOAT.
Scenario 2 (Federer's GOAT profile)
AO:
4W, 3 SF
RG:
1 W, 4 SF
wimby:
6W, 1SF
USO:
5W, 1F
Tennis Masters:
4W, 1F
Master's 1000
Clay : 5 W, 6 SF
non-clay : 11W, 1F
H2H:
Rafael Nadal : 7-2
Novak djokovic: 8-6
Juan Carlos ferrero : 8-4
Fernando Gonzalez : 11-2
David Nalbandian : 8-10
David Ferrer: 9-1
Andreas Seppi : 5-1
Gael Monfils : 4-1
Nikolay Davydenko : 12-3
Andy Roddick : 18-3
Mikhail Youzhny : 9-1
Marat Safin : 9-3
Miscellaneous:
23 consecutive SF in Grandslams, 14 out of last 20 finals
Clearly, Scenario 2 >> Scenario 1
... Amriteorwhat?
AO:
4W, 1F, 2 SF
RG:
1 W, 3 F, 1 SF
wimby:
6W, 1F
USO:
5W, 1F
Tennis Masters:
4W, 1F
Master's 1000
Clay: 5 W, 5F, 1 SF
Non-clay: 11W, 1F
H2H:
Rafael Nadal : 7-14
Novak djokovic: 9-5
Juan Carlos ferrero : 9-3
Fernando Gonzalez : 12-1
David Nalbandian : 10-8
David Ferrer: 10-0
Andreas Seppi : 6-0
Gael Monfils : 5-0
Nikolay Davydenko : 13-2
Andy Roddick : 19-2
Mikhail Youzhny : 10-0
Marat Safin : 10-2
Miscellaneous:
23 consecutive SF in Grandslams, 18 out of last 20 finals
If Fed has lost in the SF of every tournament he lost to Nadal in the finals, then according to some ******** logic, he has a stronger case for GOAT.
Scenario 2 (Federer's GOAT profile)
AO:
4W, 3 SF
RG:
1 W, 4 SF
wimby:
6W, 1SF
USO:
5W, 1F
Tennis Masters:
4W, 1F
Master's 1000
Clay : 5 W, 6 SF
non-clay : 11W, 1F
H2H:
Rafael Nadal : 7-2
Novak djokovic: 8-6
Juan Carlos ferrero : 8-4
Fernando Gonzalez : 11-2
David Nalbandian : 8-10
David Ferrer: 9-1
Andreas Seppi : 5-1
Gael Monfils : 4-1
Nikolay Davydenko : 12-3
Andy Roddick : 18-3
Mikhail Youzhny : 9-1
Marat Safin : 9-3
Miscellaneous:
23 consecutive SF in Grandslams, 14 out of last 20 finals
Clearly, Scenario 2 >> Scenario 1
... Amriteorwhat?
Last edited:
veritech
Hall of Fame
You don't have to be a Federer fanboy to consider him the best of all-time, regardless of this H2H blemish. There are many analysts and players that believe he is the best ever, but does that make them all fanboys??
I agree that more people would question Fed if he lost in a few more slams to Nadal. But as I said before, do you not think that is a bit illogical?
Let's pretend, in the next 3 slams, Fed loses in the semifinals, to, eg, Davydenko, then Murray, then Berdych. People would say that's no big deal. But.... if in the next 3 slams, Fed loses in the finals to Nadal, everyone would indeed say it was a big deal and a big problem.
My question is, why is it worse if he loses to Nadal in the finals than if he loses to other people in the semifinals, since making it to the final is actually better?
EDIT: The post with Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 on the previous page sums up what I think pretty well.
TennezSport
Hall of Fame
Fundamental Error.......
This is a common Fundamental Error that people make when looking at Tennis history. The bottom line is the number of tourny's won and overall record against the players in your era and against history. Anything else will be nothing more than a foot note. Rod Laver is considered one of the best players in History, but no one remembers that his highest ranking was number 3 in the world during his career. :shock:
As a History major I know that History is a very cold keeper of records and all that will be remembered will be who has the most Major titles. If Rafa (Mr. Constipated) does not make more that 16 majors (or more), all he will be remember for is being the king of Clay (CCS). Mr. C may be great in your eyes (whom ever that may be), but no one will even remember you in History.
Cheers, TennezSport
This is a common Fundamental Error that people make when looking at Tennis history. The bottom line is the number of tourny's won and overall record against the players in your era and against history. Anything else will be nothing more than a foot note. Rod Laver is considered one of the best players in History, but no one remembers that his highest ranking was number 3 in the world during his career. :shock:
As a History major I know that History is a very cold keeper of records and all that will be remembered will be who has the most Major titles. If Rafa (Mr. Constipated) does not make more that 16 majors (or more), all he will be remember for is being the king of Clay (CCS). Mr. C may be great in your eyes (whom ever that may be), but no one will even remember you in History.
Cheers, TennezSport
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
ok, so they are tied as the clay court goats.
and according to this logic, davydenko is a better champion than nadal.
Thanks, and god bless.
Because Nadal is one of the all-time greatest champions too. It's the most important rivalry and they keep meeting over and over in slam finals. The others are random players.
Completely wrong again.
You have no other choice than making up wrong ideas to counter my claims. That's the definitive proof that you can't counter it finally.
cyrilcanada
New User
It's all that simple
I wonder if any one paid attention to the first word of abbreviation GOAT.
The word is GREATEST. Which simple means the best.
It's very simple to find the best - line up the candidates for GOAT and start excluding one by one worsest from the rest of the bunch.
Keep doing till you end up with one person.
OK. I will start. Here is my lineup.
-Myself
-My wife
-Laver
-Sampras
-Agassi
-Federer
-Edberg
-Nadal
-Rafter (my favorite, why not ... it's my lineup)
-Safin ( heck - he beat both Sampras and Fed for GS on their best surfaces)
So, let's the fun begin....
after a few iterations I ended up in following order
- My Wife ( I have to keep family integrity here)
- Fed (16GS , 1SGS)
- Sampras ( 14GS, no SGS)
- Laver
- Agassi( had SGS)
Shall we continue ?
I guess, we don't have to ... as ********* , probably would loose any interest by then.
Case closed ?
I wonder if any one paid attention to the first word of abbreviation GOAT.
The word is GREATEST. Which simple means the best.
It's very simple to find the best - line up the candidates for GOAT and start excluding one by one worsest from the rest of the bunch.
Keep doing till you end up with one person.
OK. I will start. Here is my lineup.
-Myself
-My wife
-Laver
-Sampras
-Agassi
-Federer
-Edberg
-Nadal
-Rafter (my favorite, why not ... it's my lineup)
-Safin ( heck - he beat both Sampras and Fed for GS on their best surfaces)
So, let's the fun begin....
after a few iterations I ended up in following order
- My Wife ( I have to keep family integrity here)
- Fed (16GS , 1SGS)
- Sampras ( 14GS, no SGS)
- Laver
- Agassi( had SGS)
Shall we continue ?
I guess, we don't have to ... as ********* , probably would loose any interest by then.
Case closed ?
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Scenario 1 (Federer's current profile -- NON-GOAT)
AO:
4W, 1F, 2 SF
RG:
1 W, 3 F, 1 SF
wimby:
6W, 1F
USO:
5W, 1F
Tennis Masters:
4W, 1F
Master's 1000
Clay: 5 W, 5F, 1 SF
Non-clay: 11W, 1F
H2H:
Rafael Nadal : 7-14
Novak djokovic: 9-5
Juan Carlos ferrero : 9-3
Fernando Gonzalez : 12-1
David Nalbandian : 10-8
David Ferrer: 10-0
Andreas Seppi : 6-0
Gael Monfils : 5-0
Nikolay Davydenko : 13-2
Andy Roddick : 19-2
Mikhail Youzhny : 10-0
Marat Safin : 10-2
Miscellaneous:
23 consecutive SF in Grandslams, 18 out of last 20 finals
If Fed has lost in the SF of every tournament he lost to Nadal in the finals, then according to some ******** logic, he has a stronger case for GOAT.
Scenario 2 (Federer's GOAT profile)
AO:
4W, 3 SF
RG:
1 W, 4 SF
wimby:
6W, 1SF
USO:
5W, 1F
Tennis Masters:
4W, 1F
Master's 1000
Clay : 5 W, 6 SF
non-clay : 11W, 1F
H2H:
Rafael Nadal : 7-2
Novak djokovic: 8-6
Juan Carlos ferrero : 8-4
Fernando Gonzalez : 11-2
David Nalbandian : 8-10
David Ferrer: 9-1
Andreas Seppi : 5-1
Gael Monfils : 4-1
Nikolay Davydenko : 12-3
Andy Roddick : 18-3
Mikhail Youzhny : 9-1
Marat Safin : 9-3
Miscellaneous:
23 consecutive SF in Grandslams, 14 out of last 20 finals
Clearly, Scenario 2 >> Scenario 1
yeah, if federer would absolutely suck on clay (as nadal has on hard courts), and not made any clay court finals/semis where he has met nadal, he would be a better player according to these momos.
hahaha. Prove that Nadal is a better clay courter than gaudio, or that he is a better player than davydenko.
I await.
veritech
Hall of Fame
This is a common Fundamental Error that people make when looking at Tennis history. The bottom line is the number of tourny's won and overall record against the players in your era and against history. Anything else will be nothing more than a foot note. Rod Laver is considered one of the best players in History, but no one remembers that his highest ranking was number 3 in the world during his career. :shock:
As a History major I know that History is a very cold keeper of records and all that will be remembered will be who has the most Major titles. If Rafa (Mr. Constipated) does not make more that 16 majors (or more), all he will be remember for is being the king of Clay (CCS). Mr. C may be great in your eyes (whom ever that may be), but no one will even remember you in History.
Cheers, TennezSport
Great post. At the end of the day, it's the slams that people will remember, not some H2H. Federer will be considered the greatest of all-time because he holds the most majors and has won every slam, exhibiting significant overall dominance of this generation. Until someone wins all the slams and surpasses Federer's slam count, Roger will be considered the best ever.
fedfan08
Professional
of course you do mean to start a **** war. :roll:
No need.
I think you still don't get the thread. This is not the thread about Nadal being a greatest player than Federer in the history of tennis.
It's a thread of Federer not being the best of all time. Case closed.
So Maragaret Court is the greatest female champion of all-time. It's not even debatable according to you.
All-rounder
Legend
Then if nadal is losing more to of these randoms than Federer is then why does nadal's victories seem way more important. Are you telling me Murray , Djokovic, Del potro, Soderling are nobodies they have all been serious trouble for nadal throughout his career. I wouldn't call them nobodies.
Nadal owns all these players you named.
So if Federer was poor on clay, and never met Nadal on clay, he could be the best of all time?
Scenario 1 (Federer's current profile -- NON-GOAT)
AO:
4W, 1F, 2 SF
RG:
1 W, 3 F, 1 SF
wimby:
6W, 1F
USO:
5W, 1F
Tennis Masters:
4W, 1F
Master's 1000
Clay: 5 W, 5F, 1 SF
Non-clay: 11W, 1F
H2H:
Rafael Nadal : 7-14
Novak djokovic: 9-5
Juan Carlos ferrero : 9-3
Fernando Gonzalez : 12-1
David Nalbandian : 10-8
David Ferrer: 10-0
Andreas Seppi : 6-0
Gael Monfils : 5-0
Nikolay Davydenko : 13-2
Andy Roddick : 19-2
Mikhail Youzhny : 10-0
Marat Safin : 10-2
Miscellaneous:
23 consecutive SF in Grandslams, 18 out of last 20 finals
If Fed has lost in the SF of every tournament he lost to Nadal in the finals, then according to some ******** logic, he has a stronger case for GOAT.
Scenario 2 (Federer's GOAT profile)
AO:
4W, 3 SF
RG:
1 W, 4 SF
wimby:
6W, 1SF
USO:
5W, 1F
Tennis Masters:
4W, 1F
Master's 1000
Clay : 5 W, 6 SF
non-clay : 11W, 1F
H2H:
Rafael Nadal : 7-2
Novak djokovic: 8-6
Juan Carlos ferrero : 8-4
Fernando Gonzalez : 11-2
David Nalbandian : 8-10
David Ferrer: 9-1
Andreas Seppi : 5-1
Gael Monfils : 4-1
Nikolay Davydenko : 12-3
Andy Roddick : 18-3
Mikhail Youzhny : 9-1
Marat Safin : 9-3
Miscellaneous:
23 consecutive SF in Grandslams, 14 out of last 20 finals
Clearly, Scenario 2 >> Scenario 1
Ahahahaha, this post PWNED *********s!!!
They just don't get it.He would be like Sampras.
All-rounder
Legend
Precisely now your getting it
Similar threads
- Poll
