To Nadal fans, let's assume Nadal accrues 16GS

P

pvaudio

Legend
Let's also assume that Federer does not gain any more, and Djokovic is certainly not going to be in contention for that number. So, it's time to decide who is the greatest ever. For this comparison, head to head is meaningless. Nadal is the greatest clay courter who ever lived, and if you take clay out of the equation, they're perfectly level in their matches played. So, then that means we have 3 other surfaces: plexicusion/rebound ace, HC and grass. Of these three, Federer is undisputably the greatest ever on HC and next to Sampras on grass. It's therefore at the AO where the discussion comes down to the line. Nadal has one title there, and I don't care that Federer has more. We've given each of them their respective titles of what they're best at, so that's that. They each have 16 slams, so we call it even.

Now, let's look at some footage. Nadal fans, I would like for you to tell me how the tennis historians and laypersons alike would say that Nadal is a more viable candidate given this. Keep in mind: Nadal won this match just this year, and you're going to need a reason far better than that considering Nadal is absolute prime in this match and Federer is 4-5 years past his prime days here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70&feature=related
 
As a Fed fan, I am biased but damn Federer is the king of highlight reels.

On a side note, when I watched that match live I remember a lot of crap play from Fed.

P.S: This is probably pure fan-based bias talking here but Nadal got lucky A LOT in that match...the ridiculous passing shots, the net cord, the on-the-line lob when Fed has break-back point in the 4th...
 
Last edited:
It was a fantastic match, especially compared to the snore fest of a final which was just long. You can see in this match the point I am trying to make. Even on match point, Federer WENT for his shot. Even when it's 30-love Nadal, he'll still just put the ball back instead of hitting to the open court. How will history say "yes, in their best days, the greatest ever was the retriever instead of the man who could make a winner out of anything".
 
The Bawss said:
As a Fed fan, I am biased but damn Federer is the king of highlight reels.

On a side note, when I watched that match live I remember a lot of crap play from Fed.

P.S: This is probably pure fan-based bias talking here but Nadal got lucky A LOT in that match...the ridiculous passing shots, the net cord, the on-the-line lob when Fed has break-back point in the 4th...
Click to expand...

I knew the match was over as soon as Nadal hit that crazy passing shot off of Federer's angled backhand smash.
 
pvaudio said:
Let's also assume that Federer does not gain any more, and Djokovic is certainly not going to be in contention for that number. So, it's time to decide who is the greatest ever. For this comparison, head to head is meaningless. Nadal is the greatest clay courter who ever lived, and if you take clay out of the equation, they're perfectly level in their matches played. So, then that means we have 3 other surfaces: plexicusion/rebound ace, HC and grass. Of these three, Federer is undisputably the greatest ever on HC and next to Sampras on grass. It's therefore at the AO where the discussion comes down to the line. Nadal has one title there, and I don't care that Federer has more. We've given each of them their respective titles of what they're best at, so that's that. They each have 16 slams, so we call it even.

Now, let's look at some footage. Nadal fans, I would like for you to tell me how the tennis historians and laypersons alike would say that Nadal is a more viable candidate given this. Keep in mind: Nadal won this match just this year, and you're going to need a reason far better than that considering Nadal is absolute prime in this match and Federer is 4-5 years past his prime days here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70&feature=related
Click to expand...

The match seemed like the same old story, Fed plays to his max, Rafa goes up another gear and the Fed can't stay with him.

Between the 2, Nadal is already considered the better player by many, including Murray and Joker. Mac and Laver says that Nadal already has a strong case for being considered better because he's a slam legend, Olympic legend and Davis Cup legend and tops the MS tally, and dominated Fed 6-2 in slam finals.
 
tudwell said:
I knew the match was over as soon as Nadal hit that crazy passing shot off of Federer's angled backhand smash.
Click to expand...

Really? I had more faith. Federer did not go quietly afterwards. He was the first one to get the break in the 3rd set....When he got broken back immediately, I knew it was over. :(
 
What ifs? Let's see, at the beginning of last year, folks thought Nadal would be a lock, well time has shown that he's not. And shoot, if Nadal can't stop Djokovic then who can? I don't see much in the wings.
 
red-line federer has got to be the some of the best tennis anyone has ever seen

i would rather watch federer at his best than nadal at his best.. first set of the AO this past year was just vintage awesome

federer can still hang and still has a ton of game.. he may never be a favorite again but no one should be too surprised if he gets hot and take another slam
 
TheNatural said:
The match seemed like the same old story, Fed plays to his max, Rafa goes up another gear and the Fed can't stay with him.

Between the 2, Nadal is already considered the better player by many, including Murray and Joker. Mac and Laver says that Nadal already has a strong case for being considered better because he's a slam legend, Olympic legend and Davis Cup legend and tops the MS tally, and dominated Fed 6-2 in slam finals.
Click to expand...
Um no, mud dragging has no place here. YOU just said that Nadal has a better case because of all of that. Find me quotes where Rod Laver said that Nadal is a Davis Cup legend, an olympic legend, tops the MS tally (by one, and it's on clay, mind you. Federer is one behind spread across all surfaces) and all of that other stuff you attributed to McEnroe and Laver. No, what they said is that Nadal is one of the greatest ever and you'd have to be an idiot to dispute that. They did not say he was greater than Federer. I'm asking the question where if Nadal gets 16 total, the majority of which will be on clay obviously (half, I'd bet), how you can still justify that Nadal showed greater everything than Federer.

Oh, and if you want to pull in Murray and Djokovic, Nadal himself has said Federer is the greatest ever. That wipes your two completely out.
 
Sid_Vicious said:
Really? I had more faith. Federer did not go quietly afterwards. He was the first one to get the break in the 3rd set....When he got broken back immediately, I knew it was over. :(
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I always have faith that he can win, but realistically, I assumed there were just too many demons in Federer's head and that if Nadal was making shots like that Federer would get tentative and second guess himself. Which happened, especially on the big points.

Although I'm glad I watched those highlights because I'd forgotten how competitive the match really was.
 
i don't think it's outrageous to say that Federer had the best game of all time without necessarily having the gaudiest statistics

like.. most successful versus best

i guess that makes more sense in team sports, malone/stockton is probably the best big/small combo ever in b-ball but they never won a title

i dunno.. and it's kind of moot. nadal is great, federer is great

who is better amongst Lendl and Agassi with the same slam count?

is connors better than macenroe by virtue of having one more slam title? how about wilander and edberg?

and is macenroe better than borg at less slams because eventually borg couldn't beat him anymore?

these are all open ended questions that are purely academic and don't change what we have had the divine pleasure of watching
 
Nadal would have to get closer in terms of weeks ranked as the number one player.

Without that, it'd be close, but that would be a big hole.

Of course, if he wins 16 slams, one would assume that he'd also get more weeks at number one.

He'd also need to get closer to Fed's total title count, and YECs.

It'd be close though, especially when people bring up the H2H.
 
If Nadal wins 16 slams he will become the consensus GOAT (in the real World, I dont know nor care what planet TW thinks). He still wouldnt really be the GOAT, that is Rod Laver, but people are so insistent on someone current being the GOAT that even Serena with about half the achievements of Court, Graf, Navratilova, and Evert is touted and hyped as female GOAT by some people. He would become better than Federer in most peoples minds, and rightly so, and that would make him the consensus GOAT due to being the best recent player and peoples bias in that sense.
 
The Bawss said:
As a Fed fan, I am biased but damn Federer is the king of highlight reels.

On a side note, when I watched that match live I remember a lot of crap play from Fed.

P.S: This is probably pure fan-based bias talking here but Nadal got lucky A LOT in that match...the ridiculous passing shots, the net cord, the on-the-line lob when Fed has break-back point in the 4th...
Click to expand...

pvaudio said:
It was a fantastic match, especially compared to the snore fest of a final which was just long. You can see in this match the point I am trying to make. Even on match point, Federer WENT for his shot. Even when it's 30-love Nadal, he'll still just put the ball back instead of hitting to the open court. How will history say "yes, in their best days, the greatest ever was the retriever instead of the man who could make a winner out of anything".
Click to expand...

Come on, guys, really? I mean, really? "Lucky" next to "ridiculous passing shots." It's not luck. Nadal consistently, year after year, comes up with some of the most jaw-dropping, incomprehensible passing shots at the most important times. That's why he's one of the all-time greats. Luck has nothing to do with running, racquet preparation, and then hitting ridiculous winners.

And history will be much more interested in who won what against whom on the biggest stages, not subjective mumbo-jumbo about offensive vs. defensive tennis.
 
pvaudio said:
Um no, mud dragging has no place here. YOU just said that Nadal has a better case because of all of that. Find me quotes where Rod Laver said that Nadal is a Davis Cup legend, an olympic legend, tops the MS tally (by one, and it's on clay, mind you. Federer is one behind spread across all surfaces) and all of that other stuff you attributed to McEnroe and Laver. No, what they said is that Nadal is one of the greatest ever and you'd have to be an idiot to dispute that. They did not say he was greater than Federer. I'm asking the question where if Nadal gets 16 total, the majority of which will be on clay obviously (half, I'd bet), how you can still justify that Nadal showed greater everything than Federer.

Oh, and if you want to pull in Murray and Djokovic, Nadal himself has said Federer is the greatest ever. That wipes your two completely out.
Click to expand...

1/ I didn't say that he said that Nadal was definitively better. I said "strong case", learn to read.
2/ No it doesn't. Nadal hasn't played himself so obviously Fed is the best he's ever played. Regardless, what one says doesn't 'wipe out' anything just because you say so - it only does in your head.

It says a lot when the 2 best players outside of Fed and Nadal that Fed and Nadal consistently faced (Murray and Joker), both regard Nadal as the better player.
 
winstonplum said:
Come on, guys, really? I mean, really? "Lucky" next to "ridiculous passing shots." It's not luck. Nadal consistently, year after year, comes up with some of the most jaw-dropping, incomprehensible passing shots at the most important times. That's why he's one of the all-time greats. Luck has nothing to do with running, racquet preparation, and then hitting ridiculous winners.

And history will be much more interested in who won what against whom on the biggest stages, not subjective mumbo-jumbo about offensive vs. defensive tennis.
Click to expand...

Nadal was lucky to produce those jaw-dropping, incomprehensible passing shots in 6 slam finals v Fed. :lol:
 
I just watched all twenty minutes. I hadn't seen any highlights since I watched the original match. The highlights confirmed the scoreline. Fed GOATed in the first set, especially the first eight games, just like he did in the first set of last year's RG. Then he lost some energy/confidence/wherewithal/feel/whatever, and Nadal became the more aggressive/better player on that day. Nadal not only retrieved much better than Fed in this match, but he was also just as offensive as Fed. Nadal's fh had much more bite on it the last three set and he wasn't playing with much more margin than Fed.
 
pvaudio said:
Let's also assume that Federer does not gain any more, and Djokovic is certainly not going to be in contention for that number. So, it's time to decide who is the greatest ever. For this comparison, head to head is meaningless. Nadal is the greatest clay courter who ever lived, and if you take clay out of the equation, they're perfectly level in their matches played. So, then that means we have 3 other surfaces: plexicusion/rebound ace, HC and grass. Of these three, Federer is undisputably the greatest ever on HC and next to Sampras on grass. It's therefore at the AO where the discussion comes down to the line. Nadal has one title there, and I don't care that Federer has more. We've given each of them their respective titles of what they're best at, so that's that. They each have 16 slams, so we call it even.

Now, let's look at some footage. Nadal fans, I would like for you to tell me how the tennis historians and laypersons alike would say that Nadal is a more viable candidate given this. Keep in mind: Nadal won this match just this year, and you're going to need a reason far better than that considering Nadal is absolute prime in this match and Federer is 4-5 years past his prime days here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70&feature=related
Click to expand...
well that depends on what the next 5 GS titles are going to be right? suppose he doesn't win FO anymore, and gets 2 more AO, 2 more USO, and 1 more Wimbledon, he would assemble arguably the most balanced title tally in history. 3 AO, 7 FO, 3 Wimbledon, 3 USO. Has been been any male professional who has ever won each of the GS at least 3 times? i genuinely do not think so. if this happens to be the case, then i think nadal should be undoubtedly the greatest player in history.

it becomes more interesting though if we consider other scenarios. let us suppose that of the 5, the distribution is 1 AO, 2 FO, 1 Wimbledon, and 1 USO. which is probably the most plausible scenario. nadal would still have won at least twice for each of the GS. to my best knowledge, only Rod laver has done this. While this doesn't necessarily mean he edges Federer, i think a very credible case can be built that his career is greater.

another scenario, is that nadal goes on to win the next 4 GS and no more after that. he doesn't reach 16, but he has won 5 GS in a row. only rod laver has done that. in this scenario, i still would personally rank him above federer.

personally i doubt any of these scenarios would materialize though.
 
If Nadal does reach 16, and Federer stays right there, there will be no question in my mind that he is better than Federer. As romantic as anyone can be about Federer's game, the numbers just side with Nadal in such a case. I wouldn't mind Fed fans still maintaining Federer as the gold standard, the man has an almost flawless game. To each his own I guess, but Nadal for me.
 
pvaudio said:
Let's also assume that Federer does not gain any more, and Djokovic is certainly not going to be in contention for that number. So, it's time to decide who is the greatest ever. For this comparison, head to head is meaningless. Nadal is the greatest clay courter who ever lived, and if you take clay out of the equation, they're perfectly level in their matches played. So, then that means we have 3 other surfaces: plexicusion/rebound ace, HC and grass. Of these three, Federer is undisputably the greatest ever on HC and next to Sampras on grass. It's therefore at the AO where the discussion comes down to the line. Nadal has one title there, and I don't care that Federer has more. We've given each of them their respective titles of what they're best at, so that's that. They each have 16 slams, so we call it even.

Now, let's look at some footage. Nadal fans, I would like for you to tell me how the tennis historians and laypersons alike would say that Nadal is a more viable candidate given this. Keep in mind: Nadal won this match just this year, and you're going to need a reason far better than that considering Nadal is absolute prime in this match and Federer is 4-5 years past his prime days here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70&feature=related
Click to expand...

How do you know Djokovic won't be in contention for that number? With the state of tennis right now and no great contenders coming up other than maybe Raonic, why can't Djokovic dominate tennis for the next 3-4 years? Just assume he's the man to beat on hardcourts. That means he's favourite for AO and USO and 1 of top 3 favourites for grass and clay. He could win the next 3 Slams which puts him at 8 and he'll still only be 25 years of age.
 
Last edited:
pvaudio said:
Let's also assume that Federer does not gain any more, and Djokovic is certainly not going to be in contention for that number. So, it's time to decide who is the greatest ever. For this comparison, head to head is meaningless. Nadal is the greatest clay courter who ever lived, and if you take clay out of the equation, they're perfectly level in their matches played. So, then that means we have 3 other surfaces: plexicusion/rebound ace, HC and grass. Of these three, Federer is undisputably the greatest ever on HC and next to Sampras on grass. It's therefore at the AO where the discussion comes down to the line. Nadal has one title there, and I don't care that Federer has more. We've given each of them their respective titles of what they're best at, so that's that. They each have 16 slams, so we call it even.

Now, let's look at some footage. Nadal fans, I would like for you to tell me how the tennis historians and laypersons alike would say that Nadal is a more viable candidate given this. Keep in mind: Nadal won this match just this year, and you're going to need a reason far better than that considering Nadal is absolute prime in this match and Federer is 4-5 years past his prime days here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70&feature=related
Click to expand...

lol the amount of bias towards Federer in this is too funny
 
Assuming they both are dead tie at 16 by the time they retire, the tie-breaker will decides who will be ahead. The most important criteria to use for the tie breaker would be like this(in the order of important):

1) Most important titles outside of the slams(ie WTF, MS)
2) Total slam finals
3) Most weeks at #1 and year end #1
4) Level of domination(ie winning %, consistency through all surfaces)
5) Established(or broke) tennis records, streaks
 
The winning % is the biggest one. Rafa never had a really dominant season. I think 89% or whatever was his best. Fed completely dominated the tour a few times and then put a stamp on it by winning the WTF.
 
WhiskeyEE said:
Watch that video and then watch the 2005 miami final and tell me Nadal hasn't slowed down.
Click to expand...

In terms of Speed? Or overall ability?

I definitely think that Nadal was much faster a few years back. He seems much slower now, but that can also be due to the fact that he does not bother chasing down shots that he used when he was 18. When he was 18-19, Nadal used to sometimes dive for balls that were going behind him.

In terms of form, Nadal is definitely a much better player today.
 
I've got a better idea for Fed.

End the discussion on your own terms: Beat Rafa in some GS's for a change.

Win 1-2 more GS titles.

Retire and live tax-free in a Swiss canton and sing songs with Mirka and the twins from the Sound of Music.
 
Sid_Vicious said:
In terms of Speed? Or overall ability?

I definitely think that Nadal was much faster a few years back. He seems much slower now, but that can also be due to the fact that he does not bother chasing down shots that he used when he was 18. When he was 18-19, Nadal used to sometimes dive for balls that were going behind him.

In terms of form, Nadal is definitely a much better player today.
Click to expand...

He's a better player compared to 2005 maybe. He has learned to play certain types of players who used to trouble him. Not compared to 2008. His results have been similar, but Fed also won as many slams in 2009 as he did in 2005 (and had 2 finals as opposed to 2 semis in 2005). I just don't see him winning on fast courts without his speed. He still relies on it a ton.
 
TMF said:
Assuming they both are dead tie at 16 by the time they retire, the tie-breaker will decides who will be ahead. The most important criteria to use for the tie breaker would be like this(in the order of important):

1) Most important titles outside of the slams(ie WTF, MS)
2) Total slam finals
3) Most weeks at #1 and year end #1
4) Level of domination(ie winning %, consistency through all surfaces)
5) Established(or broke) tennis records, streaks
Click to expand...

Category 1: even--Fed's multiple WTF vs. Nadal's Olympic Gold and likely larger number of MS 1000 titles at career end
Category 2: Nadal will catch up, but his winning percentage will remain better in slam finals unless he becomes Novak's beotch again.
Category 3: Fed hands down.
Category 4: Fed again, though all-time win percentage is slightly better for Nadal. If Nadal is smart and doesn't stretch out his career too long, he may end up with a better percentage than Fed.
5) Fed again.

So basically, most people will still say Fed, even if Nadal ties.
The better question now is: Is Nadal already greater than Sampras?
 
if nadal wins 17 slams then he is considered a more successful player than federer in terms of winning but it doesnt make him the best player to ever play the game; like federer he is just one of the best. but i would regard federer as the better player overall in terms of skill, talent, tehcnique, variety and more entertaining/pleasant to watch.
 
pvaudio said:
Let's also assume that Federer does not gain any more, and Djokovic is certainly not going to be in contention for that number. So, it's time to decide who is the greatest ever. For this comparison, head to head is meaningless. Nadal is the greatest clay courter who ever lived, and if you take clay out of the equation, they're perfectly level in their matches played. So, then that means we have 3 other surfaces: plexicusion/rebound ace, HC and grass. Of these three, Federer is undisputably the greatest ever on HC and next to Sampras on grass. It's therefore at the AO where the discussion comes down to the line. Nadal has one title there, and I don't care that Federer has more. We've given each of them their respective titles of what they're best at, so that's that. They each have 16 slams, so we call it even.

Now, let's look at some footage. Nadal fans, I would like for you to tell me how the tennis historians and laypersons alike would say that Nadal is a more viable candidate given this. Keep in mind: Nadal won this match just this year, and you're going to need a reason far better than that considering Nadal is absolute prime in this match and Federer is 4-5 years past his prime days here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70&feature=related
Click to expand...

pvaudio said:
It was a fantastic match, especially compared to the snore fest of a final which was just long. You can see in this match the point I am trying to make. Even on match point, Federer WENT for his shot. Even when it's 30-love Nadal, he'll still just put the ball back instead of hitting to the open court. How will history say "yes, in their best days, the greatest ever was the retriever instead of the man who could make a winner out of anything".
Click to expand...

Regarding the discussion of who's the better/greater player playing style is irrelevant, what matters is efficiency/results.

Would I watch Fed play over Nadal any day of the week and twice on Sundays? No doubt about it, Fed's my favourite player of all time precisely because I find his game so entertaining to watch while Nadal isn't even on the list of my favourite players to watch ( I don't find his style of play boring or something but it's not my cup of tea, I'm pretty indifferent about it).

However, as far as I'm concerned, personal preference for one playing style over another carries no weight in this debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Let's assume Nadal finally equals Federer in slam titles, who is greater?
21 22 23
Replies
1K
Views
39K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
G
Let's assume the UO and RG are not cancelled
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
PerilousPear
PerilousPear
GasquetGOAT
  • Poll Poll
Let's face it, Nadal made Federer greater.
2 3
Replies
131
Views
6K
The Edberg
The Edberg
REKX
2007-2010 Nadal - One of the Greatest Grass Court Players of all Time
Replies
30
Views
2K
sbengte
sbengte
Nadalgaenger
  • Poll Poll
Tougher Potential Match for Fed at Wimbledon: Djokovic or Nadal?
2 3
Replies
101
Views
4K
ThePhamster
ThePhamster
Back
Top