illusions30
Banned
Out of Federer, Laver, Nadal, Gonzales, Sampras, and Borg whom do you believe had the toughest competition overall.
Which GOAT candidate had the toughest competition
- Thread starter illusions30
- Start date
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Whoever had the least competition is the GOAT.
Because he was a GOAT, others were not a competition.
Because he was a GOAT, others were not a competition.
C
chandu612
Guest
Voted for Nadal but it can easily be Sampras as well.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
sampras did not have to deal with 2 all-time greats whom he met consistently in slams. no disrespect to sampras but nadal had it way tougher
illusions30
Banned
My order would be:
1. Nadal- had to deal with both Federer and Djokovic near or at their best for many years.
2. Borg- could easily be #1. Faced McEnroe, Connors, and a bunch of big servers at Wimbledon for years. Faced McEnroe and Connors at the U.S Open. Faced Vilas, and a large group of clay specialists at the French.
3. Laver- the pro field was very deep, as was the Open Era field of 68-69. Not rated #1 or #2, due to the extremely weak competition he had in the early 60s in winning his amateur majors when the best guys were pro.
4. Sampras- faced a field with alot of depth but not much in the way of consistent top end threats.
5. Federer- faced a tougher rival than Sampras did in Nadal. Less depth than the Sampras era on various surfaces though.
6. Gonzales- For a period of time until Sedgeman, Hoad, Rosewall, and eventually Laver turned pro there wasnt that much competition for him on the pro circuit. Segura and a very old Kramer? Who else. Eventually his competition became tougher.
1. Nadal- had to deal with both Federer and Djokovic near or at their best for many years.
2. Borg- could easily be #1. Faced McEnroe, Connors, and a bunch of big servers at Wimbledon for years. Faced McEnroe and Connors at the U.S Open. Faced Vilas, and a large group of clay specialists at the French.
3. Laver- the pro field was very deep, as was the Open Era field of 68-69. Not rated #1 or #2, due to the extremely weak competition he had in the early 60s in winning his amateur majors when the best guys were pro.
4. Sampras- faced a field with alot of depth but not much in the way of consistent top end threats.
5. Federer- faced a tougher rival than Sampras did in Nadal. Less depth than the Sampras era on various surfaces though.
6. Gonzales- For a period of time until Sedgeman, Hoad, Rosewall, and eventually Laver turned pro there wasnt that much competition for him on the pro circuit. Segura and a very old Kramer? Who else. Eventually his competition became tougher.
illusions30
Banned
There is no such player as Fernando Gonzales. There is a Fernando Gonzalez. Did you really think I would be considering Gonzalez as a GOAT candidate.
C
chandu612
Guest
Sampras had to face surface specialists like Ivanicevic in WIM and clay-court specialists on FO. On top of that he had to face champs like Agassi, Becker (still a force) and Courier. Fed had to deal with Nadal on FO. By the time Nadal is true force, Fed quit winning and squeezed 3 slams when Nadal is injured. So I d say Sampras had more tougher competition than Federer.
Last edited by a moderator:
RF20Lennon
Legend
Did Pancho have some serious competition?? I remember Bud Collins saying if he trusted any player (even today) to play for his life, it would be Pancho. So thats a HUGE thing!
Tenez101
Banned
There is no such player as Fernando Gonzales. There is a Fernando Gonzalez. Did you really think I would be considering Gonzalez as a GOAT candidate.
Yes.
10hundredmphforehandwinners
mike danny
Bionic Poster
he actually won 5 slams after 2007. beating the likes of Djokoivc,Murray, on-fire Delpo is no small feat.
Roddick in 2009 was very good as well. He gave Federer a hell of a match at W. of for you competition means only name of player and not the guy who actually pushed him than i am sorry for you
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer's competition was atleast as tough as Nadal's who has won most of his titles on clay a surface where non of his top contempories are at their best. Federer has had to deal with all the players Nadal has faced and more.
- Nadal
- Djokovic
- Murray
- Hewitt
- Agassi
- Safin
- Roddick
- Del Potro
- Ferrero
That's just notable slam champions who he faced.
Nadal has Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro. So how is his competition better? Especially if Nadal is > Federer like some argue.
- Nadal
- Djokovic
- Murray
- Hewitt
- Agassi
- Safin
- Roddick
- Del Potro
- Ferrero
That's just notable slam champions who he faced.
Nadal has Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro. So how is his competition better? Especially if Nadal is > Federer like some argue.
Last edited:
cknobman
Legend
This. Its tough to have competition when you are so great you dominate completely.
But if we have to put labels on someone it surely would not fall on Nadal and Federer.
They both primarily competed against one another. You can try to play the Nadal had tougher competition but Federer has had the exact same competition as well. Federer has beaten Murray and Novak multiple time on the biggest of stages.
Cant say Laver or Gonzales really. They competed back in a time when the field was shallow and amateurs were mixed in with professionals.
So out of this list I would have to go with Sampras or Borg.
But Sampras had periods in his careers where the were not a lot of greats playing as well.
Borg just up and quit once he realized he could not dominate anymore. Kinda puts a dampener on calling him a GOAT.
C
chandu612
Guest
Funny how Federer is great for 17 slams..But when figuring his competition like Roddick, Safin and Bhagdatis we have to see how Roddick played all of a sudden? Not their grand slam performances.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
people are so stupid bringing up baghdatis. he was NEVER a part of fed's competition. he met him in only 1 slams final. just like nadal met puerta in only 1 slam final but i do not see yu counting him as nadal's comp
mike danny
Bionic Poster
also for his first W final rafa had to beat baghdatis but i do not see anybody mentioning this. they just keep braggig about fed's weak comp without looking that nadal had to beat mainly the same players like him
illusions30
Banned
Federer's dominance and most of his slams were from 2003-2007, and Nadal's off and on periods of dominance and most of his slams were from 2008-2013. So the previous period will be evaluated more when it comes to Federer's competition, and the later for Nadal's, even though both were still big factors and still won many big titles in both. Basically if you think 2003-2007 competition was tougher Federer had tougher competition than Nadal though, and if you think 2008-2013 is tougher you think Nadal had tougher competition than Federer. Even if both were top players and won a lot in both times, Nadal's greatest achievements and about 70% of his slams were in the later, and Federer the former.
The other factor is Nadal did beat Federer to win many of his slams. Both lots of clay ones if you consider Federer a great clay court himself, and a couple of his non clay ones. Federer only beat Nadal to win 2 of his. So now it also depends if you evaluate competition by who players are facing when they are winning, or also who they are facing to deny them success though.
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Very good points. Lendl had it tougher.
At the USO, he had to deal with McEnroe and Connors at the beginning of his career. Then he had a small window of opportunity while these two got older with Wilander. Then, young Edberg, Becker, Agassi and Sampras at the end of his career.
At the French, he bagan against Borg, then he got Wilander, then stoped to care because he wanted Wimbledon so much.
Where he met McEnroe, Connors, then Becker and Edberg, and obviously Cash. And Wimbledon was the toughest surface for him.
The AO was where it was the easiest: Only Mecir, Edberg, becker and Cash.
I think all the other players had times with a very strong competition but also time with a weaker one.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think you need to consider both to be objective. Federer has declined clearly since when he was dominating and has still won 5 slams (almost as much as Novak). I think he'd have a big edge on Murray and Djokovic (aside from 2011) prime for prime.
I think 03-07 competition is underrated due to 2006. That year was weak but the other years were actually pretty strong, 04-05 especially. I'd also say that 07 was certainly a stronger year than 2010 which Nadal dominated. Novak was better in 07 and Nadal was better in 07 than Federer in 2010 IMO and for the sake of argument I'll say Nadal/Federer were equal overall. In 08, Djokovic was very strong but Federer suffered from mono and was having bad losses to everyone. Even this year Nadal hasn't faced Murray and Djokovic has been losing to lots of people up till this Asian swing, albeit not in the slams. So I think there's a tendancy to look at the names not the form when evaluating the competition.
Federer20042006
Banned
According to many on this board, Nadal is better than Federer.
Therefore, Federer faced tougher competition than Nadal...because he had to face Nadal as his main rival, while Nadal only had to face Federer as his. Hmmmm.
Therefore, Federer faced tougher competition than Nadal...because he had to face Nadal as his main rival, while Nadal only had to face Federer as his. Hmmmm.
C
chandu612
Guest
According to you, Fed is the GOAT. So Nadal faced better competition than Federer. hmm
Crisstti
Legend
Well, both should be considered, but one cannot ignore that a player being in good form and so making a slam final doesn't mean he's going to be as tough there as an all time great playing well enough to make a slam final.
Nadal never has had a period in his career where he didn't have to face an all time great, consistently. First Federer, then Djokovic. Federer did have such a period.
The closest Nadal has come to that was 2010 and see what happened that year, he won three slams.
NatF
Bionic Poster
There's also a difference between an all time great on hardcourt and an all time great on clay for example. Just because Federer and Djokovic are exceptional on one surface doesn't mean they should be considered super tough competition on another. Any of Federer's draws at the USO were arguably as tough or tougher than Nadal's. Despite Nadal playing Djokovic. Who Federer has also beaten twice at the USO.
2004, 2005 and 2007 were all stronger years than 2010.
90's Clay
Banned
Sampras and Laver
Laver rivals: Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Gimeno, etc. (Connors and Borg later on)
Sampras rivals: Agassi,Becker,Edberg,Goran,Stich,Rafter,Kafelnikov,Bruguera, Courier, Chang,
Fed/Nadal/Djoker/Murray- Each other and a tour full of crap for the past 8 years that couldn't win a grand slam if you gave them a 2 set lead every round of a slam
Laver rivals: Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Gimeno, etc. (Connors and Borg later on)
Sampras rivals: Agassi,Becker,Edberg,Goran,Stich,Rafter,Kafelnikov,Bruguera, Courier, Chang,
Fed/Nadal/Djoker/Murray- Each other and a tour full of crap for the past 8 years that couldn't win a grand slam if you gave them a 2 set lead every round of a slam
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Will the next era conveniently place behind the current no.1, thus per^erting the current very obvious chronological order, just to fit in with what you want to believe (about Federer).
I should imagine that it probably will........ maybe even definitely.
Well, I very much look forward to seeing your future lists and opinions on this topic.
People pick their own favorite player's era as being the toughest. At least I'm consistent in accepting tennis and all sports get better in every decade. The world population continue to increase along with more athletes competing. It's more realistic to believe sports progress and not regress.
Anti-Fedal
Professional
Rosewall is more of a GOAT candidate than Federer, Nadal and Sampras. Not sure why you didn't include him in this list. Anyway from the choices available I'd say
1. Laver
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Pancho
5. Nadal
6. Federer (easily the worst field)
1. Laver
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Pancho
5. Nadal
6. Federer (easily the worst field)
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
The world population does indeed continue to increase, but that doesn't really tell us anything. I agree that on the whole sports and things just generally tend to progress but for different reasons such as interest from more/different countries or better facilities or more evolved training, dieting and other things.
I don't know if the sheer volume of people playing tennis is greater now than 10 years ago than 17.26384 years ago than -stick in any arbitrary figure here- ago.
If somebody has any purported statistics for this, I'd be interested to see them.
Federer20042006
Banned
Nope, I've never said Federer is the GOAT.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
LOL that's a complete joke saying Fed's competition was at least as tough as Nadal's.
Nadal has had to beat Federer or Djokovic to win the majority of his slams.
Those 2 are tougher than Hewitt, Roddick and Agassi all of which weren't even a threat after 2005. Then you list Ferrero? LMFAO Ferrero wasn't even a slam threat since 2003. Safin was so inconsistent he hardly ever turned up only got to 2 AO finals from 04-07 and didn't get past the 4th round in any other major in that time frame, yet he's considered competition?
Nadal had to beat Federer to win Wimbledon and succeeded.
Fed couldn't beat Nadal to win RG. In fact Fed couldn't even push Nadal to 5 sets at RG in all his attempts.
You can't stand the fact that Nadal clearly had it tougher but what you fail to realise is how much you're insulting your idol comparing beating him with the likes of beating Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero and old Agassi lol what a joke.
I'd like to include Rosewall as a GOAT candidate and stick him next to Nadal for toughest. Rosewall always seems to be left out of these, but he had to contend with a prime Gonzo early and prime Laver late and still put up ridiculous numbers.
I think you make an interesting point that Gonzales' competition wasn't great, but I'll counter with this: how do you know? At least with Federer's or Sampras's competition, you can get a feel for how strong it was based on how they did in different eras. But guys in Gonzales' time didn't really play in other eras... I don't know of any way to place Sedgman, Trabert, or even Hoad historically.
IMO Djokovic and Rosewall are both GOAT contenders (Djokovic because his peak is so high, Rosewall for a lot of reasons). Djokovic is on pace to have the hardest competition I think, with Nadal and Rosewall and Borg after him, then I'd go Sampras and Gonzales (putting him in the middle cause I don't know and you're making me think about it), then Federer and then Laver.
I guess I'm in the minority with Laver's competition, but who did he have? Rosewall crushed Laver in 1963 when Rosewall was 29, and Rosewall was 32+ by the time Laver started dominating. After that you've got Emerson, Newcombe, Nastase, Ashe, Gimeno... that's the easiest field of all IMO.
I think you make an interesting point that Gonzales' competition wasn't great, but I'll counter with this: how do you know? At least with Federer's or Sampras's competition, you can get a feel for how strong it was based on how they did in different eras. But guys in Gonzales' time didn't really play in other eras... I don't know of any way to place Sedgman, Trabert, or even Hoad historically.
IMO Djokovic and Rosewall are both GOAT contenders (Djokovic because his peak is so high, Rosewall for a lot of reasons). Djokovic is on pace to have the hardest competition I think, with Nadal and Rosewall and Borg after him, then I'd go Sampras and Gonzales (putting him in the middle cause I don't know and you're making me think about it), then Federer and then Laver.
I guess I'm in the minority with Laver's competition, but who did he have? Rosewall crushed Laver in 1963 when Rosewall was 29, and Rosewall was 32+ by the time Laver started dominating. After that you've got Emerson, Newcombe, Nastase, Ashe, Gimeno... that's the easiest field of all IMO.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer has played every player Nadal has in slams except for himself. So yes his competition is atleast as good considering he's also had to face other slam champions in 04-05. Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick on hards and grass together > Federer and Djokovic on clay.
Federer faced Ferrero in the AO semi's. After that he fell off. Beating Djokovic a zero time FO champion and Federer a 1 time FO champion who's he 'owns' in the words of you Nadal fans is tough competition?
lol at Nadal having it tougher. Like at the USO? Don't make me laugh anymore man.
Youhzny and Gasquet in the semi's? Robredo in the quarters? Plus Novak in two of his worst patches of form going into the open to date. As opposed to facing multiple former USO champions.
At Wimbledon Federer has hands down faced more tough opponents than Nadal. Nadal of 2007 Wimbledon was playing as well as Federer the year later. Plus there's Roddick, Hewitt as well Djokovic and Murray (both playing better than any year Nadal beat them at Wimbledon).
The AO is the only place you can claim Federer had easier draw, but then again Nadal would only have 2 if Novak wasn't around,Federer would probably have 6.
And yes I'd certainly take those players over Federer of FO 2008 for example. But I guess because it was Federer it was another epic win for Nadal despite the fact that Federer didn't even show up...
Last edited:
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Gotta go with you on this.
There's no way in world that Federer and Nadal's competition was equal.
Safin, Agassi, and Ferrero were what, in their last full year on tour when Nadal came around.
Those guys weren't (with the exception of Agassi) even making finals.
Horrible comparison.
egn
Hall of Fame
Who Am I?
Banned
The funny thing about Nadal lovers is how they call Federer a weak era champion yet use him to brag about how strong their fake God's competition was. If Federer was a weak era champion, then what does that say about Nadal's competition? He was facing a weak champion so technically Ralph competition isn't that strong either.
MonkeyBoy
Hall of Fame
Just because Federer was born in a weak era doesn't mean he's a weak champion.
Also, prime Nadal has to deal with prime murray/djoker with is something prime Federer didn't.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
04-07 is where Fed racked up his slam titles. He was doing so beating the likes of an old Agassi, Hewitt and Roddick for the most part.
To even consider comparing them to Fed and Djokovic is a joke. The reason Fed and Novak have only 1 RG between them is because of Nadal.
Hewitt only won Wimbledon in one of the weakest draws ever and Roddick only played well in the final in 09 (which is out of the time frame I'm discussing) and in 04 (probably would've won it too if the rain delays didn't save Fed's arse). In the 05 WIM final he was rubbish, in 06 and 07 he didn't even make it.
So out of all the WIM majors Fed won from 04-07, Roddick was a threat in 1 match. Hewitt the same, only in 05 WIM he was a threat. The rest forget it.
On grass they are tougher than Fed and Novak on clay? LOL don't forget to include Soderling at RG too you clown.
Nadal has always been Federer's biggest threat at Wimbledon.
Sod + Fed + Novak @ RG is MUCH tougher than Hewitt + Roddick + grandpa Agassi on grass. LOL Agassi wasn't even existent at WIM from 04-06.
Ferrero who was fresh off losing to Guccionne? He only got there because of an incredibly laughable draw, go look who he beat to get to that SF, I'd fancy my chances of making it with that draw :lol:
Nadal's paths to USO finals weren't so tough, but his final opponent was the toughest opponent for him. Novak played very well in 2010 final and in 2013 he was all over Nadal, had he won one of those BP at 4 all in the third, he would've won the match.
I've already highlighted Fed's weak WIM competition, his greatest threat was a clay court specialist. Stop bringing up post 04-07 era because Fed's winning ways dried up from 08 onwards. He won majors, but nowhere near as easily. Only 2 Wimbledons since 07 and one of them his draw was weak to the final and then Roddick choked big time in that match. Should've had a 2 sets to love lead.
Federer had only ever beat Nadal twice to win a major. Hasn't done it in 6+ years.
Nadal has had to beat Federer to win 7 of his majors. And post 2010 Novak to win another 3. That is a GOAT candidate and an all time great playing at their highest level for the most part to win 10/13.
Fed showed up all right. He was desperate to win it he hired that Jose guy to help him. He used the wrong strategy, he tried to go to the net more often and against one of the best passing shot makers in history on a surface like clay that was suicide, especially given Nadal's form. You could say no one showed up against Nadal in that tournament because he destroyed everyone, even Novak got smashed until Nadal let his concentration slip in that third set.
And you can take who you want, the fact is Federer + Novak + Sod + Murray > Hewitt + Roddick + old Agassi + Ferrero and whoever else you want to throw in from 04-06.
90's Clay
Banned
I think another thing worth pointing out, due to the homogenized conditions of the last 5-6 years it makes the life of a top player 10 times easier than polarized conditions where players had to adapt tournament in tournament out.
Faster conditons also breed more upsets as well, while slow conditions the best slow court players get a comfort level that some greats in the past weren't lucky enough to get.
Polarize the conditions today and you are destine to make the life of a top player (breezing along today) more problematic
The guys have it sooooo much easier today compared to past era greats. Imagine if you let Sampras play on fast courts all year for a 10 year period (Like these guys get to playing on their bread and butter slow courts all year)
Unfortunately, guys in the past didn't get to play on their bread and butter surface speeds ALL YEAR, year after year like these guys get to
Faster conditons also breed more upsets as well, while slow conditions the best slow court players get a comfort level that some greats in the past weren't lucky enough to get.
Polarize the conditions today and you are destine to make the life of a top player (breezing along today) more problematic
The guys have it sooooo much easier today compared to past era greats. Imagine if you let Sampras play on fast courts all year for a 10 year period (Like these guys get to playing on their bread and butter slow courts all year)
Unfortunately, guys in the past didn't get to play on their bread and butter surface speeds ALL YEAR, year after year like these guys get to
Last edited:
Who Am I?
Banned
But it does.
Fed turned pro in 1998 and Nadal turned pro in 2001 playing in the same ATP tour. Nadal fans act like they are from a different planet.:shock:
YaoPau, I agree that Rosewall should be included as GOAT candidate.
