Why Nadal winning 21 Slams won't make him greater than Fed

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Federer achieved those consecutive weeks in 2003-2007, in the pre-Djokovic era and when Nadal was an immature teenager in Grand Slams on hard, when it was objectively easier. With same-age Djokovic and Nadal, Federer could only dream of achieving 237 consecutive weeks as #1, about 80% of Federer's weeks as #1 were pre-2008, and about 90% of his weeks as #1 were pre-2011.

In addition, Federer's advantage in weeks as #1 and ATP finals is compensated by Nadal's advantage in H2H, Olympics, Masters 1000, higher winning percentage in Slam finals, higher winning percentage in career and 5 Davis Cup (including a 96% winning percentage in Davis cup matches in singles).

Crucially, he number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. If Federer isn't talented enough to win as many Slams as Nadal, he ain't no GOAT. They are playing in the same era, claiming that Federer with less Slams is better than Nadal would be completely unobjective. Especially when the Big 3 have been playing for the Grand Slam record as the main goal, in an era where the Grand Slam record was percieved by the press, fans and players as the Holy Grail of tennis. Of course some unobjective Fed fans can still claim Federer as the GOAT but that would be the equivalent of some delusional Sampras fans still claiming Sampras to be greater than Federer.
 
Last edited:

Hitman

Legend
Federer acheived those consecutive weeks in 2003-2007, in the pre-Djokovic era and when Nadal was an immature teenager in Grand Slams on hard, when it was objectively easier. With Djokovic and Nadal, Federer could only dream of achieving 237 consecutive weeks as #1, about 80% of Federer's weeks as #1 were pre-2008, and about 90% of his weeks as #1 were pre-2011.

In addition, Federer's advantage in weeks as #1 and ATP finals is compensated by Nadal's advantage in H2H, Olympics, Masters 1000, higher winning percentage in Slam finals, higher winning percentage in career and 5 Davis Cup (including a 96% winning percentage in Davis cup matches in singles).

The number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. If Federer isn't talented enough to win as many Slams as Nadal, he ain't no GOAT. They are playing in the same era, claiming that Federer with less Slams is better than Nadal would be completely unobjective. Especially when the Big 3 have been playing for the Grand Slam record as the main goal, in an era where the Grand Slam record was perceived by the press, fans and players as the holy grail of tennis. Of course some unobjective Fed fans can still claim Federer as the GOAT but that would be the equivalent of some delusional Sampras fans still claiming Sampras to be greater than Federer.
Off topic question, but English isn't your first language, is it? Correct me if I am wrong here.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
Max consecutive weeks at No. 1

Federer: 237
Nadal: 56

That would be all.
TTW is littered with a certain segment of bottom of the barrel bandwagon Fed fans who only found Fed after he had already obtained the slam record and who CONSTANTLY tear down Rafa (and Djoker).

I don’t think we need to stoop to thier level and do thier job for them.

Also:
1) Most of Fed’s weeks #1 came without having to battle prime ATGs.
2) While Rafa has lacked the year round consistency and health that has propelled Djoker to the doorstep of the Weeks 1 record ... Rafa has simultaneously been most successful at the slams (at least for now). Give the man some respect.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Federer achieved those consecutive weeks in 2003-2007, in the pre-Djokovic era and when Nadal was an immature teenager in Grand Slams on hard, when it was objectively easier. With same-age Djokovic and Nadal, Federer could only dream of achieving 237 consecutive weeks as #1, about 80% of Federer's weeks as #1 were pre-2008, and about 90% of his weeks as #1 were pre-2011.

In addition, Federer's advantage in weeks as #1 and ATP finals is compensated by Nadal's advantage in H2H, Olympics, Masters 1000, higher winning percentage in Slam finals, higher winning percentage in career and 5 Davis Cup (including a 96% winning percentage in Davis cup matches in singles).

Crucially, he number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. If Federer isn't talented enough to win as many Slams as Nadal, he ain't no GOAT. They are playing in the same era, claiming that Federer with less Slams is better than Nadal would be completely unobjective. Especially when the Big 3 have been playing for the Grand Slam record as the main goal, in an era where the Grand Slam record was perceived by the press, fans and players as the holy grail of tennis. Of course some unobjective Fed fans can still claim Federer as the GOAT but that would be the equivalent of some delusional Sampras fans still claiming Sampras to be greater than Federer.
You should remember Fed is setting a bar and Nadal is just trying his best all his career to reach it.

Fed has spent almost 10 years to set his own milestone / summit.

Wonder if Nadal or Djokovic can set a new trend and not play to just do a +1/2
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Consecutive weeks record is an impressive record no doubt about that! And so are his two 5-peat runs at Wimbledon and the USO, 4 of which he achieved by winning both of those! But everyone knows that cumulative totals are way more important in tennis! While consecutive records show consistency, its cumulative totals that are the main criteria in tennis, when it comes to merits of particular player's greatness! Otherwise player like Sampras wouldn't even be in the contest, because outside of his Wimbledon 4-peat streak nothing was ever as impressive! (well maybe that and his perfect record in finals also at the Wimbledon!) He best consecutive weeks as world number one streak is slightly over 100 weeks and was bested by Djokovic ever since!
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Bet most people won't care about the nitty gritty and will crown Nadal as GOAT if he manages to get to 21. Many in the mainstream may even crown him GOAT with just 20 simply because of the H2H, weeks at #1 and WTFs be damned.

Now whether that's right or wrong is a whole other thing for us to flame each other over until the end of time
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
Federer achieved those consecutive weeks in 2003-2007, in the pre-Djokovic era and when Nadal was an immature teenager in Grand Slams on hard, when it was objectively easier. With same-age Djokovic and Nadal, Federer could only dream of achieving 237 consecutive weeks as #1, about 80% of Federer's weeks as #1 were pre-2008, and about 90% of his weeks as #1 were pre-2011.

In addition, Federer's advantage in weeks as #1 and ATP finals is compensated by Nadal's advantage in H2H, Olympics, Masters 1000, higher winning percentage in Slam finals, higher winning percentage in career and 5 Davis Cup (including a 96% winning percentage in Davis cup matches in singles).

Crucially, he number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. If Federer isn't talented enough to win as many Slams as Nadal, he ain't no GOAT. They are playing in the same era, claiming that Federer with less Slams is better than Nadal would be completely unobjective. Especially when the Big 3 have been playing for the Grand Slam record as the main goal, in an era where the Grand Slam record was perceived by the press, fans and players as the holy grail of tennis. Of course some unobjective Fed fans can still claim Federer as the GOAT but that would be the equivalent of some delusional Sampras fans still claiming Sampras to be greater than Federer.
Your first sentence uses objectively in place of subjectively. Stats only count when they suit your agenda huh?
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
He just cements himself as Clay GOAT more and more with each RG.

Nothing to sneeze at but he will never be overall GOAT, that's between Nole and Fed to decide at this point.

His indoor record is so abysmal that he can never contend for overall GOAT (Still on 0 WTFs, probably forever).

Worst thing is his complaining, excuse making and "injuries" around the time of the WTF. He is never injured for the clay season but constantly for indoors. Not real subtle.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
That's enough to put Rafa ahead if both are tied at 20.
It's enough to put him ahead if you already want him to be ahead. Same goes for the Federer arguments.

This stuff is all pretty much impossible to objectively argue. It's hard to argue if H2H is more valuable than time at #1. Or how many Masters tournaments equals 1 YEC. That's why the slam race became so popular. It was simple and easy to understand. Take everything and boil it down to just 1 number.
 

Lew II

Legend
True, Nadal didn't dominate all year as much as the two contemporaries Djokovic and Federer.

When it's all said and done only one could have everything (slams, #1, masters/yec, h2h): Djokovic.
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Federer achieved those consecutive weeks in 2003-2007, in the pre-Djokovic era and when Nadal was an immature teenager in Grand Slams on hard, when it was objectively easier. With same-age Djokovic and Nadal, Federer could only dream of achieving 237 consecutive weeks as #1, about 80% of Federer's weeks as #1 were pre-2008, and about 90% of his weeks as #1 were pre-2011.

In addition, Federer's advantage in weeks as #1 and ATP finals is compensated by Nadal's advantage in H2H, Olympics, Masters 1000, higher winning percentage in Slam finals, higher winning percentage in career and 5 Davis Cup (including a 96% winning percentage in Davis cup matches in singles).

Crucially, he number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. If Federer isn't talented enough to win as many Slams as Nadal, he ain't no GOAT. They are playing in the same era, claiming that Federer with less Slams is better than Nadal would be completely unobjective. Especially when the Big 3 have been playing for the Grand Slam record as the main goal, in an era where the Grand Slam record was perceived by the press, fans and players as the holy grail of tennis. Of course some unobjective Fed fans can still claim Federer as the GOAT but that would be the equivalent of some delusional Sampras fans still claiming Sampras to be greater than Federer.
As soon I saw thread title I expected @Sport to write a novel....

But, you excelled all my expectations... You noticed thread, read op, and wrote a novel in 4 fckn minutes....o_O How's that even possible?


By the way, I agree with you... 237 has no weight...
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Federer achieved those consecutive weeks in 2003-2007, in the pre-Djokovic era and when Nadal was an immature teenager in Grand Slams on hard, when it was objectively easier. With same-age Djokovic and Nadal, Federer could only dream of achieving 237 consecutive weeks as #1, about 80% of Federer's weeks as #1 were pre-2008, and about 90% of his weeks as #1 were pre-2011.

In addition, Federer's advantage in weeks as #1 and ATP finals is compensated by Nadal's advantage in H2H, Olympics, Masters 1000, higher winning percentage in Slam finals, higher winning percentage in career and 5 Davis Cup (including a 96% winning percentage in Davis cup matches in singles).

Crucially, he number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. If Federer isn't talented enough to win as many Slams as Nadal, he ain't no GOAT. They are playing in the same era, claiming that Federer with less Slams is better than Nadal would be completely unobjective. Especially when the Big 3 have been playing for the Grand Slam record as the main goal, in an era where the Grand Slam record was perceived by the press, fans and players as the holy grail of tennis. Of course some unobjective Fed fans can still claim Federer as the GOAT but that would be the equivalent of some delusional Sampras fans still claiming Sampras to be greater than Federer.
How the heck did you manage to write all this in 4 minutes? Assuming of course you were staring at the screen and the OP happened to pop up at the time!
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Off topic question, but English isn't your first language, is it? Correct me if I am wrong here.
If he wrote this essay in 3 minutes and English is not his native language, the guy must be a genius. Hats off to him.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Whenever Fed has a record, fans from rival fanbases try to diminish it, put context to their liking and so on.Good ol' TTW, I guess I should accept once and for all that it's a different universe here.
 

Martin J

Semi-Pro
Nah, if he wins more slams than Fed, he is greater as the number of Majors is the ultimate measure of greatness in current era.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Consecutive weeks at number 1??? Arguably that's irrelvant. Total weeks should be more important.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
He just cements himself as Clay GOAT more and more with each RG.

Nothing to sneeze at but he will never be overall GOAT, that's between Nole and Fed to decide at this point.

His indoor record is so abysmal that he can never contend for overall GOAT (Still on 0 WTFs, probably forever).

Worst thing is his complaining, excuse making and "injuries" around the time of the WTF. He is never injured for the clay season but constantly for indoors. Not real subtle.
Lol, this is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever seen. You are really butthurt about Nadal having 19 slams, that is obvious. :D :D :D :D

Amazing how after RG 2016 these pathetic haters still write about him "never being injured on clay".
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Federer achieved those consecutive weeks in 2003-2007, in the pre-Djokovic era and when Nadal was an immature teenager in Grand Slams on hard, when it was objectively easier. With same-age Djokovic and Nadal, Federer could only dream of achieving 237 consecutive weeks as #1, about 80% of Federer's weeks as #1 were pre-2008, and about 90% of his weeks as #1 were pre-2011.

In addition, Federer's advantage in weeks as #1 and ATP finals is compensated by Nadal's advantage in H2H, Olympics, Masters 1000, higher winning percentage in Slam finals, higher winning percentage in career and 5 Davis Cup (including a 96% winning percentage in Davis cup matches in singles).

Crucially, he number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion. Other criteria are just tie-breakers in case two players are tied in Slams. If Federer isn't talented enough to win as many Slams as Nadal, he ain't no GOAT. They are playing in the same era, claiming that Federer with less Slams is better than Nadal would be completely unobjective. Especially when the Big 3 have been playing for the Grand Slam record as the main goal, in an era where the Grand Slam record was percieved by the press, fans and players as the Holy Grail of tennis. Of course some unobjective Fed fans can still claim Federer as the GOAT but that would be the equivalent of some delusional Sampras fans still claiming Sampras to be greater than Federer.
How the heck did you manage to write all this in 4 minutes? Assuming of course you were staring at the screen and the OP happened to pop up at the time!
I’m pretty sure he posted the same post in another thread a few days ago with some minor differences if any. I think it was in response to me, and he was trying to argue with a straight face that Nadal’s Slam resume is more balanced than Fed’s.

Ironic that he goes for the Weak Era argument against Fed in 03-07 but ignores it for Djok/Rafa from 2014 on
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Wow, people already terrified that Rafa makes 20 slams at RG this year LOL

I bet these same people are praying that RG and Wimbledon are somehow cancelled this year due to the CV, therefore when next years editions roll around, Nadal and Djokovic might be done winning slams ...

:-D
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
History books must be very poor if only slam winners are written on it. It must must be a history page, not a history book :-D
It's an English expression. His name will be forever written down as a French Open champion, and people in 100/200 years' time will see it there. They'll never see the name Ferrer unless they dig deeper into stats of the time.
 

Martin J

Semi-Pro
So 6 > 0 means nothing?
If they are both at 20, it means a lot. But with 21 in his pocket, Rafa will have a strong argument to be ranked above. It has been all about Majors (when it comes to the very top players) in the last 20 years. At least I would consider him greater than Fed.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
As soon I saw thread title I expected @Sport to write a novel....

But, you excelled all my expectations... You noticed thread, read op, and wrote a novel in 4 fckn minutes....o_OHow's that even possible?


By the way, I agree with you... 237 has no weight...
Because he copy and pastes the same arguments in every thread.
 
Top