Why tennis superstar Roger Federer is NOT the GOAT

Amritia

Hall of Fame
I would start this article off by saying that I have a huge amount of respect for Roger Federer, and despite not being a fan of his I do like watching him play tennis.
I would also add that I think he is right up there in the pantheon of greats, but I do not think he is right the at the top of the list despite having the best stats, for the following reasons:

1/ Lack of Competition at his Prime
I believe the lack of world class competition at his prime (away from clay) was due to the shortage of ATG players playing at a sustained high level in his age group (ie +/- 3 years).
This statistic, researched by ATP.com, in my eyes reveals a lot:
Between the period 2004-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin did put together.
This list consists of every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic, as well as many others.

The above stat is not me making a case for or against Murray (I recognise that Federer still wins majority of Slam matches against him), but it showcases how poor Federer's contemporaries were. How could all those players combined only get 3 wins in all competitions against Federer between 2004-2008, while Murray got 4?

Now we go to 2007, and see the top 3: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
This is when Federer is 26/27 years old- so players around his age should be around prime level. But wait... at spot 2 and 3 we have 2 youngsters; Nadal and Djokovic despite bring pre-prime are higher in the rankings than players Federer's age, who should be at prime level. Does that not say a lot?

None of Federer's potential rivals his age were able to maintain a sustained challenge to Federer:

Where did Safin disappear after AO 2005? Why did Hewitt decline to the extent that he exited the top 10 after 2005, and has never managed to come back in the top 10. Why did Nalbandian stall in slams so much- after 2003 he never even reached a slam final. Why did he underperform so much?
The only player who was Federer's age who regularly played him in Grand Slam finals was Andy Roddick. With all respect to Roddick, he had a great serve, but his groundstrokes and baseline play was abysmal. Only in 2009 when Stefanki improved Roddick from the baseline did he come close to challenging Federer and impress me as an all round player- watch him in his prime getting absolutely torn to shreds by a young Murray in Wimbledon 2006.

So to conclude point number 1, this gives Roger Federer a huge advantage. He has no 'great' contemporaries who can launch a sustained challenge, and the world class opposition he has to worry about are much younger players; this gives him a window off opportunity to accumulate sensational statistics relatively easily between 2004 and 2007 (exception being Nadal on clay- he was great on clay even when he was very young).


2/ Roger Federer struggled against his greatest rival
Federer's head to head against his greatest rival Nadal is not even close, and since Nadal won their first match on the hard court of Miami in 2004 (yes hard court... not clay), Federer has never led Nadal in the H2H. Nadal leads currently 23-10, and 9-2 in slams. Even if you take away Nadal's favourite surface, clay, he STILL leads the H2H.
Can you remember any all time great across any sport struggling against their biggest rival to that extent... Federer has simply been dominated. Borg, Nadal, Sampras etc. have never been dominated to such an extent by a major rival.
People say 'match up issues'- but this itself is an admission of a weakness- surely the GOAT would be so good that finding a player who could cut him apart would be impossible? And secondly, isn't part of being a great having the ability to overcome such challenges. Nadal struggled against Djokovic in 2011, but after that leads the H2H; and overall leads the H2H 22-17.


Thus, given both these reasons, is it really not understandable that people say Roger Federer despite being an all time great, is not the GOAT?
 
Last edited:

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
1/ Lack of Competition at his Prime
I believe the lack of world class competition at his prime (away from clay) was due to the shortage of ATG players playing at a sustained high level in his age group (ie +/- 3 years).
This statistic, researched by ATP.com, in my eyes reveals a lot:
Quote:
Between the period 2004-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin did put together.
This list consists of every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic, as well as many others.
The above stat is not me making a case for or against Murray (I recognise that Federer still wins majority of Slam matches against him), but it showcases how poor Federer's contemporaries were. How could all those players combined only get 3 wins in all competitions against Federer between 2004-2008, while Murray got 4?

Or shows how good Federer was, you know--that he had very few poor match-ups.

Not to mention that Agassi was old, Hewitt and Safin injured.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
Not to mention that Agassi was old, Hewitt and Safin injured.

I think that backs up my point even more.
I recognise that some of Federer's peers may have been injured for long periods of times, but is not that of huge advantage to Federer?

I mean Hewitt can't trouble Federer from a operation room, can he?
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
This is my first account on the forum.

/Sigh

Then I guess *******s really are limited in their attacks on Fed.

I think that backs up my point even more.
I recognise that some of Federer's peers may have been injured for long periods of times, but is not that of huge advantage to Federer?

I mean Hewitt can't trouble Federer from a operation room, can he?

That says nothing about the era itself. Fed was strong for his era. That doesn't show that his era was weak.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
This avalanche of threads on Roger since he lost to Nadal have to stop, it's getting pathetic and boring. That latest defeat doesn't change anything about the rivalry or the H2H. Why is everyone making such a big deal about it? The guy had already lost 22 times to Nadal, one more doesn't change anything at this point. Anyone that follows tennis knows Rafa owns Roger in majors and pretty much everywhere outdoor, indoor is another story, and guess what, they will probably meet a few other times this year and Rafa will probably beat him again.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
This avalanche of threads on Roger since he lost to Nadal have to stop, it's getting pathetic and boring. That latest defeat doesn't change anything about the rivalry or the H2H. Why is everyone making such a big deal about it? The guy had already lost 22 times to Nadal, one more doesn't change anything at this point. Anyone that follows tennis knows Rafa owns Roger in majors and pretty much everywhere outdoor, indoor is another story, and guess what, they will probably meet a few other times this year and Rafa will probably beat him again.

Valid point, but if you want to post in this thread why not actually respond to the OP? I think he made some great points.

From 2004-2008, Murray was 17-22 right? How is he beating Federer more than all of his GS final opponents before 2008 and other contemporaries combined?
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Excuse the newbie. Its his/her first time. But OP these arguments have been made here and refuted and made again and refuted and have gone back and forth for ages in this forum. Those arguments are ages old.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Excuse the newbie. Its his/her first time. But OP these arguments have been made here and refuted and made again and refuted and have gone back and forth for ages in this forum. Those arguments are ages old.

I've never heard the point about murray, have you?
 
I would start this article off by saying that I have a huge amount of respect for Roger Federer, and despite not being a fan of his I do like watching him play tennis.

I would also add that I think he is right up there in the pantheon of greats, but I do not think he is right the at the top of the list despite having the best stats, for the following reasons:



1/ Lack of Competition at his Prime

I believe the lack of world class competition at his prime (away from clay) was due to the shortage of ATG players playing at a sustained high level in his age group (ie +/- 3 years).

This statistic, researched by ATP.com, in my eyes reveals a lot:





The above stat is not me making a case for or against Murray (I recognise that Federer still wins majority of Slam matches against him), but it showcases how poor Federer's contemporaries were. How could all those players combined only get 3 wins in all competitions against Federer between 2004-2008, while Murray got 4?



Now we go to 2007, and see the top 3: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

This is when Federer is 26/27 years old- so players around his age should be around prime level. But wait... at spot 2 and 3 we have 2 youngsters; Nadal and Djokovic despite bring pre-prime are higher in the rankings than players Federer's age, who should be at prime level. Does that not say a lot?



None of Federer's potential rivals his age were able to maintain a sustained challenge to Federer:



Where did Safin disappear after AO 2005? Why did Hewitt decline to the extent that he exited the top 10 after 2005, and has never managed to come back in the top 10. Why did Nalbandian stall in slams so much- after 2003 he never even reached a slam final. Why did he underperform so much?

The only player who was Federer's age who regularly played him in Grand Slam finals was Andy Roddick. With all respect to Roddick, he had a great serve, but his groundstrokes and baseline play was abysmal. Only in 2009 when Stefanki improved Roddick from the baseline did he come close to challenging Federer and impress me as an all round player- watch him in his prime getting absolutely torn to shreds by a young Murray in Wimbledon 2006.



So to conclude point number 1, this gives Roger Federer a huge advantage. He has no 'great' contemporaries who can launch a sustained challenge, and the world class opposition he has to worry about are much younger players; this gives him a window off opportunity to accumulate sensational statistics relatively easily between 2004 and 2007 (exception being Nadal on clay- he was great on clay even when he was very young).





2/ Roger Federer struggled against his greatest rival

Federer's head to head against his greatest rival Nadal is not even close, and since Nadal won their first match on the hard court of Miami in 2004 (yes hard court... not clay), Federer has never led Nadal in the H2H. Nadal leads currently 23-10, and 9-2 in slams. Even if you take away Nadal's favourite surface, clay, he STILL leads the H2H.

Can you remember any all time great across any sport struggling against their biggest rival to that extent... Federer has simply been dominated. Borg, Nadal, Sampras etc. have never been dominated to such an extent by a major rival.

People say 'match up issues'- but this itself is an admission of a weakness- surely the GOAT would be so good that finding a player who could cut him apart would be impossible? And secondly, isn't part of being a great having the ability to overcome such challenges. Nadal struggled against Djokovic in 2011, but after that leads the H2H; and overall leads the H2H 22-17.





Thus, given both these reasons, is it really not understandable that people say Roger Federer despite being an all time great, is not the GOAT?


Excellent points . Very well put. The stat was good to know but I guess everyone here know it more or less. I agree. Federer is great. But Nadal brought Sampras back onto the table. There is no Goat. But I would rate Nadal little higher than Federer
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
I don't buy the weak era argument at all. But there have been tons of threads about it and its been argued till death and nearly put to rest. Not to mention the fact that a 32 year old Federer just beat Murray. Imagine if he was in his prime. The only player Federer has had a problem with and will have a problem with is Nadal.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
I don't buy the weak era argument at all. But there have been tons of threads about it and its been argued till death and nearly put to rest. Not to mention the fact that a 32 year old Federer just beat Murray. Imagine if he was in his prime. The only player Federer has had a problem with and will have a problem with is Nadal.

Come on, you know Roger is currently perfectly healthy, and Murray is just coming off back surgery....

How does Federer not have a problem with Murray or Djokovic? Losing H2H to Murray and Djokovic has beaten him 15 times....

Likewise, I can say the only player Nadal struggles with is Djokovic and he still leads the H2H 22-17 and 8-3 in grand slams.
 
Last edited:
I don't buy the weak era argument at all. But there have been tons of threads about it and its been argued till death and nearly put to rest. Not to mention the fact that a 32 year old Federer just beat Murray. Imagine if he was in his prime. The only player Federer has had a problem with and will have a problem with is Nadal.


Funny how you can compare Federer and Laver or Federer and Sampras and call him greatest or greatest of his era. But can't compare two eras and see if it's weak or not.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Come on, you know Roger is currently perfectly healthy, and Murray is just coming off back surgery....

How does Federer not have a problem with Murray or Djokovic? Losing H2H to Murray and Djokovic has beaten him 15 times....

Djokovic has beaten Nadal more than 15 times.

31 year old Fed was number 1 when the three other competitors were 24-26. Enough said, that Fed was numero uno across all eras.

302 weeks at number 1 proves that.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Come on, you know Roger is currently perfectly healthy, and Murray is just coming off back surgery....

How does Federer not have a problem with Murray or Djokovic? Losing H2H to Murray and Djokovic has beaten him 15 times....

Apologies! I should have made myself a bit more clear.

Murray and Djokovic have directly not denied Federer any slams. Federer has beaten Murray in all the finals that they have met. And Djokovic only started beating Fed in slams CONSISTENTLY after 2010 (an almost 30 year Roger Federer). And not to mention Djokovic had to save two match points on two occasions to beat Fed (USO 2010 and 2011). Now imagine if Fed was in his prime, how would that have turned out? Federer also beat Murray and Djokovic back to back to win Wimby.

The only person thats ever directly denied Federer a slam (apart from the one final with Delpo) or has caused major trouble for Fed time and time again has been Nadal.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has beaten Nadal more than 15 times.

31 year old Fed was number 1 when the three other competitors were 24-26. Enough said, that Fed was numero uno across all eras.

302 weeks at number 1 proves that.

Yet Nadal leads the H2H 22-17 and 8-3 in grand slams which I just added above.

31 year old Fed benefitted from subpar performances from the other top 3. All he needed was to consistently make GS semis and win Wimbledon. Of course winning Wimbledon was a great achievement, but he's not like he started consistently beating the other big 3...

How many of his weeks at Number 1 came between 2004-2008?
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Apologies! I should have made myself a bit more clear.

Murray and Djokovic have directly not denied Federer any slams. Federer has beaten Murray in all the finals that they have met. And Djokovic only started beating Fed in slams CONSISTENTLY after 2010 (an almost 30 year Roger Federer). And not to mention Djokovic had to save two match points on two occasions to beat Fed (USO 2010 and 2011). Now imagine if Fed was in his prime, how would that have turned out? Federer also beat Murray and Djokovic back to back to win Wimby.

The only person thats ever directly denied Federer a slam (apart from the one final with Delpo) or has caused major trouble for Fed time and time again has been Nadal.

I'd say Djokovic beating Federer 5 times in slams would be directly denying him a slam, no?

Why not imagine if Djokovic was in his prime for most of their meetings... That can go both ways.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Yet Nadal leads the H2H 22-17 and 8-3 in grand slams which I just added above.

31 year old Fed benefitted from subpar performances from the other top 3. All he needed was to consistently make GS semis and win Wimbledon. Of course winning Wimbledon was a great achievement, but he's not like he started consistently beating the other big 3...

How many of his weeks at Number 1 came between 2004-2008?

What is so special about 2004-08 ? If Nadal was so great, why couldnt he become number 1, since he started winning titles and majors from 2004/05 ?
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
What is so special about 2004-08 ? If Nadal was so great, why couldnt he become number 1, since he started winning titles and majors from 2004/05 ?
What's special is that Nadal from ages 19-22 was the number 2 a majority of the time, when he was only getting good consistent results on clay.

He couldnt be number one because he hadnt matured outside of clay.... The accurate comparison would be to compare Nadal (ages 17-22) to Federer at the same age. Nadal comes out on top...
 
Last edited:

RF20Lennon

Legend
Yet Nadal leads the H2H 22-17 and 8-3 in grand slams which I just added above.

31 year old Fed benefitted from subpar performances from the other top 3. All he needed was to consistently make GS semis and win Wimbledon. Of course winning Wimbledon was a great achievement, but he's not like he started consistently beating the other big 3...

How many of his weeks at Number 1 came between 2004-2008?

2010(latter half)-2012

So here we have Federer off his prime and Djokovic getting into his prime.

The H2H is Djokovic leading 8-7.

Toronto 2010- Federer
USO 2010- Djokovic
Shanghai 2010- Federer
Basel 2010- Federer
London WTF 2010- Federer
AO 2011- Djokovic
Dubai 2011- Djokovic
IW 2011- Djokovic
RG 2011- Federer
USO 2011- Djokovic
Rome 2012- Djokovic
FO 2012-Djokovic
Wimby 2012- Federer
Cincy 2012- Federer (First set BAGEL)
WTF 2012- Djokovic

Fed was either pushing 30 or past 30 in all those matches. Now Imagine if it was PRIME Federer. Federer just matches up well against Djokovic and is always mentally stronger against Murray in the big matches.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
I'd say Djokovic beating Federer 5 times in slams would be directly denying him a slam, no?

Why not imagine if Djokovic was in his prime for most of their meetings... That can go both ways.

Not really. Federer could have lost to Nadal in USO 2010 and 2011 for example.

Yeah we can imagine Djokovic in his prime but if a 31 year old Federer can bagel him in Cincy, then prime for prime isn't looking very good now is it? :)

Although I must add Novak has the advantage in Australia prime for prime but other than that Federer would win almost everywhere else. (except a few odd matches here and there).
 
Last edited:

drm025

Hall of Fame
2010(latter half)-2012

So here we have Federer off his prime and Djokovic getting into his prime.

The H2H is Djokovic leading 8-7.

Toronto 2010- Federer
USO 2010- Djokovic
Shanghai 2010- Federer
Basel 2010- Federer
London WTF 2010- Federer
AO 2011- Djokovic
Dubai 2011- Djokovic
IW 2011- Djokovic
RG 2011- Federer
USO 2011- Djokovic
Rome 2012- Djokovic
FO 2012-Djokovic
Wimby 2012- Federer
Cincy 2012- Federer (First set BAGEL)
WTF 2012- Djokovic

Fed was either pushing 30 or past 30 in all those matches. Now Imagine if it was PRIME Federer. Federer just matches up well against Djokovic and is always mentally stronger against Murray in the big matches.

I agree that Federer matches up well against Djokovic, never said he didn't. Just said that Djokovic troubled him, which is true if you look at the H2H. Did you watch Djokovic's level of play during that first set bagel? Hardly prime level from him....
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Not really. Federer could have lost to Nadal in USO 2010 and 2011 for example.

Yeah we can imagine Djokovic in his prime but if a 31 year old Federer can bagel him in Cincy, then prime for prime isn't looking very good now is it? :)

Although I must add Novak has the advantage in Australia prime for prime but other than that Federer would win almost everywhere else. (except a few odd matches here and there).

Already addressed the bagel, prime for prime, right....

I think 2011 Novak would beg to differ with your last sentence, but it's all speculation anyway.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
....1/ Lack of Competition at his Prime
I believe the lack of world class competition at his prime (away from clay) was due to the shortage of ATG players playing at a sustained high level in his age group (ie +/- 3 years).
OR, he was simply too good for them all. A great player can't win can they - if they do people say they had it easy, if they lose they aren't great.

So, given your comment about his greatest rival let's ponder another viewpoint: how can a player be considered great when they were losing before meeting the top player so often even if they did have a winning record over him? What is more important historically in tennis: winning the trophies or beating one particular player more often than not? The former is all-important along with ranking dominance until and only until the achievements between the players are so close as to necessitate looking at other metrics when comparing them.

Where was Nadal all those times on non-clay courts while he was building up this winning record over Federer? I'll tell you where, he was losing to players who Federer then generally hammered.

So, what is a better indicator of greatness: to lose to another great player on their best surface, or to lose to nobodies and avoid that great player more often than not?
 
Last edited:

drm025

Hall of Fame
Yeah but 2011 Djokovic lost to a 30 year old Federer in a slam.

That was after, what, a 43-match winning streak? Can you imagine the pressure building match after match? Roger came out determined to win and he was able to beat Djokovic.

If you ask me you can't look at one match here and one match there. You have to look at the overall picture and 2011 Novak dominated everyone and qualified for the World Tour Finals earlier in the season then had ever been done before.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
OR, he was simply too good for them all. A great player can't win can they - if they do people say they had it easy, if they lose they aren't great.

Too good for them all except for young Murray?? The fact that he lost to young Murray more than all the other top players combined says a lot about how they compare to the current Big 4, Murray being the weakest.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
That was after, what, a 43-match winning streak? Can you imagine the pressure building match after match? Roger came out determined to win and he was able to beat Djokovic.

If you ask me you can't look at one match here and one match there. You have to look at the overall picture and 2011 Novak dominated everyone and qualified for the World Tour Finals earlier in the season then had ever been done before.

Yeah I agree with you! But all I'm saying is Federer matches up well against Djokovic, Djokovic hasn't directly denied Federer a slam, he has never been a major thorn in his way, and even past his prime Federer was able to handle him.

He had issues with Murray but never when it mattered which was in GS finals.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Where was Nadal all those times on non-clay courts while he was building up this winning record over Federer? I'll tell you where, he was losing to players who Federer then generally hammered.

So, what is a better indicator of greatness: to lose to another great player on their best surface, or to lose to nobodies and avoid that great player more often than not?

You do realize you're talking about Nadal from ages 17-22 right? Who was Federer losing to then?

Either way, all this talk of avoiding Federer is absolutely ridiculous. You're acting as if Nadal was purposely losing matches. Are you saying Nadal was good enough even then to make any final that he wanted?

What's a better indication of greatness, not being to able to overcome your greatest rival at their favorite grand slam after 5 attempts, or only needing 3 to overcome you rival at his favorite grand slam? I haven't seen this brought up often enough. Nadal has had the last laugh in this rivalry. And it is a very hardy laugh.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Yeah I agree with you! But all I'm saying is Federer matches up well against Djokovic, Djokovic hasn't directly denied Federer a slam, he has never been a major thorn in his way, and even past his prime Federer was able to handle him.

He had issues with Murray but never when it mattered which was in GS finals.

Still don't agree, if he loses to Djokovic in a slam then Djokovic denied him the slam. Not any potential next opponent. There is no looking ahead, ask the players themselves. They will tell you the best way is to go match by match. Your last opponent is the one that denied you the slam.

Also, I'd say coming back from 2 sets down and match point down would be a pretty big thorn.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Too good for them all except for young Murray?? The fact that he lost to young Murray more than all the other top players combined says a lot about how they compare to the current Big 4, Murray being the weakest.
Someone always has your number. Go look at the list of nobodies who had winning records over Sampras.
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
One thing that's seldom mentioned when discussing Federer's claim to Goathood is the fact that he won eleven of sixteen majors in a four-year period. That's eleven complete majors, not the five-round variety that another candidate for the title won in Australia in the 1960s. Who else dominated to such an extent for such a period? In that time (2004-2007) only one year could actually be called weak (in terms of strength near the top of the rankings) and that was 2006. I agree that the recent period with the Big Four has been stronger, but not to the extent that it trivializes what Federer accomplished.
 
M

monfed

Guest
This weak era argument is really funny. Should we then take into account Nadal's cupcake draws, because he has got very kind draws in his HC slams. USO 10,13 and now AO 13. He escaped a Djokovic defeat in RG 11 too. Didn't face anyone of note in Wim 10 too. RG 10 was a bit of a joke too but atleast he faced Soderling in the final. Let's cancel his 5 slams and bump him down to 8 slams.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
One thing that's seldom mentioned when discussing Federer's claim to Goathood is the fact that he won eleven of sixteen majors in a four-year period. That's eleven complete majors, not the five-round variety that another candidate for the title won in Australia in the 1960s. Who else dominated to such an extent for such a period? In that time (2004-2007) only one year could actually be called weak (in terms of strength near the top of the rankings) and that was 2006. I agree that the recent period with the Big Four has been stronger, but not to the extent that it trivializes what Federer accomplished.

And I hope no one is saying that those slams are trivial. All credit to Federer. My biggest issue is with the number of weeks at No. 1. And I think that.s where Federer benefitted the most by coming into his own when he did. I just dont know how you could expect any one player today to amass over 300 weeks at number 1. The competition at the top is just too great.
 

Raz11

Professional
1. If Federer had no competition off clay then I have no idea what kind of competition Nadal had on clay.

2. H2H is flawed. Reasons
70% of their HC matches came during 2009 - 2014
During this time, Nadal won 3/3 HC slam titles and made 5/5 HC Slam finals
During this time, Federer won 1/9 HC Slam titles and made 3/11 HC slam finals.

All but one was played during the 1st half which comprises of slow HC tournaments and the only time they played on a medium court was when Nadal was arguably at the height of his HC game and Federer would go on to lose to Robredo in a couple of weeks at USO.
 
M

monfed

Guest
The only competetion Nadal had on clay was a weak-era clown Federer whose worst surface is clay and Nicholas Almagro, Nadal's favourite lapdog. :lol:
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Someone always has your number. Go look at the list of nobodies who had winning records over Sampras.

So now Murray has Federer's number? I wouldn't say that. I think the point is Murray showed that he can be competitive and so had Nadal and Djokovic. None of the other top players could do that, and I cannot give all of the credit to Federer's play when the other members of the Big 4 were able to be competitive.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
What is so special about 2004-08 ? If Nadal was so great, why couldnt he become number 1, since he started winning titles and majors from 2004/05 ?

Tennisaddict, this is an interesting question.
One could ask: If I claim that Nadal is a great player, then why could he also not win so many Grand Slams between 2004-2007?

My simple answer would be he was below his prime level (apart from clay where he was a natural... he had to adapt to HC and grass as he got older) between the ages of 18-22.
It's logical to assume that if you wanted to take advantage of a weaker period, you would want your prime years to coincide with it?
 

firepanda

Professional
When you only have two arguments against you, that's pretty good, particularly since one of them is the unreliable 'weak era' arguement. No-one's perfect, but you can have a better record than the rest, as Federer does.

Reasons why Nadal isn't the GOAT:
1.Doesn't have the most slams
2.Doesn't have WTF
3.Doesn't have enough weeks at #1
4.Skewed slam distribution

I personally think 3 and 4 are rubbish, but these are common enough arguments against Nadal. Shows that only having two minor objections is actually pretty good.
 
In fed`s time , we had a better top-20 in general than now , now we have only 3 players and the rest is bad bad.

Players like old agassi , coria , davydenko , roddick , haas , hewitt , nalbandian , henman , safin , gonzalez , ljubicic , ancic ,blake and others were guys much more difficult for the best players than today`s top-20.

hewitt semiretired beat potro in us open and queens for example or haas with 35 years old beating nole in miami 2013 when he was the nº1 , robredo after a great great injury returned in great form , ferrer with 30 years old was nº3 and many examples.

in fed`s times we have more variety too.

MURRAY never was a real danger for fed in slams , he faced federer in gs when roger past his peak and federer won all the matches against him in slams and in 3 finals too , MURRAY ONLY VICTORY WAS AGAINST A TIRED AND WITH BACK PROBLEMS FEDERER AFTER A LONG MATCH AGAINST TSONGA.....AND EVEN WITH THAT HE NEEDED 5 SETS AGAINS A FEDERER WHO COULDN`T EVEN SERVE THAT DAY!!!!

and djokovic started to won with consistly after 2010.....especially in 2011 and even in that year federer beat him in RG and had two matchpoints in us open.

murray and nole would never be a real danger for peak federer like nadal was and is in all his career.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
You do realize you're talking about Nadal from ages 17-22 right? Who was Federer losing to then?
Irrelevant. People mature at greatly different ages. If Nadal was mature enough to be winning big titles on the tour you can't play that card.
Either way, all this talk of avoiding Federer is absolutely ridiculous. You're acting as if Nadal was purposely losing matches. Are you saying Nadal was good enough even then to make any final that he wanted?
Nope. Nowhere was that suggested or implied at all, learn to read what is written - not some biased between-the-lines imagining. Nadal was simply not as good off his preferred surface as he was on it - a trait which exists in basically every person who ever picked up a tennis racquet. The surface factor does make a difference even if it doesn't nowdays as much as it used to (when the speeds varied a lot more). For Federer it made less difference than for most players which is why he constantly made it deep into clay tournaments as well a being everywhere else.

What's a better indication of greatness, not being to able to overcome your greatest rival at their favorite grand slam after 5 attempts, or only needing 3 to overcome you rival at his favorite grand slam? I haven't seen this brought up often enough. Nadal has had the last laugh in this rivalry. And it is a very hardy laugh.
Neither. The metrics by which tennis players are rated across all of tennis's history have been about total achievements - titles and ranking points. It has never, until invented by Nadal/Federer fans, included any particular head to head.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
1. If Federer had no competition off clay then I have no idea what kind of competition Nadal had on clay.
Well he had Federer (who as I said I consider as one of the top few greats) to beat on clay, and now in recent years he has done well against his major rival Djokovic.
Meanwhile Federer had relatively easy competition in his prime years on 3 of 4 Slams, and struggled against his main rival.
 
Top