NatF
Bionic Poster
So surfaces and old age don't factor into matchups? Shame Nadal couldn't use his winning head to head with Federer to win more slams from 2005-2007.
Why the GOAT does NOT exist
- Thread starter Blocker
- Start date
So surfaces and old age don't factor into matchups? Shame Nadal couldn't use his winning head to head with Federer to win more slams from 2005-2007.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Sorry, sureshs, you have already stated that you believe Federer is the GOAT. See below:
Everyone knows how that turned out.
Please resume making terrible posts. :lol:
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
The head to head is actually not "simple". It takes takes some understanding of tennis to grasp it, which some people like yourself don't understand.
Playing a match on clay is not the same as hardcourt or indoor. You understand this much, right?
Therefore, the head to head will be different according to surfaces. They have played the vast majority of their matches on clay, Nadal's BEST SURFACE, Federer's WORST.
Nadal was not good enough to even reach Fed in many hardcourt or indoor tournaments where he would have been beaten.
If you don't grasp these things then you just don't understand tennis very well.
Think of it like this:
Right now you, surehs, have an EVEN head-to-head with Federer, the possible greatest player ever. Pretty awesome right? Not really, because its not that simple. You aren't good enough to qualify and make the first round of an ATP event where you would be destroyed by Federer 1st round, should you draw him. It's the exact same with Nadal, he failed to make later rounds in tournaments on Fed's best surface whereas Fed advanced to meet Nadal on Nadal's best surface.
Take some time to think about it, maybe you'll understand it at some point
Last edited:
Neither Fed nor Nadal orchestrated their meetings on specific surfaces. It just happened. There was no power up above manipulating their meetings.
Talking about my head-to-head with Federer shows that you still haven't understood the meaning of statistically significant sample set. It is precisely for that reason that I warned about it in my previous post. 0 is not a statistically significant number. Both Fed and Nadal have played a large number of tournaments and met a large number of times, for the results to be statistically significant.
The-Champ
Legend
Actually, Laver said recently that Nadal and Fed are about equal. Agassi said in one of his recent interviews that Nadal and Federer are probably the two greatest players ever.
- Former greats are very supportive of the current generation but we know that Rafa hasn't surpassed Pete yet.
Convenient that you have an acceptable excuse as to why the H2H isn't relevant when discussing Rosol, lol.
Tennis is a tournament sport played against the field. Federer has been the most successful against his field, therefore he is GOAT.
If tennis was a "champion vs. contender" sport (like boxing) his H2H with Nadal would be considered (but probably thrown away as being clay-skewed). However, H2H is simply not how the pro tour works.
If tennis was a "champion vs. contender" sport (like boxing) his H2H with Nadal would be considered (but probably thrown away as being clay-skewed). However, H2H is simply not how the pro tour works.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
The suresh has sure(sh)ly spoken. Davydenko>Nadal!
If we consider your silly theory, then Nads isn't even the GOAT on clay, since he doesn't have a winning record against a former French Open champion, and all their matches were on clay.
Your argument is silly, because the other player is not a GOAT candidate.
forzamilan90
Legend
I think in sports you have this thing where the sport has evolved enough to where competitively it has fully established a core, it has found its identity, and a measuring stick can be established. No way in hell I would say William Renshaw is as good as his 7 Wimbledon titles make him out to be (especially considering the rules of the championship match back in those days), or that whiskey drinking between sets Jack Crawford can be compared to a modern day athlete, or that the 200 “titles” Rod Laver won are relevant to the way the modern game is played and the amount of events pros enter today. Whatever it was for its time, great, props to it, but modern day tennis is a different animal. Athletically at least, it’s no contest. Add to that uniformity of the tour too.
With Federer in tennis, at least hopefully we all are cool with calling him the greatest in the Open Era. If you don’t agree with that, well I am sorry but you are just wrong and oblivious to facts. Now is Federer the best ever? I think so (especially since I think Open Era>>>Pre Open Era) and frankly he’s the best candidate for that, just as Michael Jordan is the greatest candidate for best basketball player (I see them as a similar figure actually, more on that I delve upon below). The sport has evolved, is more competitive, more established, grander. Fed came, he saw, he conquered and we all have proof and undisputable numbers (plus footage). There are no myths or history essays, no hypothetical scenarios here, no amateur vs pro dilemmas, plus his career isn’t even done and already he’s the most legitimate example of tennis success and GOAThood, or at least as close as you can get to it (wow moment: you have to add up Nadal, Djokovic and Murray’s slam counts to equal that of Federer).
A lot of haters are clinging on to H2H debates vs one particular player, but Nadal still couldn’t win the war vs Fed despite winning key individual battles (see titles, see #1 rankings, see records for Fed vs those achieved by Nadal), and that’s with the favorable match up and playing Fed on his favorite surface, while not making finals on Fed’s best surfaces during Fed’s prime.
There are some people here saying how Fed didn’t win all 4 majors in one year, which is nitpicking at one particular measure of greatness that Budge and Laver achieved rather than seeing the whole spectrum with Fed (find a record they didn’t achieve that Fed has and turn that argument around). Take Michael Jordan for example. He didn’t average a triple double over the course of a season (Robertson), didn’t score a 100 point game (Chamberlain), trails in NBA titles count (Russell) and MVPs (Jabaar) but is still the greatest ever right? But Fed didn’t win 4 majors in one year so Laver>>>Federer? Get real. The definition of a complete player, with magic on the court, spectacular plays, people’s champion, individual records that will stand the test of time, establishing the measuring stick for all to follow, while having the most majors and most of the important records that matter during the contemporary epoch of tennis. Fed’s the GOAT.
With Federer in tennis, at least hopefully we all are cool with calling him the greatest in the Open Era. If you don’t agree with that, well I am sorry but you are just wrong and oblivious to facts. Now is Federer the best ever? I think so (especially since I think Open Era>>>Pre Open Era) and frankly he’s the best candidate for that, just as Michael Jordan is the greatest candidate for best basketball player (I see them as a similar figure actually, more on that I delve upon below). The sport has evolved, is more competitive, more established, grander. Fed came, he saw, he conquered and we all have proof and undisputable numbers (plus footage). There are no myths or history essays, no hypothetical scenarios here, no amateur vs pro dilemmas, plus his career isn’t even done and already he’s the most legitimate example of tennis success and GOAThood, or at least as close as you can get to it (wow moment: you have to add up Nadal, Djokovic and Murray’s slam counts to equal that of Federer).
A lot of haters are clinging on to H2H debates vs one particular player, but Nadal still couldn’t win the war vs Fed despite winning key individual battles (see titles, see #1 rankings, see records for Fed vs those achieved by Nadal), and that’s with the favorable match up and playing Fed on his favorite surface, while not making finals on Fed’s best surfaces during Fed’s prime.
There are some people here saying how Fed didn’t win all 4 majors in one year, which is nitpicking at one particular measure of greatness that Budge and Laver achieved rather than seeing the whole spectrum with Fed (find a record they didn’t achieve that Fed has and turn that argument around). Take Michael Jordan for example. He didn’t average a triple double over the course of a season (Robertson), didn’t score a 100 point game (Chamberlain), trails in NBA titles count (Russell) and MVPs (Jabaar) but is still the greatest ever right? But Fed didn’t win 4 majors in one year so Laver>>>Federer? Get real. The definition of a complete player, with magic on the court, spectacular plays, people’s champion, individual records that will stand the test of time, establishing the measuring stick for all to follow, while having the most majors and most of the important records that matter during the contemporary epoch of tennis. Fed’s the GOAT.
Last edited:
Well, how does it work? It is only in the YEC that a loser can go on to win. In every other tournament, each match is a knockout.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Davydenko > Nadal?
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Davydenko destroyed Nadal on GS tournaments.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
One could argue, nor is Nadal.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Nadal : 102 weeks at #1
Sampras : 286 weeks at #1
How could a player who only ranked #1 for 102 weeks be the GOAT? He just wasn't dominant enough for long enough to be the GOAT.
It works like this: tennis has tournaments. The guy who wins a tournament is declared the best (of the week). The guy who wins the most important tournament is the best - of all time.
It does not matter if the guy lost 100% of his matches to another guy, but won the most tournaments. It does not matter if your weaknesses are concentrated in one single H2H, or spread evenly across the field. It does not matter if you get injured, since fitness is part of the game.
Winning tournaments is all that tennis is about. Not personal vendettas - tournaments. Grand slams first, WTF next, Masters, 500s and 250s.
Countries compete in Olympics and Davis Cup the same way: the country that wins more of those is GOAT. Not the country that happens to beat some other country H2H.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Yeah, simple as that. I'd much rather lose everytime I faced Nadal in the finals of a Grand Slam than lose to Davydenko, Gonzalez, Rosol and Youzhny in earlier rounds.
tennisaddict, my op was quite balanced and it critiqued all the GOAT candidates, not just Federer. I said no one is the GOAT. I didn't single out Federer. I ruled every candidate out.
I am not a Federer hater, I think he has been awesome for tennis. But I can't accept that the greatest player of all time gets continuously beaten by a rival in his own era and continuously is referred to as the GOAT. How can anyone, forget that it's Roger, be called GOAT and yet has such a poor record against another player who just happens to be his major rival? If he had lost once or twice to Nadal, I could accept that, but he loses to Nadal in grand slams time and time and time again. What's their H2H? 8-2 or something like that? Come on, you think the GOAT should be 2-8 against anybody? You know how riduculous that seems to the neutral fan? A guy is 2-8 in the grans dlams and is considered the GOAT. That is absurd.
I understand that people say that aside, he has won the most slams and that he should be the GOAT because of that fact. But I will reiterate it until I'm blue in the face...slams were not always the currency by which we measure tennis greatness.
But this is not to say that slams should be discounted. They should be counted, but they should be counted in addition to other factors such as, gee I don't, restoring some balance against a guy who continuously kicks your ass maybe?
Imagine a boxer who is wins the most boxing titles and is considered the GOAT boxer, but in his time, had 3 fights with another boxer and got KO's each time? In your eyes is that boxer really the GOAT? Someone floored him in 3 fights. Well this is the same thing. Fed has the most slams yes but there is a player out there who, when put on the other side of the net, floors Federer.
Then Laver would not even be a GOAT candidate because Sampras and Federer have more Slams.
And on the other hand, since he had so many more doubles and mixed doubles titles, he would be a GOAT.
Not it does not work that way.
And most important tournament? What is that? And Nadal has won that too LOL.
Variety of tournaments is also important. Sampras could not win the FO, so that destroys his claim to GOAT. Federer could not win the Olympics gold in a good number of tries - it is much more pressure because it comes only once in 4 years while Slams are a dime a dozen. Nadal handled the pressure better.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
The Olympics Federer took part in were played on Hardcourts and at Wimbledon. The guy has 9 Hardcourt Slams and 7 Wimbledons. I think it's safe to say that he has nothing to prove on those surfaces.
Why not, he's a slam champion. Oh is it because his resume isn't as strong, sounds familiar.
I'll put it to you that Federer should be greatful Nadal never progressed more in these events, because if he had, more likley than less likely, Nadal would have beaten Fed.
I was at this year's AO SF between Federer and Nadal. Great match. Fed was on fire, playing the better tennis, was in great form, Nadal was also injured. Fed won the first set. Yet in spite of all this, Nadal still beat him. For the first 3 sets, Fed threw everything at Nadal, including the kitchen sink. Yet by the early stages of the 4th set, he was dropping his head. He knew that he had just given everything he had against Nadal and then some, and was still a set down.
I keep reading this "oh if Nadal had progressed more in slams Fed would even up". Based on what has transpired to date, that's absolute rubbish. What would have happened in reality, based on what has transpired to date, is that Nadal would have increased his H2H, won more slams, and Fed would have won less slams. Not trying to be a troll or anything, just pointing out the way it is.
So bottom line, Fed should be thankful that he gets to hide behind the clay argument. Had Nadal progressed more often in other slams, it would have really opened Federer up.
He cried when he lost to Blake in the Olympics. 9 and 7 are just numbers. What if it was 8 and 6? Meaningless argument. Fed could not perform under pressure, Nadal could.
If Nadal is not the GOAT, Fed cannot be it either. Their fates are twined together.
dominikk1985
Legend
being the GOAT doesn't mean being perfect.
federers getting owned by nadal is a serious flaw in his career. tennis is a head to head sport and the rivalries matter. people want to see the big matchups like macenroe-lendl or agassi-sampras.
however federer federer is still the best the game has seen. he is not a perfect dominator but there simply has not been someone better.
probably one day there will be one and then he will be the GOAT but until then it is federer.
federers getting owned by nadal is a serious flaw in his career. tennis is a head to head sport and the rivalries matter. people want to see the big matchups like macenroe-lendl or agassi-sampras.
however federer federer is still the best the game has seen. he is not a perfect dominator but there simply has not been someone better.
probably one day there will be one and then he will be the GOAT but until then it is federer.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
I see it now. You're a biased ***********. Sampras was regularly owned by Krajicek of all people. If anything, Sampras should be thankful that he didn't have to face Krajicek any more than he did, or else he'd be sitting on 10 Grand Slams. I'd much rather lose regularly to an 11-time Grand Slam champion like Nadal than lose to 1-time Champion Krajicek.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
What if he did? Because he cried, he's not the GOAT? LOL, he cried when he lost his first Basel final too. You know what's more glaring than Federer not having won the Olympics? Nadal not winning the Masters Cup. You get 4 times the opportunities at the Masters Cup as you get at the Olympics and yet, Nadal has never won it. How ridiculous is that, for "the GOAT"?
The YEC round robin where losers can win? Nadal is not a club player.
Olympics is a million times more prestigious tournament.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Yeah, at 750 points for the winner, it is a million-times more prestigious than a 1500-point event :lol: suresh, you make me laugh. And let's not forget about the "Real Slam" :twisted:
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
In another case, it seems that this argument does not apply
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
I, personally, rate the Olympics and the Masters Cup equal. I was simply ridiculing the "million times" hyperbole sureshs resorted to. Anyway, what's that case you are referring to?
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
The answer is very simple, Monte Carlo Rolex Masters
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
I don't get what you're trying to say.
Oh you know, the haters can't accept that the guy who has been ranked #1 the most and has also won the most majors is the GOAT, typical Wednesday afternoon nonsense, it'll start over again next week, but Fed will still be the GOAT.
sonicare
Hall of Fame
Actually..the most rare tournament which only came along one time was blue clay. And on that, Nadal couldn't even stand up straight. kept slipping. Guess who won the only ever blue clay tournament in the history of our sport. ROGER MOTHER****ING FEDERER.
So by your own logic, Federe handled pressure the best
sonicare
Hall of Fame
There's noone out there that can refute ******* arguments better than you
I actually took a logic and philosophy module in my first year UNI..
Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than absolutely owning *******s and religious people, both equally irrational.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Oh, high five. I find religious people irrational, too.
sonicare
Hall of Fame
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Obviously you've not taken on the single most important factor pertaining to head-to-heads: They don't matter squat
They never have and never will - except to partisan hacks clutching at straws.
Why? Because beating someone per se is not an achievement in tennis. There are no trophies and no awards for having beaten any particular player. What matter is titles won. That is it.
I can hear you saying: but if Federer was better how come he lost to Nadal more often than not? Simple: because Federer was getting to finals in 9 out of 10 tournaments in his prime, during which Nadal was only getting to 5 out of 10 finals. He was losing to guys Federer later beat.
So, if you want to do a real calculation of it: take all the times they beat each other and then add on all the times each of them beat someone who's ousted the other later in a tournament. The head to head would add another 30 wins to Federer, but only 3 or 4 to Nadal - simply because Nadal was not good enough to challenge often enough even if his peak ability was as good as Federer's.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 14 no matter how you bake it.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker of Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Borg. And that's also not even considering the career slam he didn't achieve)
Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount of achievements at the highest level.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 7. Far more than double the amount.
Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker or Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Nadal)
Laver is the only person who there is a legitimate argument for considering him the GOAT - despite winning far fewer majors that Federer - he won the holy grail, the calendar slam which, depending who you speak to - trumps sheer numbers.
Outside of achievements the only real arguments that can be made that Federer isn't the (open era) GOAT have to delve into how hard the eras/competition were... Those debates are long and usually pointless.
Last edited:
World Beater
Hall of Fame
Sampras doesnt have much standing in the GOAT argument anymore, therefore his disciples have to claim that there is no such thing as GOAT...which of course is convenient.
Like I said, heard it all before. Comparing slams across different eras is like comparing shoe laces with spaceships.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Let's compare Federer and Sampras.
Federer has 17 Slams to Sampras's 14. (7/7 Wimbledons, 5/5 US Opens, 4/2 Australian Opens, 1/0 French Opens)
Federer has 6 TMC to Sampras's 5
Federer has 302 weeks at #1 to Sampras's 286
Federer has 24 Grand Slam finals to Sampras's 18
And you bring up Federer's head-to-head against Nadal? Sampras has a losing record against Krajicek of all people!
If anything is a fact, it's that Federer > Sampras. He even beat Sampras on Sampras's best surface (2001 Wimbledon, on fast Grass).
Face it, man. Federer destroyed Sampras's claims to being the GOAT. Just accept it
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Federer is the GOAT, no matter which argument you try to use.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Yeah, and 1-1 against Krajicek is something to be proud about? He is still 4-6 behind, which is rather shameful for a player of Sampras's stature, doncha think? Also, Federer, the "teary eyed" Federer who can't dominate his rival, is 1-0 against Sampras in Slams. On the fast Grass of Wimbledon, no less :lol: Besides, Federer has come from 2 sets down to beat Nadal before. You just don't know he did
Anyway, what are we arguing about here?
17 : 14
7:7
5:5
4:2
1:0
Federer would totally wipe the floor with Sampras on Clay and on Rebound Ace/Plexicushion. He even proved he could beat Sampras on fast Wimbledon grass, let alone the slow Grass of today. Federer would probably beat Sampras on all 3 surfaces, you know. What're you smoking with, "Sampras would be the last man standing"? :lol:
It's all about Sampras, and you know it. You don't have an argument to make for Sampras's GOAT-ness so now you're just arguing that there is no GOAT. And you have the audacity to suppose Sampras would be the "last man standing" if there were to be a knock-out tournament between all the GOAT candidates and still suggest this is not about Sampras :lol: Hilarious! If I'm Federer's dad, you must be Sampras's wife
Go back and read what I said again. I said Sampras would be the last man standing as long as Federer was on the other side of the draw and Nadal took him out. This is implying that if Sampras and Fed were on the same side of the draw, Fed would probably knock Sampras out. IMO Sampras would win on grass, Fed on clay and the hardcourt would be very close, but probably Federer just.
Sheesh, how is that being all about Sampras?
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Federer leads Nadal in the Grasscourt head-to-head and the Hardcourt head-to-head, in case you didn't know. Picking Federer would've made far more sense. Not that I would expect you to make the sensible choice
And you just now conceded that Federer would beat Sampras in your scenario. What makes you think Federer couldn't have beaten Nadal when he leads the head-to-head on two surfaces? Remember, you said all players were in their peak. Peak, or even prime, Federer, never lost to Nadal on Grass or Hards at Grand Slams. It was only post-2007 that he started losing to Nadal outside of Clay at Slams. Even if Federer would've lost to Nadal (which is certainly very possible), what makes you think Nadal could've made it far enough to meet Federer? That's the story of his life, right? That he's never made it far enough to meet prime-Federer on Hardcourt-Slams?
Federer leads Nadal in the Grasscourt head-to-head and the Hardcourt head-to-head, in case you didn't know. Picking Federer would've made far more sense. Not that I would expect you to make the sensible choice
And you just now conceded that Federer would beat Sampras in your scenario. What makes you think Federer couldn't have beaten Nadal when he leads the head-to-head on two surfaces? Remember, you said all players were in their peak. Peak, or even prime, Federer, never lost to Nadal on Grass or Hards at Grand Slams. It was only post-2007 that he started losing to Nadal outside of Clay at Slams. Even if Federer would've lost to Nadal (which is certainly very possible), what makes you think Nadal could've made it far enough to meet Federer? That's the story of his life, right? That he's never made it far enough to meet prime-Federer on Hardcourt-Slams?
I can only go by their hardcourt matches in the slams. I've seen two of them, live in fact, and in every saspect, Nadal had Federer covered. Just as you are trying to convey that Fed has Sampras' record covered, Nadal had Fed, on a tennis court seperated by a net, covered...twice.
Similar threads
- FedererWinsWimbledon2014
- General Pro Player Discussion
