Roger Federer Selfie with Michael Jordan at 2014 U.S Open

[robert_shaww]

Who is better at his sport??? (for people Federer is the best tennis player ever and Jordan the best basquetball player ever....)


are they top 10 ever in the "all sportsman ranking" ????

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bv7EqHCCEAETj_e.jpg

[JohnFreeman]

Jordan is one of the greatest sportsman ever

[jstern]

I just want to comment on the word selfie, it's so lame, I really hope people stop saying it soon. It's as lame as girls taking the first names of a couple and turn it into one name made up of both.

The word selfie is so Magic Johnson's son. Like the whole look at me culture. I once saw a girl walking down the street, stopped all of a sudden to take out her phone and take a picture of herlsef. This Facebook era sucks. It feeds that, "Look at me," mentality. It feeds something narcissistic.

[protox]

I reckon Nadal has to be up there with Fed as greatest tennis player and Nadal is still going strong with winning the big ones. Fed hasn't won in a while.

[edrick]

I reckon Nadal has to be up there with Fed as greatest tennis player and Nadal is still going strong with winning the big ones. Fed hasn't won in a while.

Nadal is great. But Fed's run during his prime was amazing. Nadal is king of clay though, no question.

[Beastmode88]

Federer because he didn't go 1-9

:facepalm reported.

[Lebronxrings]

Federer because he didn't go 1-9
sorry if this is dumb, but what does the 1-9 allude to?

[Lebronxrings]

Federer because he didn't need a stacked team with a GOAT coach, HOFs and a top 3 SF ever.

[dubeta]

sorry if this is dumb, but what does the 1-9 allude to?

Jordan's win record without a stacked team

[SsKSpurs21]

i would say more people know jordan than federer. you always hear people say, "oh, hes the Micheal jordan of <insert sport>. everyone wants to "be like mike". :D

[Dragic4Life]

Jordan's win record without a stacked team
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Nice one.:applause:

[stalkerforlife]

Jordan is the greatest sportsman of all time.

Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.

[Dragic4Life]

Jordan is the greatest sportsman of all time.

Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.
Jordan isn't even consensus greatest in his own sport let alone sportsman.:facepalm

[Nikola_]

basquetball

http://bothsides.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/deer-290x300.jpg

[stalkerforlife]

Jordan isn't even consensus greatest in his own sport let alone sportsman.:facepalm

:biggums:

[Nikola_]

Federer because he didn't go 1-9

He is 2-9 against Nadal on slams:applause:

[inclinerator]

how much did mj charge him?

[wang4three]

Federer is probably the undisputed best of his sport. MJ is arguably the best. Just sayin'!

[Trollsmasher]

One GOAT and one ni99a with PTSD

[bdreason]

I reckon Nadal has to be up there with Fed as greatest tennis player and Nadal is still going strong with winning the big ones. Fed hasn't won in a while.


Old man Federer is currently higher ranked than prime Nadal. In fact, if Roger wins the U.S. Open, and Djoker fails in the QF, Federer will end the year as the #1 player in the World.... again.


Nadal will probably be in a wheelchair by the time he's 33. :oldlol:

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Isn't the argument against Fed that he played in a weak era (yep, the exact term: weak era, also used in Tennis)?

And Nadal owns him h2h.

[Mr Feeny]

Isn't the argument against Fed that he played in a weak era (yep, the exact term: weak era, also used in Tennis)?

And Nadal owns him h2h.

Irrelevent. Nadal was losing to scrubs outside of clay before 2008. Its the same 2/5 Lebron argument in NBA finals. It's better to make a final and lose than to lose to someone ranked outside the top 20 before the semis.

Federer, ofcourse, holds the tennis records for most slams, most slam finals, most WTFs, most weeks at world #1. I don't think this is even a discussion. And as another poster stated, old man 33 year old Federer is ranked above a 28 year old Nadal. Think about that:biggums:

[TheMan]

how much did mj charge him?

:no: Federer isn't a ghetto nikka...

[NumberSix]

Federer had stronger competition.

[fpliii]

Jordan isn't even consensus greatest in his own sport let alone sportsman.:facepalm
Unquestionable? No. Consensus? Definitely.

[Da_Realist]

I'm a huge Federer fan but Nadal should be considered the better player.

-- Dominated the French Open more than any other tennis player has ever dominated any tournament.

-- As of now, only 3 majors behind Federer

-- Dominated head-to-head against Federer

-- Undefeated at the French and Australian to Federer, even gave him a bagel set in the French Open Finals

-- Beat Federer on his best surface (Wimbledon)

-- Made Federer CRY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypdSpGJTa18) after beating him in the 2009 Australian Open

Federer is the most versatile player to ever pick up a racket, but he can't beat Nadal. He has more majors, but with Nadal only 3 behind and absolutely destroying the head-to-head matchup on all surfaces (23-10), I can't comfortably say Federer is a better player than Nadal or even that he's had the better career. I actually would prefer Nadal's career. I would never want such a stain on my career as to be utterly destroyed and embarrassed by a contemporary.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Irrelevent. Nadal was losing to scrubs outside of clay before 2008. Its the same 2/5 Lebron argument in NBA finals. It's better to make a final and lose than to lose to someone ranked outside the top 20 before the semis.

Federer, ofcourse, holds the tennis records for most slams, most slam finals, most WTFs, most weeks at world #1. I don't think this is even a discussion. And as another poster stated, old man 33 year old Federer is ranked above a 28 year old Nadal. Think about that:biggums:

Yeah I agree, the head to head is indeed a big red herring. When Federer was in his prime he reached the final of EVERY big tourney (93% win percentage over a 4 year span, something Nadal never even did in a single year), but Nadal would rarely reciprocate, except on Nadals best surface and Federers worst. Thus a majority of their matches were on clay early on. Then when Federer started declining, Nadal took the h2h dominance to another level. But the fact of the matter is that it was a convergence of things -- Federer had the way better peak AND will likely be the more accomplished player when all is said and done. He holds a big lead in 3 of the 4 majors: 7-2 in Wimbledon's won, 5-2 in US Opens, 4-1 in Aussie Opens, although Nadal owns everyone at the French Open. Also, the biggest tournament of the year outside of the 4 majors is the world tour finals, which is a tournament played by the top 8 players, in what is essentially a royal rumble of sorts. Federer has won that tournament 6 times and has amassed a 44-11 record , whereas Nadal hasn't won it ever and has a 13-11 record. I can't see how Nadal could ever approach Federer when he has been so severely out performed at most of the most important tournaments.

Nadal is going on 29, and generally that's when tennis players start declining big time (usually much earlier actually). In the open era only 4 guys won slams after the age of 30. If Federer wins this US Open, he'll be the oldest player in like 60 years to win a slam, at 33.


Tennis is an early bloomers sport unlike any other I've ever seen, except for maybe swimmers or running backs in football. McEnroe is top 15-20 all time and he burned out after 25, when he won his last slam. Sampras stopped being a multi-slam a year guy after 26. Borg won his last slam at 25. Murray is already a shell of his former self at 27. Federer stopped being a dominant force at 27 (and no its not just the competition getting stronger. If you look at his 2008 year, he lost to a plethora of guys OLDER than him, and lost to more sub-30 ranked players in thay one year than he did in the previous 4 combined. The virus that he contracted combined with the mileage really set him back for good). Agassi is an outlier, but a big reason he was able to have success so late is because he's probably the purest ball striker of all time. His success was never predicated on his movement or athleticism.

Basically, Nadal is pushing the envelope, and his chances of surpassing Fed diminish by the year. At Nadals age, Fed had 16 slams. Nadal has 14 now.

[r0drig0lac]

Jordan is the greatest sportsman of all time.
.
Pele /thread

[Milbuck]

Pretty amusing to read comments from people who don't know what they're talking about.

Jordan, and it's not particularly close.

Tennis is an individual sport, which means there's no team success or team failures to hide behind. When you lose, it's YOU.

Jordan was never, never in his career dominated the way Federer is/was by Nadal.

Federer has a 10-23 record against Nadal. That is ****ing abysmal, that's a 30% winning percentage against your biggest rival, and that's somehow GOAT-worthy?

His record against Nadal in grand slams is even worse, 2-9, an 18% winning percentage against his biggest rival in the biggest tournaments in tennis. The guy hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007 :oldlol:

We're talking the supposed "GOAT" of a sport being absolutely helpless...for the past 5-6 years now it's almost a foregone conclusion that he can only win a tournament if he doesn't have to play Nadal, whether Nadal is injured or loses to someone else.

Whereas Jordan, when he finally got a championship level supporting cast, specifically a championship level #2 when Pippen had developed, he didn't lose. He won 3 straight finals...twice. And he did it in the same era as Barkley, Malone, Magic, Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Stockton, Payton, Drexler, Reggie, Nique, etc. He found the highest point of success in his sport and for damn near a decade the only thing that could stop him was his own retirement.

Federer had stronger competition.
He actually didn't. His competition as of recently has been top-tier..but in his prime, he played in one of the weakest eras in tennis history. His peak was from 2004 to 2007..in that span his biggest rivals were Nalbandian, Roddick, Gonzalez, teenage Nadal, grandpa Agassi with one foot into retirement, Hewitt, etc. He didn't actually face legit competition (prime Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, etc) until he had finished raping a weak ass era and exited his prime.

The competition Federer faced at his peak is the equivalent of the Eastern conference of this past NBA season...with Indiana being teenage Nadal, still not fully there yet as a player/team.

[Milbuck]

Irrelevent. Nadal was losing to scrubs outside of clay before 2008. Its the same 2/5 Lebron argument in NBA finals. It's better to make a final and lose than to lose to someone ranked outside the top 20 before the semis.

Federer, ofcourse, holds the tennis records for most slams, most slam finals, most WTFs, most weeks at world #1. I don't think this is even a discussion. And as another poster stated, old man 33 year old Federer is ranked above a 28 year old Nadal. Think about that:biggums:
This is another retarded argument. Before 2008, from 2004-2007, Nadal was a ****ing teenager.

What was Federer doing from the ages of 18-21? For him that was from 1999-2002. In that span, here are his monstrous slam achievements:

0 Finals
0 semifinals
2 quarterfinals
5 first round exits
2 slams that he lost in the qualifying round, meaning he wasn't good enough to play..

Meanwhile Nadal at the same age:

3 Grand slam wins
2 Finals (not on clay)
2 QFs (not on clay)

Nadal at that age hadn't fully developed as a player..he was a teenager playing against the supposed "GOAT", and somehow he's supposed to be making finals left and right on every surface when that supposed "GOAT" himself wasn't doing jack shit at the same age?

Federer dominated a wack ass scrub era where his biggest competition was a teenage Nadal who had barely developed into the player he'd become from 2008-present. Nadal has had to deal with prime Federer, prime Djokovic, and prime Murray for his entire career and the only one of the 3 who has given him a consistent fight is Djokovic...not Federer.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

The competition is stronger at the top, but its not nearly as deep or varied because of how homogenized the surfaces and conditions are. That's why, for all this talk of stronger competition, there has never been a time in the open era with less parity. That's benefitted everybody, including Federer, but more so Nadal because he has never had all-cpurt tendencies. Here's a post I made on another forum explaining my view on that:



This isn't a hate thread, mind you. I think what Nadal has accomplished this year is phenomenal. While it has caused me a fair bit of anguish, since it has deprived Fed and Nole of a lot of success, there is no denying that Rafa has had a year for the ages, considering the circumstances. I concede, albeit with reluctance, that Nadal may very well be remembered as the best/most accomplished of his era. His achievements speak for themselves.

Regardless, I can't ever see him as being "greater" than Fed for the same reason I can't view Ted Williams as being greater than DiMaggio. It's a subjective thing, I guess, and I wouldn't fault anyone for vehemently disagreeing with me. What any reasonable person can admit, though, is that this era was tailor made for Nadal. That's not his fault, and there's a fine line between admitting that and not acknowledging his rightful status in the annals of tennis history, which is as one of the greatest ever. But let it be known: there is pretty much literally nothing that could have been done to assure Nadal had more success in this era, other than avoiding the injury bug. Same goes, unfortunately, for Novak, which is a drag to admit. The courts are slower now than they have been at any point in tennis history. The racquet technology enables players to hit shots from defensive positions and return them with interest in a way it never has before. It used to be that on indoor courts, once you took charge in a rally, the other player would have to produce something special to neutralize the point. Now, you see guys merely bunt the ball back while on their back foot,in an extremely awkward position, and the ball will land on the back of the line and the point will be on level terms once more. It's so seamless and commonplace that long rallies with seemingly "amazing" gets barely register in the minds of most tennis fans. The balance of power has shifted, some might say irrevocably, to the defensive-minded player. That's why, to me, there isn't much parity in today's game. Once you've learned how to play on one surface, you've learned how to play on all of them. There are no single-surface specialists, because the adjustments you would have to make from one surface to another have been rendered all but obsolete. That's why todays "all-surface" players are anything but.

That doesn't diminish Nadals accomplishments for me, but it does add some clarity as to how he was able to be so successful despite playing the same type of game on every surface, employing the same rudimentary game plan for years without any seismic adjustments. I hope people reading this thread can see the difference between me hating on Nadal and me attempting to explain why he hit the jackpot playing in todays game.

Sure, Nadal to date has conquered his rivals. That script might be re-written at some point. After all, it wasn't until age 29-30 that the narrative of Federer only losing to Nadal consistently was changed. But it probably won't be. Nadal has a stranglehold on nearly all of his significant rivals. Colour me extremely impressed, but not shocked; after all, in this era once you learn how to play on one surface you learn how to play on them all. In that same vain, once you learn how to master one style of play (a margin-based counter-punching game with occasional offense), you master them all. That's the main reason I can't buy into the notion that the competition tennis has gotten much much stronger in the past 5 years, approaching a level we have never seen before. The level of baseline play is indeed unprecedented, but the all-court component is gone, due in large part to the technology and gradual death of fast surfaces. What's so gaudy about that? That's like if the NBA abolished the 3 point line. It'd go from a league with a good balance between rim-attackers and shooters to a league dominated by guys driving to the hole all game long. In that league, players like Bird, Petrovic and Reggie Miller wouldn't look so hot anymore. After all, why work on a skill that simply isn't relevant anymore? Volleys, chip and charges, stealthy approaches, and to an extent slice backhands, they are all merely complementary skills to have. Nothing more, nothing less. That is just absurd to me. Right now, if you are the best baseliner in tennis, you are the best PLAYER in tennis. It's a startlingly tight correlation. In the 90s, that didn't guarantee you were the best. Oh sure, Agassi and Chang were plenty successful.


But Sampras was the undisputed player of the 90s. Borg was the greatest baseliner of his era and the greatest player, but he served and volleyed at Wimby and developed a workmanlike net game. Laver was the greatest of his era but Rosewall was his superior from the back of the court, many would argue. Laver compensated for this by improving his running forehand and developing a lethal drive BH to combat Rosewall's slice. In other words, these guys couldn't fall back on their mastery of one facet of the game. On paper, Nadal will rival all of these players. Heck, he might be better whichever way you'd wanna argue it. But to me, I'll always feel that the Nadal-breed of players got the lions share of the luck playing in today's game. Meaning, baseliners with topspin-rife shots and counterpunching tendencies.

How does this tie in with Federer? Simply put, I am of the belief that if you put him in any era, he would be immensely successful. He is a jack of all trades in the same way Laver was. He beat Sampras serving and volleying. He beat Djokovic, Agassi, Murray and to a lesser extent Nadal from the back of the court in the biggest stages of the game. His variety ensured that he would be utterly dominant on fast and medium speed courts, and tremendously successful on slow ones (and don't tell me there are still lightning fast courts in todays game). At his peak you simply could not serve the man off the court. His defensive return was almost as good as Agassi's offensive return. His passing shots were elite on all surfaces. He took your time away on fast surfaces. On slow ones, you were guaranteed a war of attrition if intended to rally with him.

I believe his net game was underrated. It wasn't as great as Pete's or Rafters or Edbergs, but (of course) in this era it didn't need to be. That's why his net game during Wimby 2001 was better than it was when he was in his prime. Why hone a skill that wasn't all that necessary anymore? All I know is, many tried defeating Sampras using his own his own game during his reign at Wimbledon. Only two succeeded. And the other one might've had the best or second best first serve of his era, and possibly one of the 10 best overall serves of all time (Krajicek). Federer didn't have that luxury, especially at 19 when his serve was still developing. That counts for something.

Anyways, I'm not gonna say that i KNOW that Fed could dominate in any era and Nadal wouldnt, because to speak with such conviction is the mark of a foolish man. I merely believe it to be the case. I believe that Nadal, to dominate from the 60s-90s to the same extent that he did in the 2000's, he would had to have dramatically altered his game. Could he have been able to? Knowing his resolve, I wouldn't put it entirely past him. But I also believe that Federer wouldn't have to undergo any significant paradigm shift to succeed anywhere, on any surface and in any conditions. His game is timeless in a way that Nadal's isn't. While I have limitless respect for Nadal's prowess as a player, Federer has already proven (to me) that he is the greater player. Just one guys opinion.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

This is another retarded argument. Before 2008, from 2004-2007, Nadal was a ****ing teenager.

What was Federer doing from the ages of 18-21? For him that was from 1999-2002. In that span, here are his monstrous slam achievements:

0 Finals
0 semifinals
2 quarterfinals
5 first round exits
2 slams that he lost in the qualifying round, meaning he wasn't good enough to play..

Meanwhile Nadal at the same age:

3 Grand slam wins
2 Finals (not on clay)
2 QFs (not on clay)

Nadal at that age hadn't fully developed as a player..he was a teenager playing against the supposed "GOAT", and somehow he's supposed to be making finals left and right on every surface when that supposed "GOAT" himself wasn't doing jack shit at the same age?

Federer dominated a wack ass scrub era where his biggest competition was a teenage Nadal who had barely developed into the player he'd become from 2008-present. Nadal has had to deal with prime Federer, prime Djokovic, and prime Murray for his entire career and the only one of the 3 who has given him a consistent fight is Djokovic...not Federer.

There was indeed a huge discrepancy in their results as teenagers -- I don't see why that is relevant, however. Nadal was even more of an early bloomer than Fed. That's why, in terms of quality of play, his best year was in 2008, at age 21 going on 22. He's never, however, been able to dominate tennis for a calendar year like Federer or even Djokovic have. That's why he's had 149 weeks at number one compared to 302 for Fed.

BTW, Federer has also had to deal with prime Djokovic; his head to head with him is 18-17, whereas Nadal's head to head with Djoker is 22-19. Considering Nadal is far closer to Djokovic's age than Federer, that's more or less a wash.


The improvement in competition is somewhat of a misconception I would say. Look, there's no doubt that Djokovic, Murray and Nadal have improved by a huge margin. But instead of Federer's competition being so crappy, maybe he just deprived them of titles by being so great in his prime? Outside of the big 4, the competition has been extremely lack-luster. Heck, the big 4 have won 38 of the past 41 slams I believe. That's ridiculous! And it's never been achieved in the history of tennis. There's something wrong with that, right?

Again, no doubt the top 5 is better now than in Fed's heyday, but not the overall quality of the tour. It's fairly moot. Heck, the average age of a top 100 player on tour is older than its ever been, by a long shot.

Look at the claycourt field that Nadal has dominated, if we wanna go that route: Federer, who is a fast-court player, Djokovic who isn't a natural mover on clay and tumbles on it like a cow on ice at times, and Ferrer, somebody who is Federers age and is 7-51 against the top 3. The claycourt competition of the 90s and early 2000s was stronger -- Kuerten, who won 3 frenches and had maybe the greatest single-handed BH of all time. Bruguera who was like a 90s Nadal in the sense that he imparted extreme topspin on the ball. Courier, who was said to have one of the most lethal forehands of all time and who beat STACKED draws to win his 2 Frenches. To go along with a bevy of other contenders, Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Gaudio, etc.

So this argument can rear its ugly head even in regards to Nadal. If most of Nadals success came against a depleted claycourt field, does that not say something about him as well? That is, if we are to go down this rabbit hole.

[FKAri]

i would say more people know jordan than federer. you always hear people say, "oh, hes the Micheal jordan of <insert sport>. everyone wants to "be like mike". :D

All because of Nike.

[Mr Feeny]

This is another retarded argument. Before 2008, from 2004-2007, Nadal was a ****ing teenager.

What was Federer doing from the ages of 18-21? For him that was from 1999-2002. In that span, here are his monstrous slam achievements:

0 Finals
0 semifinals
2 quarterfinals
5 first round exits
2 slams that he lost in the qualifying round, meaning he wasn't good enough to play..

Meanwhile Nadal at the same age:

3 Grand slam wins
2 Finals (not on clay)
2 QFs (not on clay)

Nadal at that age hadn't fully developed as a player..he was a teenager playing against the supposed "GOAT", and somehow he's supposed to be making finals left and right on every surface when that supposed "GOAT" himself wasn't doing jack shit at the same age?

Federer dominated a wack ass scrub era where his biggest competition was a teenage Nadal who had barely developed into the player he'd become from 2008-present. Nadal has had to deal with prime Federer, prime Djokovic, and prime Murray for his entire career and the only one of the 3 who has given him a consistent fight is Djokovic...not Federer.

Fine. Since you have no clue what you're talking about:

USO 2008: Nadal spanked by a baby Murray and doesn't face Fed
USO 2009: Nadal demolished 6-2,6-2,-62 by DelPo. Doesn't face Fed
AO 2010: "injured" after being throughly outplayed by Murray and down 2-0 sets

Federer has kids at this point and hits a huge decline.
Meanwhile, Nadal had only managed to reach a single hardcoirt final against Federer. He, however, racks up several wins in the French Open on clay to pad a meaningless head to head.


Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2014 are other exampls of Nadal being taken out by scrubs ra ked outside the top 100 and failing to reach a non-clay final agaunst Federer.

Let's discuss this when Nadal wins 17 grandslams. If he does, we'll gladly call it a wash with Fed's higher weeks at #1 and more YEC vs the head to head.
Till then, don't insult our intelligence with trite drivel. Federer is the consensus GOAT for a reason, and this is coming from a die hard Sampras fan. I LOATHED Fed when he approached Pete's grandslam mark. Objectivity takes ovet eventually and Nadal is simply not there. At the moment, this isn't even debatable imo.

[Da_Realist]

Yeah I agree, the head to head is indeed a big red herring. When Federer was in his prime he reached the final of EVERY big tourney (93% win percentage over a 4 year span, something Nadal never even did in a single year), but Nadal would rarely reciprocate, except on Nadals best surface and Federers worst. Thus a majority of their matches were on clay early on. Then when Federer started declining, Nadal took the h2h dominance to another level.

This is absurd. Federer has always had trouble with Nadal. Both hardcourts and clay, at first. Then Nadal beat him at WIMBLEDON in 2008 when Fed was not yet 29 years old. That should have shut down the argument.

When Federer was acing everyone else, he couldn't beat Nadal. Not when it mattered. I saw Nadal break Federer down to tears. I saw Federer lose sets to Nadal 6-0 and 6-1 in major finals. And I saw Federer quit. He's my favorite of all the ones playing today but Federer doesn't even believe he can beat Nadal whether it's 2004 or 2014. Nadal's strengths (being a strong lefty that uses heavy, top spin returns to relentlessly attack Federer's average one-handed backhand) would be Federer's achilles heel whenever and wherever they play.

Yet Nadal's biggest strength is his competitiveness. He's the most competitive player on the tour. He never gives up. He wears his opponents down. And unfortunately for Fed, Nadal turns their matches into brawls. Never ending, keep the ball in play, run all day until you quit brawls. Nadal's heavy topspin returns feel like body blows to Federer's weak one-handed backhand by the 3rd and 4th set. Fed can't solve that riddle.

[joeysms55]

There was indeed a huge discrepancy in their results as teenagers -- I don't see why that is relevant, however. Nadal was even more of an early bloomer than Fed. That's why, in terms of quality of play, his best year was in 2008, at age 21 going on 22. He's never, however, been able to dominate tennis for a calendar year like Federer or even Djokovic have. That's why he's had 149 weeks at number one compared to 302 for Fed.

BTW, Federer has also had to deal with prime Djokovic; his head to head with him is 18-17, whereas Nadal's head to head with Djoker is 22-19. Considering Nadal is far closer to Djokovic's age than Federer, that's more or less a wash.


The improvement in competition is somewhat of a misconception I would say. Look, there's no doubt that Djokovic, Murray and Nadal have improved by a huge margin. But instead of Federer's competition being so crappy, maybe he just deprived them of titles by being so great in his prime? Outside of the big 4, the competition has been extremely lack-luster. Heck, the big 4 have won 38 of the past 41 slams I believe. That's ridiculous! And it's never been achieved in the history of tennis. There's something wrong with that, right?

Again, no doubt the top 5 is better now than in Fed's heyday, but not the overall quality of the tour. It's fairly moot. Heck, the average age of a top 100 player on tour is older than its ever been, by a long shot.

Look at the claycourt field that Nadal has dominated, if we wanna go that route: Federer, who is a fast-court player, Djokovic who isn't a natural mover on clay, and Ferrer, somebody who is Federers age and is 7-51 against the top 3. The claycourt competition of the 90s and early 2000s was stronger -- Kuerten, who won 3 frenches and had maybe the greatest single-handed BH of all time. Bruguera who was like a 90s Nadal in the sense that he imparted extreme topspin on the ball. Courier, who was said to have one of the most lethal forehands of all time and who beat STACKED draws to win his 2 Frenches.

Federer benefited the most on his are because he started winning grand slams before the golden era of tennis. Nadal won most of his grand slams in the golden era were he faced prime Federer, Djokovic, and etc...

Lets be real, Federer started losing when Nadal rise into the sport.

Look at the head 2 head matchup between top tennis players. Nadal always have a winning head to head record.

[Milbuck]

Fine. Since you have no clue what you're talking about:

USO 2008: Nadal spanked by a baby Murray and doesn't face Fed
USO 2009: Nadal demolished 6-2,6-2,-62 by DelPo. Doesn't face Fed
AO 2010: "injured" after being throughly outplayed by Murray and down 2-0 sets

Federer has kids at this point and hits a huge decline.
Meanwhile, Nadal had only managed to reach a single hardcoirt final against Federer. He, however, racks up several wins in the French Open on clay to pad a meaningless head to head.


Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2014 are other exampls of Nadal being taken out by scrubs ra ked outside the top 100 and failing to reach a non-clay final agaunst Federer.

Let's discuss this when Nadal wins 17 grandslams. If he does, we'll gladly call it a wash with Fed's higher weeks at #1 and more YEC vs the head to head.
Till then, don't insult our intelligence with trite drivel. Federer is the consensus GOAT for a reason, and this is coming from a die hard Sampras fan. I LOATHED Fed when he approached Pete's grandslam mark. Objectivity takes ovet eventually and Nadal is simply not there. At the moment, this isn't even debatable imo.
:oldlol: Yes, I don't know what I'm talking about despite you having to cherry pick specific matches to argue your point.

Like Federer hasn't been spanked in his prime. 2-6 3-6 against Mardy Fish in 2008. 2-6 4-6 against Fillipo Volandri in 2007 at his peak. 2-6 3-6 loss to Murray in 2010.

And just LOL at padding his H2H on clay. He leads on 2 out of the 3 surfaces...and even on grass, the H2H is only 2-1 for Federer...where Federer won both his matches at his absolute peak against a 20-21 year old Nadal, and Nadal winning his the year later when he was just barely entering his prime. Can you really say prime for prime Federer would dominate Nadal on grass? Federer has a 1 match advantage on 1 surface, whereas Nadal is up 9-6 on HC.

And for the record, I never once said Nadal is the GOAT. Me putting quotations around GOAT when talking about Federer is just me pointing out how fragile Federer's GOAThood is when considering things that matter in an individual sport such as tennis, like how they performed against their rivals. My only argument in this thread is that Federer's paper-thin reign as GOAT doesn't touch Jordan's case for being the GOAT of his sport, which is you know, the point of the thread.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Federer benefited the most on his are because he started winning grand slams before the golden era of tennis. Nadal won most of his grand slams in the golden era were he faced prime Federer, Djokovic, and etc...

Lets be real, Federer started losing when Nadal rise into the sport.

Look at the head 2 head matchup between top tennis players. Nadal always have a winning head to head record.


This is blithely untrue. No disrespect meant, but it's easy to make blanket statements when you ignore the actual points I made in my post.

If this is such a golden age, why is the average of a top 100 player higher than it's ever been? By far, mind you. Think about that for a second: the competition has improved, yet there are very few new faces. Does that make sense? The competition has improved, yet the very same faces are at the top every year.


Nadal started his onslaught on the sport in 2008, when he beat Federer at Wimbledon on his 3rd attempt against him. That year, Federer went 66-15, with losses to numerous obscure players that he didn't lose to in 2004-2007. The previous 4 years, his record was 315-24.

If your argument has merit, this would mean that Federer only dropped off against Nadal and the succeeding generation. But that's simply not the case. Federer by 27 dropped off against everybody. He lost in the Olympics to Blake, who he had a 13-0 record against, AND who was 2 years older than him. He lost to Karlovic, Simon, got taken to 5 at the US Open by Andreev, taken to 5 at the Aussie Open, and didn't win his first title until June, a year after winning 9 titles and 3 slams. It was a shocking decline. After he missed a training block with a lengthy bout of mono, he wasn't the same guy.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

:oldlol: Yes, I don't know what I'm talking about despite you having to cherry pick specific matches to argue your point.

Like Federer hasn't been spanked in his prime. 2-6 3-6 against Mardy Fish in 2008. 2-6 4-6 against Fillipo Volandri in 2007 at his peak. 2-6 3-6 loss to Murray in 2010.

And just LOL at padding his H2H on clay. He leads on 2 out of the 3 surfaces...and even on grass, the H2H is only 2-1 for Federer...where Federer won both his matches at his absolute peak against a 20-21 year old Nadal, and Nadal winning his the year later when he was just barely entering his prime. Can you really say prime for prime Federer would dominate Nadal on grass? Federer has a 1 match advantage on 1 surface, whereas Nadal is up 9-6 on HC.

And for the record, I never once said Nadal is the GOAT. Me putting quotations around GOAT when talking about Federer is just me pointing out how fragile Federer's GOAThood is when considering things that matter in an individual sport such as tennis, like how they performed against their rivals. My only argument in this thread is that Federer's paper-thin reign as GOAT doesn't touch Jordan's case for being the GOAT of his sport, which is you know, the point of the thread.

I actually agree that Federer doesn't touch Jordan. But some of your arguments are rather short-sighted. I say this respectfully, because it's clear that you are not an ignoramus and clearly know something about the history of tennis.

Particularly the "getting spanked" thing, although in fairness that doesn't really matter either way. Nadal has been bageled (losing a set 6-0) about 8-9 times since 2004. Federer has only lost a 6-0 set 2 times in his 16 year career. No comparison there.

[joeysms55]

This is blithely untrue. No disrespect meant, but it's easy to make blanket statements when you ignore the actual points I made in my post.

If this is such a golden age, why is the average of a top 100 player higher than it's ever been? By far, mind you. Think about that for a second: the competition has improved, yet there are very few new faces. Does that make sense? The competition has improved, yet the very same faces are at the top every year.


Nadal started his onslaught on the sport in 2008, when he beat Federer at Wimbledon on his 3rd attempt against him. That year, Federer went 66-15, with losses to numerous obscure players that he didn't lose to in 2004-2007. The previous 4 years, his record was 315-24.

If your argument has merit, this would mean that Federer only dropped off against Nadal and the succeeding generation. But that's simply not the case. Federer by 27 dropped off against everybody. He lost in the Olympics to Blake, who he had a 13-0 record against, AND who was 2 years older than him. He lost to Karlovic, Simon, got taken to 5 at the US Open by Andreev, taken to 5 at the Aussie Open, and didn't win his first title until June, a year after winning 9 titles and 3 slams. It was a shocking decline. After he missed a training block with a lengthy bout of mono, he wasn't the same guy.


June 11 2006, Nadal hand in Federer his first grand slam lost ever.

June 10, 2007, Nadal hand in Federer his second grand slam lost.

All time grand slam record of Federer against Nadal. 2-6

Hasn't beaten Nadal in grand slam matches since 2007

Look at Federers competition in grand slam matches vs Nadal's and look what he has to go through and be able to have 14 grand slam titles and likely will end up more with Federer who currently have 17.

Uhmmmm u better check some facts here before u make bold statements.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

This is absurd. Federer has always had trouble with Nadal. Both hardcourts and clay, at first. Then Nadal beat him at WIMBLEDON in 2008 when Fed was not yet 29 years old. That should have shut down the argument.

When Federer was acing everyone else, he couldn't beat Nadal. Not when it mattered. I saw Nadal break Federer down to tears. I saw Federer lose sets to Nadal 6-0 and 6-1 in major finals. And I saw Federer quit. He's my favorite of all the ones playing today but Federer doesn't even believe he can beat Nadal whether it's 2004 or 2014. Nadal's strengths (being a strong lefty that uses heavy, top spin returns to relentlessly attack Federer's average one-handed backhand) would be Federer's achilles heel whenever and wherever they play.

Yet Nadal's biggest strength is his competitiveness. He's the most competitive player on the tour. He never gives up. He wears his opponents down. And unfortunately for Fed, Nadal turns their matches into brawls. Never ending, keep the ball in play, run all day until you quit brawls. Nadal's heavy topspin returns feel like body blows to Federer's weak one-handed backhand by the 3rd and 4th set. Fed can't solve that riddle.

He is clearly a terrible match-up for Fed. But, against the rest of the field? Federer is clearly superior. Clearly. One h2h doesn't negate that. And ftr, Fed's record against Nadal on non-clay surfaces (which constitute 65% of the tour), was 6-2 before 2008.

6-0 and 6-1 sets, you say? Interestingly enough, they've won an equal amount of 6-0 and 6-1 sets against each other at majors: 3. So that's an exaggeration. Heck, throughout their rivalry, Federer has bagelled Nadal 3 times, 1 on each surface, compared to Nadal once on clay. But that's just small potatoes. Federer has dominated tennis to an extent Nadal never has. 3 years having won 3 slams compared to 1. Reaching 18 out of 19 major finals, when Nadals best stretch was 6 out of 7. 23 consecutive semi's at slams reached compared to 5.

There's no cognitive dissonance in believing that Nadal has bested Fed in the h2h battle, yet is still the inferior player. He's been out-performed BIG TIME on 3 of the 4 non-clay slams, and HUGELY on the biggest tournament outside of the majors, where he is 13-11 and has won 0 times compared to 44-11 and 6 times for Fed.

I appreciate the respectful tone, though, and I hope we can continue this discussion on the same note.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

June 11 2006, Nadal hand in Federer his first grand slam lost ever.

June 10, 2007, Nadal hand in Federer his second grand slam lost.

All time grand slam record of Federer against Nadal. 2-6

Hasn't beaten Nadal in grand slam matches since 2007

Look at Federers competition in grand slam matches vs Nadal's and look what he has to go through and be able to have 14 grand slam titles and likely will end up more with Federer who currently have 17.

Uhmmmm u better check some facts here before u make bold statements.

No, I stand by what I said. I said, in 2008, Nadal started his onslaught on tennis, which is the point you highlighted. That's absolutely true. That's when he overtook Federer as number 1, a position Federer had held for 237 consecutive weeks. It certainly wasn't in 2006 and 2007, where the points difference between Nadal and Fed at the end of the year was some the highest it had ever been between a number 1 and number 2 player. Federer won 6 slams from 2006-2007 compared to 2 for Nadal. He had won 20 titles those 2 years, compared to 11 for Nadal. And he had a 160-13 record compared to 129-25 for Nadal.


So, no. Nadal hadn't started his onslaught on tennis yet. That's was in 2008, when he usurped Fed in the rankings. In 2006 and 2007, there were thousands of ranking points separating them.

[Da_Realist]

My favorite tennis player of all time is Pete Sampras but I reluctantly agree that Federer would probably win the H2H matchups if they were both in their primes.

Federer is my 2nd all time favorite tennis player. Yet I have to admit Nadal has his number. Not just by a little bit. Magic's Lakers won against Bird's Celtics 2-1 in the Finals. That's close. Close enough for other factors to come in play to decide the better player either way. Nadal hasn't just beaten Federer, he has destroyed him. It's the look of utter helplessness in Federer's eyes that make me very hesitant to declare him GOAT, despite the fact that I think he would win more majors than anyone during any era due to his insane versatility. (BUT... Nadal, the so-call clay court specialist, has 14 -- same as Pete Sampras and only 3 behind Federer).

If they both retired right now, I would rather have Nadal's career. Dominate one of the greatest ever? I'll take that! Sampras beat Agassi but he didn't dominate him. 19-14. That does a good job of showing who the better player was. But it wasn't domination. Sampras has more majors. Agassi won all four. Sampras never beat Agassi at the French or Australian. Agassi never beat Sampras at Wimbledon or US Open.

But 23-10? And Nadal beating Federer at a major he owned for 7 years? Yet Federer never came close to beating Nadal at the French. Never even pushed him to a 5th set. Nadal pushed Fed to 5 sets TWICE at Wimbledon, winning one of them. Undefeated against Federer at the Australian, undefeated at the French, snatched one of three at Wimbledon.

Federer grew so upset at his inability to beat Nadal that he cried after the 2009 Australian Open.

You can't make Fed GOAT because that would mean Nadal is a lesser player. I think Nadal has proven to be a better player and is close enough (as of now) to Federer's 17 majors for that to matter. A lot.

[joeysms55]

He is clearly a terrible match-up for Fed. But, against the rest of the field? Federer is clearly superior. Clearly. One h2h doesn't negate that. And ftr, Fed's record against Nadal on non-clay surfaces (which constitute 65% of the tour), was 6-2 before 2008.

6-0 and 6-1 sets, you say? Interestingly enough, they've won an equal amount of 6-0 and 6-1 sets against each other at majors: 3. So that's an exaggeration. Heck, throughout their rivalry, Federer has bagelled Nadal 3 times, 1 on each surface, compared to Nadal once on clay. But that's just small potatoes. Federer has dominated tennis to an extent Nadal never has. 3 years having won 3 slams compared to 1. Reaching 18 out of 19 major finals, when Nadals best stretch was 6 out of 7. 23 consecutive semi's at slams reached compared to 5.

There's no cognitive dissonance in believing that Nadal has bested Fed in the h2h battle, yet is still the inferior player. He's been out-performed BIG TIME on 3 of the 4 non-clay slams, and HUGELY on the biggest tournament outside of the majors, where he is 13-11 and has won 0 times compared to 44-11 and 6 times for Fed.

I appreciate the respectful tone, though, and I hope we can continue this discussion on the same note.

Taking away Nadal's clay record is like taking away Jordan's scoring records. Last time I check, French Open is still one of the majors in tennis....

This is like comparing Magic Johnson to Michael Jordan (minus the scoring of Jordan) lol

[joeysms55]

No, I stand by what I said. I said, in 2008, Nadal started his onslaught on tennis, which is the point you highlighted. That's absolutely true. That's when he overtook Federer as number 1, a position Federer had held for 237 consecutive weeks. It certainly wasn't in 2006 and 2007, where the points difference between Nadal and Fed at the end of the year was some the highest it had ever been between a number 1 and number 2 player. Federer won 6 slams from 2006-2007 compared to 2 for Nadal. He had won 20 titles those 2 years, compared to 11 for Nadal. And he had a 160-13 record compared to 129-25 for Nadal.


So, no. Nadal hadn't started his onslaught on tennis yet. That's was in 2008, when he usurped Fed in the rankings. In 2006 and 2007, there were thousands of ranking points separating them.


Well live on a dream buddy. Nadal didn't beat Federer in his 3rd try in Wimbledon 2008 (which shows in ur previous post). Records shows he won in 2006 in their first grand slam match so keep dreaming.

U can keep standing on what u said but it will not change the fact that he started beating Federer in 2006.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Taking away Nadal's clay record is like taking away Jordan's scoring records. Last time I check, French Open is still one of the majors in tennis....

This is like comparing Magic Johnson to Michael Jordan (minus the scoring of Jordan) lol

I'm not doing that, though. Nadal is the greatest claycourter of all time.

Which is why I noted that Federer has greatly out-performed him at every slam other than Roland Garros. In the undisputed top 5 most important tennis tournaments, Federer has out-classed Nadal in 4 of them. 16-5 outside of the French. Nadal leads 9-1 at RG, and at the World Tour Finals it's 6-0 Federer. Even the most hardened Nadal fan could not argue that Rafa is better on any surface other than clay. For the record, a tennis calendar consists of 4 surfaces, hardcourts, indoor hardcourts, grass, and clay. That's 3 out of 4 for Federer. If we include carpet, which was abolished in 2007 or 2008, it would be 4 out of 5, as Nadal has historically struggled on fast indoor surfaces.


Even with Nadal's amazing run at RG, it's not a guarantee he will surpass Fed in the slam count, considering Federer could still add to his tally, and considering only 4 guys in the open era have won slams after the age of 30.

[joeysms55]

I'm not doing that, though. Nadal is the greatest claycourter of all time.

Which is why I noted that Federer has greatly out-performed him at every slam other than Roland Garros. In the undisputed top 5 most important tennis tournaments, Federer has out-classed Nadal in 4 of them. Even with Nadal's amazing run at RG, it's not a guarantee he will surpass Fed in the slam count, considering Federer could still add to his tally, and considering only 4 guys in the open era have won slams after the age of 30.


Man u must be smoking. Ur trying to justify than Federer has been outperformed Nadal in their head to head match by taking away all their clay court matches which is Nadal's strength. U can't take away a players strength then compare him to another player just like that.

Like I said its like comparing MJ (strength is scoring) to Magic Johnson or Lebron James (strength is being a all around player)

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Well live on a dream buddy. Nadal didn't beat Federer in his 3rd try in Wimbledon 2008 (which shows in ur previous post). Records shows he won in 2006 in their first grand slam match so keep dreaming.

U can keep standing on what u said but it will not change the fact that he started beating Federer in 2006.


But I never claimed that he didn't. Nadal has always had an edge on clay.

You highlighted my point about Nadal beginning his assault on the tour in 2008. How is that disputable? How can you say he was the preeminent player in 2006 or 2007, where he won 2 slams to Federers 6, 11 tournaments to Federers 20, etc. That's what I was saying. I think we've either hit an impasse, or you're failing to comprehend what I actual said and we're arguing about different things.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Man u must be smoking. Ur trying to justify than Federer has been outperformed Nadal in their head to head match by taking away all their clay court matches which is Nadal's strength. U can't take away a players strength then compare him to another player just like that.

Like I said its like comparing MJ (strength is scoring) to Magic Johnson or Lebron James (strength is being a all around player)


Dude, I'm not doing that lol. The head to head is a mark against Federer -- it damages his legacy big-time. I just don't see how it COMPENSATES for Federers OTHER advantages -- namely, being a better player on every surfaces other than clay. And once you DO factor in clay (which I never discounted in the first place), Federer is still a more accomplished player: 17-14 in slams, 6-0 in year end titles, 302 weeks at number 1 against 149 weeks, 80 titles to 63. This is WITH clay, mind you.

So no, Nadal's advantage on clay is a big tick in his favour, and it makes his case as better than Federer a legitimate argument. I just don't think it's enough to make up for everything in Federer's favour.

[oarabbus]

Jordan is the greatest sportsman of all time.

Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.


Bo Jackson >>>

Never have we seen a two sport allstar like that.

[joeysms55]

But I never claimed that he didn't. Nadal has always had an edge on clay.

You highlighted my point about Nadal beginning his assault on the tour in 2008. How is that disputable? How can you say he was the preeminent player in 2006 or 2007, where he won 2 slams to Federers 6, 11 tournaments to Federers 20, etc. That's what I was saying. I think we've either hit an impasse, or you're failing to comprehend what I actual said and we're arguing about different things.



Nadal started his onslaught on the sport in 2008, when he beat Federer at Wimbledon on his 3rd attempt against him.


hmm I'll leave it at that

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Federer is my 2nd all time favorite tennis player. Yet I have to admit Nadal has his number. Not just by a little bit. Magic's Lakers won against Bird's Celtics 2-1 in the Finals. That's close. Close enough for other factors to come in play to decide the better player either way. Nadal hasn't just beaten Federer, he has destroyed him. It's the look of utter helplessness in Federer's eyes that make me very hesitant to declare him GOAT, despite the fact that I think he would win more majors than anyone during any era due to his insane versatility. (BUT... Nadal, the so-call clay court specialist, has 14 -- same as Pete Sampras and only 3 behind Federer).

If they both retired right now, I would rather have Nadal's career. Dominate one of the greatest ever? I'll take that! Sampras beat Agassi but he didn't dominate him. 19-14. That does a good job of showing who the better player was. But it wasn't domination. Sampras has more majors. Agassi won all four. Sampras never beat Agassi at the French or Australian. Agassi never beat Sampras at Wimbledon or US Open.

But 23-10? And Nadal beating Federer at a major he owned for 7 years? Yet Federer never came close to beating Nadal at the French. Never even pushed him to a 5th set. Nadal pushed Fed to 5 sets TWICE at Wimbledon, winning one of them. Undefeated against Federer at the Australian, undefeated at the French, snatched one of three at Wimbledon.

Federer grew so upset at his inability to beat Nadal that he cried after the 2009 Australian Open.

You can't make Fed GOAT because that would mean Nadal is a lesser player. I think Nadal has proven to be a better player and is close enough (as of now) to Federer's 17 majors for that to matter. A lot.


I guess we must agree to disagree. For what it's worth, Nadal is not the only guy to make Federer cry lol -- guy has always worn his heart on his sleeve.

You make a ton of salient points...Nadal has been the best in their head to head, no doubt. But Federer has been the more accomplished player. He's had the better peak, almost impossible to argue. And he'll age better than Nadal will age, given his less volatile and injury-prone game. People will forget that Nadals injuries are pretty much entirely due to his violent windshield washer strokes and reliance on counter-punching. I'm lazy to type this all out once more so here's a post that sort of encapsulates some of the reasons I believe Fed is greater. If its tl;dr then it's all good.



Regardless, I can't ever see him as being "greater" than Fed for the same reason I can't view Ted Williams as being greater than DiMaggio. It's a subjective thing, I guess, and I wouldn't fault anyone for vehemently disagreeing with me. What any reasonable person can admit, though, is that this era was tailor made for Nadal. That's not his fault, and there's a fine line between admitting that and not acknowledging his rightful status in the annals of tennis history, which is as one of the greatest ever. But let it be known: there is pretty much literally nothing that could have been done to assure Nadal had more success in this era, other than avoiding the injury bug. Same goes, unfortunately, for Novak, which is a drag to admit. The courts are slower now than they have been at any point in tennis history. The racquet technology enables players to hit shots from defensive positions and return them with interest in a way it never has before. It used to be that on indoor courts, once you took charge in a rally, the other player would have to produce something special to neutralize the point. Now, you see guys merely bunt the ball back while on their back foot,in an extremely awkward position, and the ball will land on the back of the line and the point will be on level terms once more. It's so seamless and commonplace that long rallies with seemingly "amazing" gets barely register in the minds of most tennis fans. The balance of power has shifted, some might say irrevocably, to the defensive-minded player. That's why, to me, there isn't much parity in today's game. Once you've learned how to play on one surface, you've learned how to play on all of them. There are no single-surface specialists, because the adjustments you would have to make from one surface to another have been rendered all but obsolete. That's why todays "all-surface" players are anything but.

That doesn't diminish Nadals accomplishments for me, but it does add some clarity as to how he was able to be so successful despite playing the same type of game on every surface, employing the same rudimentary game plan for years without any seismic adjustments. I hope people reading this thread can see the difference between me hating on Nadal and me attempting to explain why he hit the jackpot playing in todays game.

Sure, Nadal to date has conquered his rivals. That script might be re-written at some point. After all, it wasn't until age 29-30 that the narrative of Federer only losing to Nadal consistently was changed. But it probably won't be. Nadal has a stranglehold on nearly all of his significant rivals. Colour me extremely impressed, but not shocked; after all, in this era once you learn how to play on one surface you learn how to play on them all. In that same vain, once you learn how to master one style of play (a margin-based counter-punching game with occasional offense), you master them all. That's the main reason I can't buy into the notion that the competition tennis has gotten much much stronger in the past 5 years, approaching a level we have never seen before. The level of baseline play is indeed unprecedented, but the all-court component is gone, due in large part to the technology and gradual death of fast surfaces. What's so gaudy about that? That's like if the NBA abolished the 3 point line. It'd go from a league with a good balance between rim-attackers and shooters to a league dominated by guys driving to the hole all game long. In that league, players like Bird, Petrovic and Reggie Miller wouldn't look so hot anymore. After all, why work on a skill that simply isn't relevant anymore? Volleys, chip and charges, stealthy approaches, and to an extent slice backhands, they are all merely complementary skills to have. Nothing more, nothing less. That is just absurd to me. Right now, if you are the best baseliner in tennis, you are the best PLAYER in tennis. It's a startlingly tight correlation. In the 90s, that didn't guarantee you were the best. Oh sure, Agassi and Chang were plenty successful.


But Sampras was the undisputed player of the 90s. Borg was the greatest baseliner of his era and the greatest player, but he served and volleyed at Wimby and developed a workmanlike net game. Laver was the greatest of his era but Rosewall was his superior from the back of the court, many would argue. Laver compensated for this by improving his running forehand and developing a lethal drive BH to combat Rosewall's slice. In other words, these guys couldn't fall back on their mastery of one facet of the game. On paper, Nadal will rival all of these players. Heck, he might be better whichever way you'd wanna argue it. But to me, I'll always feel that the Nadal-breed of players got the lions share of the luck playing in today's game. Meaning, baseliners with topspin-rife shots and counterpunching tendencies.

How does this tie in with Federer? Simply put, I am of the belief that if you put him in any era, he would be immensely successful. He is a jack of all trades in the same way Laver was. He beat Sampras serving and volleying. He beat Djokovic, Agassi, Murray and to a lesser extent Nadal from the back of the court in the biggest stages of the game. His variety ensured that he would be utterly dominant on fast and medium speed courts, and tremendously successful on slow ones (and don't tell me there are still lightning fast courts in todays game). At his peak you simply could not serve the man off the court. His defensive return was almost as good as Agassi's offensive return. His passing shots were elite on all surfaces. He took your time away on fast surfaces. On slow ones, you were guaranteed a war of attrition if intended to rally with him.

I believe his net game was underrated. It wasn't as great as Pete's or Rafters or Edbergs, but (of course) in this era it didn't need to be. That's why his net game during Wimby 2001 was better than it was when he was in his prime. Why hone a skill that wasn't all that necessary anymore? All I know is, many tried defeating Sampras using his own his own game during his reign at Wimbledon. Only two succeeded. And the other one might've had the best or second best first serve of his era, and possibly one of the 10 best overall serves of all time (Krajicek). Federer didn't have that luxury, especially at 19 when his serve was still developing. That counts for something.
Anyways, I'm not gonna say that i KNOW that Fed could dominate in any era and Nadal wouldnt, because to speak with such conviction is the mark of a foolish man. I merely believe it to be the case. I believe that Nadal, to dominate from the 60s-90s to the same extent that he did in the 2000's, he would had to have dramatically altered his game. Could he have been able to? Knowing his resolve, I wouldn't put it entirely past him. But I also believe that Federer wouldn't have to undergo any significant paradigm shift to succeed anywhere, on any surface and in any conditions. His game is timeless in a way that Nadal's isn't. While I have limitless respect for Nadal's prowess as a player, Federer has already proven (to me) that he is the greater player. Just one guys opinion.
Anyways, I've been arguing this for years and rarely has there been much common ground, so I understand if you have your opinion and don't diverge from it. Same here, haha.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

hmm I'll leave it at that


Where did I contradict myself? Nadal became number 1 after he beat Federer at Wimbledon, a venue where he lost to Federer in his first 2 attempts there. Before then, Nadal hadn't won a non-clay slam and hadn't even sniffed number 1.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

And just to clarify once more, I DON'T believe Federer is close to approaching MJ's legendhood. MJ's GOAThood is less disputed to me.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Who is better at his sport??? (for people Federer is the best tennis player ever and Jordan the best basquetball player ever....)


are they top 10 ever in the "all sportsman ranking" ????

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bv7EqHCCEAETj_e.jpg

Jordan > Federer. Federer lost a few grand slam finals against his biggest rival. Jordan never really had a rival who beat him more than he beat them.

For top 10 sportsman ever. Jordan would be neck and neck IMO with Muhammad Ali (people should keep into account his last 3 loses later in his career were when Parkinson symptoms were kicking in).

[Sarcastic]

http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/head-to-head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409


Anyone who thinks Nadal vs Fed H2H is even close, is clearly smoking something. Nadal has owned him, and everyone knows that.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Jordan > Federer. Federer lost a few grand slam finals against his biggest rival. Jordan never really had a rival who beat him more than he beat them.

For top 10 sportsman ever. Jordan would be neck and neck IMO with Muhammad Ali (people should keep into account his last 3 loses later in his career were when Parkinson symptoms were kicking in).
Ali wasnt even the best at his weight class. Joe Louis was better
Ali is not the best boxer only choice ppl have to put him on MJs level is the narratives and cultural influence Ali had. As a pure athlete he wasnt in MJs class

[NBAplayoffs2001]

http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/head-to-head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409


Anyone who thinks Nadal vs Fed H2H is even close, is clearly smoking something. Nadal has owned him, and everyone knows that.

Anyone who has followed tennis for a decade, yes. Me being one of them :cheers:.

Federer ruined my childhood by making my favorite player, Andy Roddick his little boy toy.:facepalm

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Ali wasnt even the best at his weight class. Joe Louis was better
Ali is not the best boxer only choice ppl have to put him on MJs level is the narratives and cultural influence Ali had. As a pure athlete he wasnt in MJs class

We all have our opinions. I think Ali is the greatest sportsman of all time and I'm a big MJ fan.

[AirFederer]

Epic fail and I don't bother to explain why :facepalm


I'm a huge Federer fan but Nadal should be considered the better player.

-- Dominated the French Open more than any other tennis player has ever dominated any tournament.

-- As of now, only 3 majors behind Federer

-- Dominated head-to-head against Federer

-- Undefeated at the French and Australian to Federer, even gave him a bagel set in the French Open Finals

-- Beat Federer on his best surface (Wimbledon)

-- Made Federer CRY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypdSpGJTa18) after beating him in the 2009 Australian Open

Federer is the most versatile player to ever pick up a racket, but he can't beat Nadal. He has more majors, but with Nadal only 3 behind and absolutely destroying the head-to-head matchup on all surfaces (23-10), I can't comfortably say Federer is a better player than Nadal or even that he's had the better career. I actually would prefer Nadal's career. I would never want such a stain on my career as to be utterly destroyed and embarrassed by a contemporary.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

Epic fail and I don't bother to explain why :facepalm

Biased name and I don't bother to explain why :lol

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/head-to-head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409


Anyone who thinks Nadal vs Fed H2H is even close, is clearly smoking something. Nadal has owned him, and everyone knows that.

I don't think anybody has said that, if you have read the thread. Nadal has the superior h2h but Federer is better against the field and is more accomplished. Nadal is a bad match up against him but regardless, Federer has been better at 3 of the 4 slams and in the biggest non-slam tournament.

[Sarcastic]

Anyone who has followed tennis for a decade, yes. Me being one of them :cheers:.

Federer ruined my childhood by making my favorite player, Andy Roddick his little boy toy.:facepalm


I've been watching tennis since the 1980s. The players Fed was beating from 2004-2007 were absolute jokes. Past prime Agassi, mental midgets Roddick and Safin, and Lleyton Hewitt. When the tour finally got decent, Fed stopped winning. It also coincided with Nadal finally entering his prime, and dismantling Fed pretty much every time they faced one another.


The tennis played on the men's tour during that early period of the 2000s, when Fed was dominating, was some of the worst tennis I have ever seen in my life. Everyone played the exact same baseline game. There was no variety at all. It is impressive that he dominated that period, but when you look back at the players, it becomes a bit less impressive, just due to the lack of champions he faced.

[Soundwave]

Kinda hard to compare a team sport vs. an individual sport.

But I'm not really even sure if Federer is the best player of his generation, I think Nadal might be that guy.

Jordan never got taken to school by like Karl Malone or Charles Barkley or something. Nadal did that to Federer.

In tennis though it seems like a new "GOAT" shows up every decade or so like clockwork, I remember when people said Pete Sampras was the greatest ever and that wasn't so long ago.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

I've been watching tennis since the 1980s. The players Fed was beating from 2004-2007 were absolute jokes. Past prime Agassi, mental midgets Roddick and Safin, and Lleyton Hewitt. When the tour finally got decent, Fed stopped winning. It also coincided with Nadal finally entering his prime, and dismantling Fed pretty much every time they faced one another.


The tennis played on the men's tour during that early period of the 2000s, when Fed was dominating, was some of the worst tennis I have ever seen in my life. Everyone played the exact same baseline game. There was no variety at all. It is impressive that he dominated that period, but when you look back at the players, it becomes a bit less impressive, just due to the lack of champions he faced.

If anything everybody plays the same way NOW lol. Racquet technology has rendered serve and volleying obsolete. Carpet has been abolished. The Australian open has been slowed down. Most of the surfaces have actually been slowed down, to increase the length of the matches. Hence why baseliners own Wimby now. An all-court game simply isn't important anymore, and if the tennis is so much stronger now, why is the average age of a top 100 player older now than its ever been?

The game is better at the top but not overall. The conditions are so homogenized. They were homogenized in Federers prime too, but its been getting ridiculous since 2007. Particularly when the Aussie open changed from rebound ace to plexicushion, and when they abolished carpet.

Nadal reaching his prime didn't entirely coincide with Federer stopping his run. It was that and Federer leaving HIS prime. Federer lost to so many unheralded players in 2008-2009 that he didn't lose to in years prior. Not just top players. Journeymen too. His running forehand declined big-time. His inside-out forehand wasn't as big of a weapon. His defensive return declined, hence why he went from winning 34% to 31% of his first serve return points won. His movement wasn't as strong and his stamina wasn't as good. Its too simplistic to say it was just one thing that led to such a massive drop-off in production against THE WHOLE TOUR. even guys who were older, who were getting owned by Fed, had the occasional scalp against him.

[kamil]

Jordan is one of the greatest sportsman ever

If not the greatest.

[Da_Realist]

I guess we must agree to disagree. For what it's worth, Nadal is not the only guy to make Federer cry lol -- guy has always worn his heart on his sleeve.

You make a ton of salient points...Nadal has been the best in their head to head, no doubt. But Federer has been the more accomplished player. He's had the better peak, almost impossible to argue. And he'll age better than Nadal will age, given his less volatile and injury-prone game. People will forget that Nadals injuries are pretty much entirely due to his violent windshield washer strokes and reliance on counter-punching. I'm lazy to type this all out once more so here's a post that sort of encapsulates some of the reasons I believe Fed is greater. If its tl;dr then it's all good.


Anyways, I've been arguing this for years and rarely has there been much common ground, so I understand if you have your opinion and don't diverge from it. Same here, haha.

It's the most difficult conversation in all of sports. What other GOAT candidate has had such trouble with his major rival? We've seen the "other" players win H2H's before... One could argue Evert is the GOAT even though Martina beat her 43-37. The margin is close enough for H2H to be a deciding factor. For the longest time, and maybe still, one could argue that Agassi > Sampras because at one time it was 17-14 but Agassi had pulled off the Grand Slam where Sampras never had a chance in Paris. Sampras has more titles and won the H2H, but Agassi's argument was versatility. Most of the time the GOAT candidate wins the H2H but we've seen some cases where they lose in H2H matchups. If it's close, it doesn't matter. Different surfaces, weather factors, favorite surfaces, etc can all skew H2H's. That's why I agree that for most of the cases, H2H can be a poor indication of GOATness.

Yet in Federer's case...he has lost more than twice as many to Nadal as he has won. On all surfaces, even his favorite. I've seen him utterly perplexed as to how he should play the guy. It's really not about the numbers for me. I've seen a look on Federer's face...not just at Roland Garros...that said "HOPELESS" when facing Nadal. Nadal is the only guy that makes Federer seem like a lesser player. Other players have beaten him but didn't reduce him. Nadal turns Michael Jordan into Dan Majerle. He's looked confused, lost, and discouraged. I've never seen a champion look so lost against his major rival. In his later years, Sampras looked lost on tour but when Agassi was on the other side of the net it was SHOWTIME. It's the opposite with Federer. He could blaze through whatever major and then get to the final and lose to Nadal in 3 or 4 lopsided sets.

Look at 2009 Australian Open, starting in the Semis. Federer played first and breezed through in 3 sets. The next day Nadal outlasted Verdasco in an Australian Open record 5 hour and 14 minute match. Federer was playing in top form and Nadal was coming off a 5 hour match. Yet in the Final Nadal beat Federer in 5 sets, winning the last set 6-2! If there was ever the perfect moment for Federer to beat Nadal, this was it. But he lost it. Even when more rested and playing better tennis leading up to it. He was playing from behind the whole match.

Federer is definitely a GOAT candidate. I've never seen a player play tennis as beautifully as he could. If we could take all the GOAT level candidates and start their careers at the same time, playing on four distinct surfaces, I think Federer would win more majors than anyone. In that sense, he could be the GOAT instead of one of them. But as a fan, it sticks out how Nadal can turn Federer into a much lesser player. I've never really seen that before. This is why I hesitate to say he is definitively the GOAT. The GOAT is supposed to figure it out. Maybe he could lose the H2H against someone but certainly not allow himself to be reduced to a lesser player almost every time on any given surface.

Everything you're saying, I've said before. I'm a fan of Federer and didn't like Nadal for the longest time. I didn't get to this point until Nadal won the French Open this year. That makes 14 titles. That's close enough for the number of majors not to matter that much. Now H2H matters a little bit more. And when the H2H is 23-10...9-2 in Grand Slams... it certainly is a huge asterisk on his career.

[Da_Realist]

If anything everybody plays the same way NOW lol. Racquet technology has rendered serve and volleying obsolete. Carpet has been abolished. The Australian open has been slowed down. Most of the surfaces have actually been slowed down, to increase the length of the matches. Hence why baseliners own Wimby now. An all-court game simply isn't important anymore, and if the tennis is so much stronger now, why is the average age of a top 100 player older now than its ever been?

The game is better at the top but not overall. The conditions are so homogenized. They were homogenized in Federers prime too, but its been getting ridiculous since 2007. Particularly when the Aussie open changed from rebound ace to plexicushion, and when they abolished carpet.

I agree with this. It really should be talked about more.

[Le Shaqtus]

Jordan isn't even consensus greatest in his own sport let alone sportsman.:facepalm

Literally the only people who say this are Bran Stans.

Jordan is GOAT, and everyone knows it :oldlol: no retard on a basket forum will change that.

[hahaitme]

He is 2-9 against Nadal on slams:applause:

He's 2-9 because Nadal wasn't good enough to make the finals of grass and hardcourt finals (3/4 of the slams) during Fed's real prime.

During his real prime he won a slam without dropping a set, that's like the equivalent of sweeping the entire playoffs (kind of?)

[alenleomessi]

just a GOAT appreciating another GOAT.. nothing new here

http://estaticos03.marca.com/imagenes/2012/12/12/tenis/1355342845_extras_noticia_foton_7_1.jpg

[Milbuck]

He's 2-9 because Nadal wasn't good enough to make the finals of grass and hardcourt finals (3/4 of the slams) during Fed's real prime.

During his real prime he won a slam without dropping a set, that's like the equivalent of sweeping the entire playoffs (kind of?)
Once again this is just a blatant dismissal of context, and it's been refuted multiple times in this thread. I'm just going to copy and paste from an earlier post of mine that addresses the same points you mention.

Before 2008, from 2004-2007, Nadal was a teenager.

When Federer was the same age, 18-21, it was 1999-2002. In that span, here are his monstrous slam achievements:

0 Finals
0 semifinals
2 quarterfinals
5 first round exits
2 slams that he lost in the qualifying round, meaning he wasn't good enough to play..

Meanwhile Nadal at the same age:

3 Grand slam wins
2 Finals (not on clay)
2 QFs (not on clay)

Nadal at that age hadn't fully developed as a player..he was a teenager playing against the supposed "GOAT", and somehow he's supposed to be making finals left and right on every surface when that supposed "GOAT" himself was completely irrelevant at the same age? That's just an unfair double standard..Nadal was doing great things on other surfaces besides clay that Federer didn't touch until age 22 and beyond.

Nadal has had to deal with prime Federer, prime Djokovic, and prime Murray for his entire career and the only one of the 3 who has given him a consistent fight is Djokovic...not Federer. The closest thing to a dominant player Federer had to deal with at his peak was Nadal himself, who again, was a teenager and nowhere near fully developed as an all-court all-surface player.

As for "winning a slam without dropping a set"...it's nowhere near like sweeping through the playoffs, mostly because his competition at his peak was, collectively, absolute garbage. His peak coincided with one of the weakest eras in tennis history, 2004 to 2007...in that span his biggest rivals were Nalbandian, Roddick, Gonzalez, teenage Nadal, grandpa Agassi with one foot into retirement, Hewitt, etc. He didn't actually face legit competition (prime Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, etc) until he had finished wrecking an awful field (aside from Nadal of course) and exited his prime.

The competition Federer faced at his peak is the equivalent of the Eastern conference of this past NBA season...with Indiana being teenage Nadal, not nearly developed fully as a player/team but still a bad matchup because of style of play.

[G-train]

What about Ivan Lendl?

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

@milibuck:

Well to be fair I addressed most of your post so copying and pasting just brings us back to square 1. I don't see what copying and pasting a post I had at least validly questioned, achieves.

@DaRealist:

I guess we have more common ground than I had originally thought. I do agree that Federers h2h with Nadal is unsettling, even for myself. Nothing as a Fed fan would make me happier than for him to beat Nadal at a slam at his advanced age.

Btw MJs in the house watching Fed tonight! Pretty sick

[chazzy]

Jordan is one of the greatest sportsman ever
So bold!

[yobore]

What about Ivan Lendl?

lol what about him?

Watch a match from the 80's and watch a match between one of today's big 3.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

lol what about him?

Watch a match from the 80's and watch a match between one of today's big 3.
A lot of it is racquet tech though, which goes a long way in explaining the gap between serve and groundstroke power.

John McEnroe, at 55, hits his serve harder now than in his 20's, which was the aforementioned 80's. He admits this. Its just a different paradigm. Poly strings have revolutionized tennis.

If I use my T-2000 I can serve at 105+ a few times and then not be able to rotate my shoulder for 3 days LOL. This was a racquet Connors played with in the 80's

Then I can use Feds k90 and Ill serve 115 consistently, without even expending much energy, for as long as I want to.

For anybody interested, look up Bjorn Borg. Freak athlete. Resting heart rate of a marathon runner and was faster than anybody playing today -- ran the 100 meters in 11.2. Incredible athlete.

Tennis has improved since then, but much like in basketball, there's a cultural amnesia.

[Milbuck]

@milibuck:

Well to be fair I addressed most of your post so copying and pasting just brings us back to square 1. I don't see what copying and pasting a post I had at least validly questioned, achieves.

Just left my place. I'll respond to all your points in-depth when I'm on a computer.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Just left my place. I'll respond to all your points in-depth when I'm on a computer.


Alright fair enough, thanks mate.

[Trollsmasher]

17/25 > 6/6 * 1/9

[Soundwave]

17/25 > 6/6 * 1/9

Federer played the Bad Boy Pistons or Bird Celtics with a crap team?

No, he could win/lose on his own merits, Jordan was better than any of the Pistons or even Celtics, they only beat him because they had the scales tipped in their favor. When the Pistons had to play Jordan with a relatively evenly matched team (ie: a no.2 and no.3 option they couldn't bully or have disappear in a game 7) they got their asses handed to them.

[G-train]

lol what about him?

Watch a match from the 80's and watch a match between one of today's big 3.

cool so Dwight > Bill Russell

smh

[booonkers]

Fed is the tennis goat. No one plays like he can. Nadal may have his number but fed is so much better against the rest of the field. His grandslams are so much more balanced than nadal's. I could never consider a moonballer as the tennis goat. Fed's tennis is pure genius.

[rmt]

I'm a big, big tennis fan - have been watching since 77 (same as the NBA). To me, GOAT means not just have the accomplishments but having the game to succeed in all eras, on all surfaces with any type of equipment. IMO, that criteria firmly places Federer as GOAT for tennis.

For those who point to Nadal's head to head, tennis is played against a field, not an individual. Nadal has the record number of weeks as #2 ever. Can the GOAT of a sport be second best for so long? His weeks at #1 is 141 not even half of Federer's at 302. No doubt Nadal is king of clay but 8 of his 13 grand slams are at the same Grand Slam (French Open on clay). Federer has dominated at 3 of the 4 Grand Slams - 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens and 1 French Open (of course because Nadal has been winning them all). But Federer was still the second best clay courter being beaten by Nadal 5 times on clay at French Open. Another black mark against Nadal is that he's never won the year end World Tour Finals where the top 8 players compete (Fed's won this title 6 times).

The head to head is skewed because Federer reached the Finals on Nadal's favorite surface only to lose to him but Nadal rarely made it to the Finals during Fed's runs on grass or hard court slams. And yes, it's a match-up problem but it's a problem that any one-handed backhander would have (including Sampras, Laver, etc). It would not have mattered so much to them because the surfaces were much faster back then or 3 of the 4 slams were on grass.

The reason for the homogenization of the surfaces is, of course, money. Before, when the surfaces were very different, there would be specialists - clay courters who wouldn't even play Wimbledon (fast grass) and serve and volleyers who wouldn't play on clay. By making the surfaces very similar, the same players would play each other in Finals and build rivalries - hence more fan recognition. The slowing down of surfaces has greatly helped Nadal. No way before 2004 could he win Wimbledon on the slick, low-bouncing, fast grass. Now they've made the grass slower and they use heavy balls to make more rallies.

Federer has the game to win on any surface, in any era, with any type of racquet. Nadal could not generate the type of spin he has with a wood racquet. Fed's natural, classic, fundamental style is also easy on the body as seen by his longevity and relatively injury-free career. Nadal has now sat out defending a Wimbledon and US Open title - has one good year, followed by one not so good - no domination. A GOAT's game should transcend era, surface and equipment - not be domination of only one surface. Federer has the most majors, most weeks at #1, high peak (3 majors in a year 3 times) and longevity.

[rmt]

And to those arguing that Fed's prime was in a weak era - what does it say that a 33 year old is reaching the Wimbledon Final and pushing Nole to 5 sets? that he's reached the final of Cincinnati and won Toronto (the 2 big tune-ups to US Open)? That he won Wimbledon in 2012 and regained the #1 ranking at the age of 31 while Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were all in their primes (mid 20s)?

The reason Fed's prime seemed like a weak era was because of his total domination. He was winning everything (except for Nadal/clay) and so the other players didn't have many titles to their names. Imagine, Fed's strokes WITH him in prime physical condition and CONFIDENT. The movement was exquisite, he went long stretches without a coach - just figured his opponent out during the match. Now in his "old" age, he has to have a coach, someone to scope out his opponents, discuss strategy with, using the drop shot that he long scoffed at as a sissy shot, finally changing to a bigger racquet head - things he didn't need in his prime because he was just that much better than the rest of the field (sans Nadal).

[stalkerforlife]

Nadal could be the GOAT...if the only major tournament was the French Open.

Federer has dominated many different majors, not just one.

Take away the clay court, and Federer's H2H with Nadal is pretty much a wash.

And Nadal was in his prime during a lot of their matches, while Federer was an old man.

[Da_Realist]

I'm a big, big tennis fan - have been watching since 77 (same as the NBA). To me, GOAT means not just have the accomplishments but having the game to succeed in all eras, on all surfaces with any type of equipment. IMO, that criteria firmly places Federer as GOAT for tennis.

For those who point to Nadal's head to head, tennis is played against a field, not an individual. Nadal has the record number of weeks as #2 ever. Can the GOAT of a sport be second best for so long? His weeks at #1 is 141 not even half of Federer's at 302. No doubt Nadal is king of clay but 8 of his 13 grand slams are at the same Grand Slam (French Open on clay). Federer has dominated at 3 of the 4 Grand Slams - 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens and 1 French Open (of course because Nadal has been winning them all). But Federer was still the second best clay courter being beaten by Nadal 5 times on clay at French Open. Another black mark against Nadal is that he's never won the year end World Tour Finals where the top 8 players compete (Fed's won this title 6 times).

The head to head is skewed because Federer reached the Finals on Nadal's favorite surface only to lose to him but Nadal rarely made it to the Finals during Fed's runs on grass or hard court slams. And yes, it's a match-up problem but it's a problem that any one-handed backhander would have (including Sampras, Laver, etc). It would not have mattered so much to them because the surfaces were much faster back then or 3 of the 4 slams were on grass.

The reason for the homogenization of the surfaces is, of course, money. Before, when the surfaces were very different, there would be specialists - clay courters who wouldn't even play Wimbledon (fast grass) and serve and volleyers who wouldn't play on clay. By making the surfaces very similar, the same players would play each other in Finals and build rivalries - hence more fan recognition. The slowing down of surfaces has greatly helped Nadal. No way before 2004 could he win Wimbledon on the slick, low-bouncing, fast grass. Now they've made the grass slower and they use heavy balls to make more rallies.

Federer has the game to win on any surface, in any era, with any type of racquet. Nadal could not generate the type of spin he has with a wood racquet. Fed's natural, classic, fundamental style is also easy on the body as seen by his longevity and relatively injury-free career. Nadal has now sat out defending a Wimbledon and US Open title - has one good year, followed by one not so good - no domination. A GOAT's game should transcend era, surface and equipment - not be domination of only one surface. Federer has the most majors, most weeks at #1, high peak (3 majors in a year 3 times) and longevity.

I agree with all this. I will say, though, that Federer benefited from the homogenization as well as Nadal. He essentially won Wimbledon seven times from the backcourt. As far as longevity and injuries...Nadal has 14 slams. Even sitting out Slams and whatnot, he has 14 slams. And he will probably win one or two more at least. And lastly...relating to the field...Nadal dominates Federer and he has the upper hand on Djokovic -- his two main rivals. And everyone else, too. Nadal did what Federer could not. He had trouble with Djokovic (the younger, hungrier rival) for a while but he found a way to solve the riddle. He caught Federer at his best and he has played Djokovic at his best and still squeezed out 14 titles. That's getting it done against two all time greats playing their best.

I don't put as much stock in year-end championships as others. Nothing matters more than Slams. I think Nadal has a higher winning percentage in the slams than both Federer and Djokovic. I heard that somewhere a couple of years ago but I'm sure that's still the case.

I'm not really a Nadal fan. I just finally gave in and admitted a high regard for his competitiveness, drive, focus and heart. Not to mention his amazing clutchness. Dude has nerves of steel. I now know how Jordan haters felt after they just had to give the man his due. Federer is more skilled than anyone else that has ever played tennis but there is something highly admirable about the heart Nadal puts on the court every single match.

Federer would have 25 slams if Nadal played in a different era. Nobody else could beat Federer for most of his career until he slowed down.

[rmt]

I agree with all this. I will say, though, that Federer benefited from the homogenization as well as Nadal. He essentially won Wimbledon seven times from the backcourt. As far as longevity and injuries...Nadal has 14 slams. Even sitting out Slams and whatnot, he has 14 slams. And he will probably win one or two more at least. And lastly...relating to the field...Nadal dominates Federer and he has the upper hand on Djokovic -- his two main rivals. And everyone else, too. Nadal did what Federer could not. He had trouble with Djokovic (the younger, hungrier rival) for a while but he found a way to solve the riddle. He caught Federer at his best and he has played Djokovic at his best and still squeezed out 14 titles. That's getting it done against two all time greats playing their best.

I don't put as much stock in year-end championships as others. Nothing matters more than Slams. I think Nadal has a higher winning percentage in the slams than both Federer and Djokovic. I heard that somewhere a couple of years ago but I'm sure that's still the case.

I'm not really a Nadal fan. I just finally gave in and admitted a high regard for his competitiveness, drive, focus and heart. Not to mention his amazing clutchness. Dude has nerves of steel. I now know how Jordan haters felt after they just had to give the man his due. Federer is more skilled than anyone else that has ever played tennis but there is something highly admirable about the heart Nadal puts on the court every single match.

Federer would have 25 slams if Nadal played in a different era. Nobody else could beat Federer for most of his career until he slowed down.

I disagree that Federer has benefitted from surface homogenization. Remember he beat Sampras, a 7 time Wimbledon champion on fast, slick grass as a teenager mostly serving and volleying. Federer's game is a classic one suited for all surfaces. He'd have dominated Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open even more than he did if the surfaces were faster.

Clay wouldn't have mattered because Nadal owns clay. The faster surfaces would have prevented Nadal from winning any grand slam outside of clay and would have been enough IMO to give the edge to Federer in those close 5 setters at Wimbledon and Australian Open. They've never played each other at US Open.

[Da_Realist]

Nadal could be the GOAT...if the only major tournament was the French Open.

Federer has dominated many different majors, not just one.

Take away the clay court, and Federer's H2H with Nadal is pretty much a wash.

And Nadal was in his prime during a lot of their matches, while Federer was an old man.

Nadal beat him at Wimbledon (on grass) two weeks after beating him at the French (on clay). He not only dominated him in 3 straight sets at the French but two weeks later, he goes into Fed's House and wins an epic 5 set match on grass. The Wimbledon win puts to bed the surface argument. Especially since Fed hasn't come close to challenging Nadal at the French.

[Da_Realist]

I disagree that Federer has benefitted from surface homogenization. Remember he beat Sampras, a 7 time Wimbledon champion on fast, slick grass as a teenager mostly serving and volleying. Federer's game is a classic one suited for all surfaces. He'd have dominated Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open even more than he did if the surfaces were faster.

Clay wouldn't have mattered because Nadal owns clay. The faster surfaces would have prevented Nadal from winning any grand slam outside of clay and would have been enough IMO to give the edge to Federer in those close 5 setters at Wimbledon and Australian Open. They've never played each other at US Open.

As a Sampras fan, I'd like to point out that he beat a washed-up Sampras in 2001. Maybe not washed up, but certainly at the tail end of a long career chasing the #1 ranking and piling up slams. It would have been interesting to see how many he would win on the fast fast grass of the 90's when there were more serve-and-volleyers on tour. As well as dangerous servers like Ivanisevic and Phillipousis. Guys that weren't a threat every year but could get hot in any given match and upset anyone.

Yet and still, Fed could hold his own against anyone on grass.

[booonkers]

I'm a big, big tennis fan - have been watching since 77 (same as the NBA). To me, GOAT means not just have the accomplishments but having the game to succeed in all eras, on all surfaces with any type of equipment. IMO, that criteria firmly places Federer as GOAT for tennis.

For those who point to Nadal's head to head, tennis is played against a field, not an individual. Nadal has the record number of weeks as #2 ever. Can the GOAT of a sport be second best for so long? His weeks at #1 is 141 not even half of Federer's at 302. No doubt Nadal is king of clay but 8 of his 13 grand slams are at the same Grand Slam (French Open on clay). Federer has dominated at 3 of the 4 Grand Slams - 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens and 1 French Open (of course because Nadal has been winning them all). But Federer was still the second best clay courter being beaten by Nadal 5 times on clay at French Open. Another black mark against Nadal is that he's never won the year end World Tour Finals where the top 8 players compete (Fed's won this title 6 times).

The head to head is skewed because Federer reached the Finals on Nadal's favorite surface only to lose to him but Nadal rarely made it to the Finals during Fed's runs on grass or hard court slams. And yes, it's a match-up problem but it's a problem that any one-handed backhander would have (including Sampras, Laver, etc). It would not have mattered so much to them because the surfaces were much faster back then or 3 of the 4 slams were on grass.

The reason for the homogenization of the surfaces is, of course, money. Before, when the surfaces were very different, there would be specialists - clay courters who wouldn't even play Wimbledon (fast grass) and serve and volleyers who wouldn't play on clay. By making the surfaces very similar, the same players would play each other in Finals and build rivalries - hence more fan recognition. The slowing down of surfaces has greatly helped Nadal. No way before 2004 could he win Wimbledon on the slick, low-bouncing, fast grass. Now they've made the grass slower and they use heavy balls to make more rallies.

Federer has the game to win on any surface, in any era, with any type of racquet. Nadal could not generate the type of spin he has with a wood racquet. Fed's natural, classic, fundamental style is also easy on the body as seen by his longevity and relatively injury-free career. Nadal has now sat out defending a Wimbledon and US Open title - has one good year, followed by one not so good - no domination. A GOAT's game should transcend era, surface and equipment - not be domination of only one surface. Federer has the most majors, most weeks at #1, high peak (3 majors in a year 3 times) and longevity.
Spot on. Fed's era wasn't weak, he was just absolutely dominant in his peak. Nadal missed a lot of grand slams to injuries due to his own style of play so thats not everyone else's fault. Those who keep bringing up 2008 as the year Nadal dominated Fed, he actually had mononucleosis that year and lost to a lot of players he usually dominates so he wasnt at his best.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

I agree with all this. I will say, though, that Federer benefited from the homogenization as well as Nadal. He essentially won Wimbledon seven times from the backcourt. As far as longevity and injuries...Nadal has 14 slams. Even sitting out Slams and whatnot, he has 14 slams. And he will probably win one or two more at least. And lastly...relating to the field...Nadal dominates Federer and he has the upper hand on Djokovic -- his two main rivals. And everyone else, too. Nadal did what Federer could not. He had trouble with Djokovic (the younger, hungrier rival) for a while but he found a way to solve the riddle. He caught Federer at his best and he has played Djokovic at his best and still squeezed out 14 titles. That's getting it done against two all time greats playing their best.

I don't put as much stock in year-end championships as others. Nothing matters more than Slams. I think Nadal has a higher winning percentage in the slams than both Federer and Djokovic. I heard that somewhere a couple of years ago but I'm sure that's still the case.

I'm not really a Nadal fan. I just finally gave in and admitted a high regard for his competitiveness, drive, focus and heart. Not to mention his amazing clutchness. Dude has nerves of steel. I now know how Jordan haters felt after they just had to give the man his due. Federer is more skilled than anyone else that has ever played tennis but there is something highly admirable about the heart Nadal puts on the court every single match.

Federer would have 25 slams if Nadal played in a different era. Nobody else could beat Federer for most of his career until he slowed down.

I also agree that Fed benefitted from the homogenization. While he is a fantastic net player, he's paid his bills from the back of the court. However, I think it's not a stretch to say Nadal has benefitted much, much more. Federer actually won his first slam serving and volleying over half the time. Even in 2012, he won coming to the net 60+ times against Murray and 30/40 times against the Djoker. This is phenomenal, considering they slowed down the grass after 2001, in a concerted effort to make the matches longer due to the t.v exposure. The following year, two pure baseliners in Hewitt and Nalby made the Wimbledon final, something that has never happened in the 120+ year history of the tournament.

They even slowed down the Aussie Open in 2008 (not complaining -- the Plexicushion is a pretty awesome surface) and the USO in 2005 when they switched to Decoturf.

Even the indoor courts are slower. Indoor courts should be the fastest on tour, and they are, but they were LIGHTNING quick in the 90s and early 2000's. Other than Dubai and Cincy, I can't think of any lightning fast courts in todays game. And even Cincy didn't seem that fast this year. Basically the US Open of the 90s was as fast as the fastest indoor courts today. Not a good sign.

That's telling for Nadal, because he's never even been elite on fast surfaces, much less legendary. He hasn't won an indoor title since 2005, something like a 20-25 tournament drought. He's 13-11 at the year-end finals, going 1-4 against Fed, with all 4 losses being blow-outs. Again telling, since the WTF is probably about as fast as the US Open was in the 90's, and would be one of the slower indoor courts in the 90s. Indeed, players have complained about the high bounce the court has yielded in recent years.


I think if the surfaces were as fast as they were in the 90s, not only would Nadal have accomplished less, the h2h probably would have been much different. Because not only would Fed have greatly benefitted from the faster surfaces and Nadal hampered by it, the claycourt field of the 90s was so strong! Which means that Nadal and Fed would not have played nearly as much on clay, because Fed would have likely had to bludgeon his way through against guys like Courier, Bruguera, Muster (check out his 1995 claycourt season. UNBELIEVABLE. Nadal-like for that year, might I add. 12 titles, something like a 50-3 record, unbeatable for many months), Guga and Kafelnikov, thus would not have made the final enough times for Nadal to pad the h2h. Nadal would still be a BEAST on clay though, far and away. The only drawback is he would not have been able to impart as much topspin on the ball playing in that era, which is his trademark, but he still would have owned the French. No argument there.

This is ultimately unprovable, of course, and it's a hypothetical that may not fly for some people. But so is the theory that Nadal had stronger competition. Only, I believe there's more validity to the former than the latter, considering how old the tour is today, and how unprecedented that is, and how there haven't been any new young faces to truly make a dent in the top 4's dominance in many many many years. Look at Haas, for instance. The guy had his most sustained success from 2009-2013, from ages 31-35, after a long injury lay-off that almost ended his career. That's just one example.


PS, the point you made earlier about the GOAT finding a way no matter how daunting the obstacle is, is a great one and a big reason why I can't consider Fed the undisputed GOAT. I think he's greater than Nadal, but overall he's right there with Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Rosewall, Borg, etc. I think I would give him the nod, but not comfortably.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

I'm a big, big tennis fan - have been watching since 77 (same as the NBA). To me, GOAT means not just have the accomplishments but having the game to succeed in all eras, on all surfaces with any type of equipment. IMO, that criteria firmly places Federer as GOAT for tennis.

For those who point to Nadal's head to head, tennis is played against a field, not an individual. Nadal has the record number of weeks as #2 ever. Can the GOAT of a sport be second best for so long? His weeks at #1 is 141 not even half of Federer's at 302. No doubt Nadal is king of clay but 8 of his 13 grand slams are at the same Grand Slam (French Open on clay). Federer has dominated at 3 of the 4 Grand Slams - 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens and 1 French Open (of course because Nadal has been winning them all). But Federer was still the second best clay courter being beaten by Nadal 5 times on clay at French Open. Another black mark against Nadal is that he's never won the year end World Tour Finals where the top 8 players compete (Fed's won this title 6 times).

The head to head is skewed because Federer reached the Finals on Nadal's favorite surface only to lose to him but Nadal rarely made it to the Finals during Fed's runs on grass or hard court slams. And yes, it's a match-up problem but it's a problem that any one-handed backhander would have (including Sampras, Laver, etc). It would not have mattered so much to them because the surfaces were much faster back then or 3 of the 4 slams were on grass.

The reason for the homogenization of the surfaces is, of course, money. Before, when the surfaces were very different, there would be specialists - clay courters who wouldn't even play Wimbledon (fast grass) and serve and volleyers who wouldn't play on clay. By making the surfaces very similar, the same players would play each other in Finals and build rivalries - hence more fan recognition. The slowing down of surfaces has greatly helped Nadal. No way before 2004 could he win Wimbledon on the slick, low-bouncing, fast grass. Now they've made the grass slower and they use heavy balls to make more rallies.

Federer has the game to win on any surface, in any era, with any type of racquet. Nadal could not generate the type of spin he has with a wood racquet. Fed's natural, classic, fundamental style is also easy on the body as seen by his longevity and relatively injury-free career. Nadal has now sat out defending a Wimbledon and US Open title - has one good year, followed by one not so good - no domination. A GOAT's game should transcend era, surface and equipment - not be domination of only one surface. Federer has the most majors, most weeks at #1, high peak (3 majors in a year 3 times) and longevity.


Nicely said :cheers:

[rmt]

As a Sampras fan, I'd like to point out that he beat a washed-up Sampras in 2001. Maybe not washed up, but certainly at the tail end of a long career chasing the #1 ranking and piling up slams. It would have been interesting to see how many he would win on the fast fast grass of the 90's when there were more serve-and-volleyers on tour. As well as dangerous servers like Ivanisevic and Phillipousis. Guys that weren't a threat every year but could get hot in any given match and upset anyone.

Yet and still, Fed could hold his own against anyone on grass.

Remember that Fed beat Phillipousis for his first Wimbledon championship. My point is who other than Fed has the game to win on fast grass? He also prevented big server Roddick from winning at Wimbledon in 04, 05, 09 and US Open in 06. Federer, unlike Nadal (who is very vulnerable to big servers on fast surfaces) plays big servers very well - see his very lopsided records against Roddick, Soderling, Raonic, etc.

As far as Sampras was concerned, he was 29 playing on his favorite court vs an inexperienced 19 year old. Sampras would reach the US Open Finals later that summer and would win US Open the next year but just as Fed was nowhere near his prime, Sampras was at the tail end of his career.

[Da_Realist]

I also agree that Fed benefitted from the homogenization. While he is a fantastic net player, he's paid his bills from the back of the court. However, I think it's not a stretch to say Nadal has benefitted much, much more. Federer actually won his first slam serving and volleying over half the time. Even in 2012, he won coming to the net 60+ times against Murray and 30/40 times against the Djoker. This is phenomenal, considering they slowed down the grass after 2001, in a concerted effort to make the matches longer due to the t.v exposure. The following year, two pure baseliners in Hewitt and Nalby made the Wimbledon final, something that has never happened in the 120+ year history of the tournament.

They even slowed down the Aussie Open in 2008 (not complaining -- the Plexicushion is a pretty awesome surface) and the USO in 2005 when they switched to Decoturf.

Even the indoor courts are slower. Indoor courts should be the fastest on tour, and they are, but they were LIGHTNING quick in the 90s and early 2000's. Other than Dubai and Cincy, I can't think of any lightning fast courts in todays game. And even Cincy didn't seem that fast this year. Basically the US Open of the 90s was as fast as the fastest indoor courts today. Not a good sign.

That's telling for Nadal, because he's never even been elite on fast surfaces, much less legendary. He hasn't won an indoor title since 2005, something like a 20-25 tournament drought. He's 13-11 at the year-end finals, going 1-4 against Fed, with all 4 losses being blow-outs. Again telling, since the WTF is probably about as fast as the US Open was in the 90's, and would be one of the slower indoor courts in the 90s. Indeed, players have complained about the high bounce the court has yielded in recent years.


I think if the surfaces were as fast as they were in the 90s, not only would Nadal have accomplished less, the h2h probably would have been much different. Because not only would Fed have greatly benefitted from the faster surfaces and Nadal hampered by it, the claycourt field of the 90s was so strong! Which means that Nadal and Fed would not have played nearly as much on clay, because Fed would have likely had to bludgeon his way through against guys like Courier, Bruguera, Muster (check out his 1995 claycourt season. UNBELIEVABLE. Nadal-like for that year, might I add. 12 titles, something like a 50-3 record, unbeatable for many months), Guga and Kafelnikov, thus would not have made the final enough times for Nadal to pad the h2h. Nadal would still be a BEAST on clay though, far and away. The only drawback is he would not have been able to impart as much topspin on the ball playing in that era, which is his trademark, but he still would have owned the French. No argument there.


PS, the point you made earlier about the GOAT finding a way no matter how daunting the obstacle is, is a great one and a big reason why I can't consider Fed the undisputed GOAT. I think he's greater than Nadal, but overall he's right there with Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Rosewall, Borg, etc. I think I would give him the nod, but not comfortably.

Good points. I agree with this. It doesn't help with the Fed/Nadal argument because that is based on what actually happened, not what would have happened, but you made some great points here.

[Da_Realist]

Remember that Fed beat Phillipousis for his first Wimbledon championship. My point is who other than Fed has the game to win on fast grass? He also prevented big server Roddick from winning at Wimbledon in 04, 05, 09 and US Open in 06. Federer, unlike Nadal (who is very vulnerable to big servers on fast surfaces) plays big servers very well - see his very lopsided records against Roddick, Soderling, Raonic, etc.

As far as Sampras was concerned, he was 29 playing on his favorite court vs an inexperienced 19 year old. Sampras would reach the US Open Finals later that summer and would win US Open the next year but just as Fed was nowhere near his prime, Sampras was at the tail end of his career.

I don't disagree here except to say that unlike the dangerous servers in Sampras's day, Roddick had a big stick but stayed 2 feet behind the baseline. Goran was like a Teradactyl at the net after bombing a serve 120 mph.

[rmt]

I don't disagree here except to say that unlike the dangerous servers in Sampras's day, Roddick had a big stick but stayed 2 feet behind the baseline. Goran was like a Teradactyl at the net after bombing a serve 120 mph.

Agreed but considering that Fed neutralizes big serves so well and that his volleys are certainly equal or better than Goran's and his groundstrokes are vastly superior, I'd guess that he'd be able to handle Goran too.

Surprisingly, Fed seemed to have more problems with baseliners like Hewitt and Nalbandian early in his career. I suspect that the change in surfaces was the reason for his relative late blooming - probably threw him off going from emphasizing serve and volley to the baseline game.

[AintNoSunshine]

Jordan is the 90% consensus GOAT in basketball, Federer is probably the GOAT but far from the extend of Jordan's status.

[Mr Feeny]

Nadal beat him at Wimbledon (on grass) two weeks after beating him at the French (on clay). He not only dominated him in 3 straight sets at the French but two weeks later, he goes into Fed's House and wins an epic 5 set match on grass. The Wimbledon win puts to bed the surface argument. Especially since Fed hasn't come close to challenging Nadal at the French.And yet Federer has a winninf record against Nadal on grass. So it doesn't exactly 'put to bed' that argument. Moreover, if you were following tennis in 2008, you'd know that Federer was recovering from mono and playing some of his worst tennis in years, losing to his pigeons Roddick, Fish and the lot -guys he NEVER loses to. And yet it took Nadal the match of his life and 4 hours 48 mins to beat THAT version of Federer.

I would have loved to see Nadal make it to the 2012 amd 2014 Wimdledon finals, but unfortunately an old man Federer is still outperforming a peak Nadal there.
Incidently, Nadal has failed to even make a QF at Wimbledon since 20011, losing to people ranked outaide the top 100 in early rounds.

[Mr Feeny]

He's 2-9 because Nadal wasn't good enough to make the finals of grass and hardcourt finals (3/4 of the slams) during Fed's real prime.

During his real prime he won a slam without dropping a set, that's like the equivalent of sweeping the entire playoffs (kind of?)

Exactly right. Nadal was getting pummeled by the likes of baby Murray, baby Tsonga, Delpo, and more recently, JOURNEYMEN ranked outside the top 100 in non-clay slams. Its a shame he couldnt reach more of those finals to face Federer outside of clay:cheers:

[Milbuck]

Jordan is the 90% consensus GOAT in basketball, Federer is probably the GOAT but far from the extend of Jordan's status.
Probably because unlike Federer, Jordan wasn't thoroughly owned on an individual basis by his biggest rival.

10-23 over the span of the rivalry, 6-8 when he was at his absolute peak and Nadal wasn't even the legal drinking age in the US. That's some GOAT-caliber shit by Federer :applause:

[bdreason]

Everything that needs to be said has pretty much already been said. I wanted to add that Federer is a much better server than he gets credit for. That's another reason he plays well on faster surfaces, because his placement and variety on the serve is amazing. Nadal has also improved his serve dramatically over the past few years. When Nadal is able to get easy holds on his serve, he's pretty much unbeatable.

[Mr. Jabbar]

I just want to comment on the word selfie, it's so lame, I really hope people stop saying it soon. It's as lame as girls taking the first names of a couple and turn it into one name made up of both.

The word selfie is so Magic Johnson's son. Like the whole look at me culture. I once saw a girl walking down the street, stopped all of a sudden to take out her phone and take a picture of herlsef. This Facebook era sucks. It feeds that, "Look at me," mentality. It feeds something narcissistic.

exactly.

jameerthefear culture

[rmt]

Everything that needs to be said has pretty much already been said. I wanted to add that Federer is a much better server than he gets credit for. That's another reason he plays well on faster surfaces, because his placement and variety on the serve is amazing. Nadal has also improved his serve dramatically over the past few years. When Nadal is able to get easy holds on his serve, he's pretty much unbeatable.

To me, the reason why Fed is a better fast court player is that he's a natural. His instinctive shots (the ones he makes on the fly) are just jaw-dropping. Since the faster courts take away time, some one like Nadal, who is a more "learned, practiced" player is not as suited when the reaction time is short.

Nadal, though, is the most "forget about the last shot" player I've ever seen. It's like he focuses on the next shot and doesn't let his emotion or the momentum affect him. He is also very skilled at figuring out mid-match what to do and since he never gives up, no lead is safe. Mentally, he's as strong as I've ever seen a player. That grinding style is hard on the body as seen by the multiple injuries.

I also think that Federer was too stubborn in his matches vs Rafa. He tended to play what is the "right" shot (beautiful tennis) when he should have just hit everything to Rafa's backhand (boring) and go to the forehand when he had the open court. It's amazing to me that he's still going strong - not easy to travel the world with 2 sets of twins under age 5.

[Da_Realist]

And yet Federer has a winninf record against Nadal on grass. So it doesn't exactly 'put to bed' that argument. Moreover, if you were following tennis in 2008, you'd know that Federer was recovering from mono and playing some of his worst tennis in years, losing to his pigeons Roddick, Fish and the lot -guys he NEVER loses to. And yet it took Nadal the match of his life and 4 hours 48 mins to beat THAT version of Federer.

The year before, Fed had no mono. Rafa was even more raw on grass and yet he pushed Fed to 5 sets -- two weeks after winning the French. Dominates his favorite surface and then goes to his least favorite surface and pushes one of the greatest grass court players ever to 5 sets at Wimbledon two weeks later. The next year, he wins on both surfaces. He made it to the Wimby Finals 3 years in a row. All of them two weeks after winning the French. That's Bjorn-like. And he's also won all four slams.

The surface doesn't really matter in this discussion. I'm not arguing that Rafa is the all-court player that Fed is. The Wimbledon win alone should prove he should be regarded as much more than a dominant French Open champion. He's also undefeated at Melbourne against Fed.

Put peak Federer and Rafa on the fastest grass court, Fed would win. But the slower the grass and the less Fed is in top form, Rafa has more of a chance. Yet no matter how fast the clay is, Fed can't beat Rafa in Paris even if Rafa isn't in top form. I also think Rafa would win more matches in Melbourne H2H, prime-vs-prime. Fed may hold an edge in NY and London but the edge isn't as large for Fed as Rafa's edge is against him in Melbourne and Paris.

[k0kakw0rld]

I reckon Nadal has to be up there with Fed as greatest tennis player and Nadal is still going strong with winning the big ones. Fed hasn't won in a while.
Nadal is nowhere near Federer's. Fed has class, respect of all players and legends more titles, more wins and more grand chelem. When it comes to their 1v1 matchup, Nadal smashes him though. Fed is way past his prime still making finals appareances and he still were able a title recently

[Mr Feeny]

The year before, Fed had no mono. Rafa was even more raw on grass and yet he pushed Fed to 5 sets -- two weeks after winning the French. Dominates his favorite surface and then goes to his least favorite surface and pushes one of the greatest grass court players ever to 5 sets at Wimbledon two weeks later. The next year, he wins on both surfaces. He made it to the Wimby Finals 3 years in a row. All of them two weeks after winning the French. That's Bjorn-like. And he's also won all four slams.

The surface doesn't really matter in this discussion. I'm not arguing that Rafa is the all-court player that Fed is. The Wimbledon win alone should prove he should be regarded as much more than a dominant French Open champion. He's also undefeated at Melbourne against Fed.

Put peak Federer and Rafa on the fastest grass court, Fed would win. But the slower the grass and the less Fed is in top form, Rafa has more of a chance. Yet no matter how fast the clay is, Fed can't beat Rafa in Paris even if Rafa isn't in top form. I also think Rafa would win more matches in Melbourne H2H, prime-vs-prime. Fed may hold an edge in NY and London but the edge isn't as large for Fed as Rafa's edge is against him in Melbourne and Paris.

You can spin it any way you like. The fact is that surfaces have been slowed down and homogonized, and today's slow courts (whether they are Clay, Grass, or hardcourt) suit a grinder like Rafa much more than an offensive player like Federer.
There ist much of a debate here. Toni Nadal himself openly acknowledges this.

It's the same reason he and Rafa were crying when the Wimdledon surface was sped up the past 2 years or so (still slower than 2003 grass) and Rafa got pumeled by scrubs.

"This isn't tennis" he said. We do know that Federer was able to play and win on the old faster surfaces as well as thr newer ones both at Wimby and on hardcourts (Rebound Ace vs plexi cushion) whereas Rafa hasnt even sniffed thr latter stages of Wimdledon since it was sped up (BY A HAIR) IN 2012.

Head-to-head is irrelevant as pointed out by pretty much everyone in this thread. You're playing against the field, not a specific opponent. 17 grandslams is the mark. When Rafa gets there, we can have a discussion.

[jayfan]

A lot of it is racquet tech though, which goes a long way in explaining the gap between serve and groundstroke power.

John McEnroe, at 55, hits his serve harder now than in his 20's, which was the aforementioned 80's. He admits this. Its just a different paradigm. Poly strings have revolutionized tennis.

If I use my T-2000 I can serve at 105+ a few times and then not be able to rotate my shoulder for 3 days LOL. This was a racquet Connors played with in the 80's

Then I can use Feds k90 and Ill serve 115 consistently, without even expending much energy, for as long as I want to.

For anybody interested, look up Bjorn Borg. Freak athlete. Resting heart rate of a marathon runner and was faster than anybody playing today -- ran the 100 meters in 11.2. Incredible athlete.

Tennis has improved since then, but much like in basketball, there's a cultural amnesia.

Correct. As for Lendl, he was great. The 80's was an absolutely stacked era. 90's was tough, too. Neither Federer's nor Nadal's era are even close.





.

[kshutts1]

Isn't the argument against Fed that he played in a weak era (yep, the exact term: weak era, also used in Tennis)?

And Nadal owns him h2h.
General point, not directed at Jimmy...

"weak era" is such a silly phrase. The only time anyone considers an era "weak" is when one player/team/etc dominates for an extended period of time.

Was the era really weak, or were Fed/Russell/Wilt/Jordan just that good? So good that they made everyone else look irrelevant?

[Da_Realist]

You can spin it any way you like. The fact is that surfaces have been slowed down and homogonized, and today's slow courts (whether they are Clay, Grass, or hardcourt) suit a grinder like Rafa much more than an offensive player like Federer.
There ist much of a debate here. Toni Nadal himself openly acknowledges this.

It's the same reason he and Rafa were crying when the Wimdledon surface was sped up the past 2 years or so (still slower than 2003 grass) and Rafa got pumeled by scrubs.

"This isn't tennis" he said. We do know that Federer was able to play and win on the old faster surfaces as well as thr newer ones both at Wimby and on hardcourts (Rebound Ace vs plexi cushion) whereas Rafa hasnt even sniffed thr latter stages of Wimdledon since it was sped up (BY A HAIR) IN 2012.

Head-to-head is irrelevant as pointed out by pretty much everyone in this thread. You're playing against the field, not a specific opponent. 17 grandslams is the mark. When Rafa gets there, we can have a discussion.

Rafa has 14 majors playing against the field and won all 4 slams before Federer did. That's 2nd all time.

I agree the courts have been homogenized and in a different world, Fed would probably have a better H2H record. But we can only argue about what happened on the court. Both were the two best players for years. In fact, Federer was usually number one. The H2H record counts. No asterisks.

[2swift4u]

Jordan > Federer. Federer lost a few grand slam finals against his biggest rival. Jordan never really had a rival who beat him more than he beat them.

For top 10 sportsman ever. Jordan would be neck and neck IMO with Muhammad Ali (people should keep into account his last 3 loses later in his career were when Parkinson symptoms were kicking in).

First of all I think you can't really compare losing in tennis (1on1) to losing in basketball or a basketball playoff series. The tennis guys play each other almost every week or two weeks and it's obvious that you're going to lose some matches/finals.

Also there are statistics which state that the skill/luck ratio in Tennis is different than in basketball. In tennis you need the most skills and luck plays the smallest role out of all really popular sports. Which makes total sense to me, these guys play for 4-5 hours at time, 1 on 1 (so nobody can bail you out) and every hit counts. That's an unreal challenge compared to other sports.

However I believe Jordan will always be the bigger legend. But Federer is right up there when it comes to what he's done in his career.

There's one more important difference between Federer and Jordan as well as Ali that should not be overlooked imo. Federer is imo the bigger person. Both Jordan and Ali have done some pretty crappy stuff and a lot of people didn't like them. Federer however has always been a classy and commendable guy!! Personally I'm more impressed by that than by any stats.

[Mr Feeny]

Rafa has 14 majors playing against the field and won all 4 slams before Federer did. That's 2nd all time.

I agree the courts have been homogenized and in a different world, Fed would probably have a better H2H record. But we can only argue about what happened on the court. Both were the two best players for years. In fact, Federer was usually number one. The H2H record counts. No asterisks.

Exactly. And until Rafa reaches 17 grandslams and 6 YEC's against the field with 300 weeks at #1, that h2h does not matter. It can't be used as a tiebreaker if Federer leads in almost every crucial categories. It's a shame that he doesn't look like he'll get to 17; that would habe started an interesting debate about the GOAThood.

[Da_Realist]

Exactly. And until Rafa reaches 17 grandslams and 6 YEC's against the field with 300 weeks at #1, that h2h does not matter. It can't be used as a tiebreaker if Federer leads in almost every crucial categories. It's a shame that he doesn't look like he'll get to 17; that would habe started an interesting debate about the GOAThood.

I'm really not arguing Rafa's case for GOAThood -- although he's in the conversation, all things considered. I'm saying that Rafa has put such a dent in Fed's armor that whenever someone mentions Fed's GOAThood, it will be talked about. Rafa's name will always come up. 30 years from now, someone will bring up how Fed could not beat Rafa. That's why H2H will always matter in his case.

As a fan of Federer, the rock in the shoe will always be Rafa Nadal. Maybe if Rafa had only 8 majors, I could shoo him away. But he's got 14 and has won all 4 majors. He may win one or two more...but even if he stays at 14, that's 2nd best all time. Tied with Pete Sampras. 6 more than Andre Agassi!

[K Xerxes]

They are two entirely different sports - how can you even compare them? They are both currently the consensus GOATs in their sports, the only real tangible edge that goes to either one is Jordan's impact globally.

A point on the Federer-Nadal thing... it's probably the only black mark on his resume, but you have to consider that Nadal will probably go down as a top 2 player ever. He is arguably the fittest and most mentally tough tennis player ever, with a topsin forehand arguably as devastating as Federer's. Add that to the obvious matchup issues (spam moonball to one handed back hand), particularly on clay, and it's hardly surprising that Nadal has such a record. Jordan never faced someone like that H2H, and even then we can't even make this a fair comparison since no individual in basketball can win without the necessary help.

[imdaman99]

Exactly. And until Rafa reaches 17 grandslams and 6 YEC's against the field with 300 weeks at #1, that h2h does not matter. It can't be used as a tiebreaker if Federer leads in almost every crucial categories. It's a shame that he doesn't look like he'll get to 17; that would habe started an interesting debate about the GOAThood.
The main thing that will matter is the 17 grand slams, which I see Nadal getting. Doesn't matter how he gets it, I would prefer a few non FOs as well but once Nadal gets 17, he should be on his way to goathood. I couldn't care less about all that other junk you mentioned.

The only thing that should matter is winning the big one, which there are 4 of in tennis every year. Deal with it.

[bdreason]

The main thing that will matter is the 17 grand slams, which I see Nadal getting. Doesn't matter how he gets it, I would prefer a few non FOs as well but once Nadal gets 17, he should be on his way to goathood. I couldn't care less about all that other junk you mentioned.

The only thing that should matter is winning the big one, which there are 4 of in tennis every year. Deal with it.




Consistency and player rankings matter in Tennis. There are tons of tournaments throughout the season that are almost on the same level of the 4 Majors. These are events that EVERY top player in the World has to show up and play (8 mandatory), or suffer a huge rankings hit. As mentioned earlier, the ATP World Finals (1500 points) is also a significant competition, worth almost as much as a Major (2000 points).

The idea that GOAT status is decided simply by # of Majors in Tennis is ridiculous. Maybe ESPN just points at Majors, but anyone who really follows Tennis knows there's a lot more to being great at the sport than just winning Majors.

[Milbuck]

How is this thread still going on :oldlol:

There is zero argument. Zero at all for Federer being the more concrete GOAT of his sport than Jordan for basketball. Jordan was never, never in his career totally owned individually by another basketball player. Federer is literally 2 Nadal slams away from being overtaken. Agassi, McEnroe, a bunch of greats are already calling Nadal the best ever..if Nadal gets 16, let alone 17, Fed's GOAT reign is OVER. Finished.

[tpols]

MJ never got to play against a GOAT candidate for a long period of time in his sport. If MJ played Russell led teams for his entire prime or KAJ teams for his entire prime, he wouldnt look near as close to concrete GOAT. He got to play patrick ewing and charles barkley and karl malone led teams.. all second tier players. He never had an adversary like nadal for a long length of his prime.

[Milbuck]

MJ never got to play against a GOAT candidate for a long period of time in his sport. If MJ played Russell led teams for his entire prime or KAJ teams for his entire prime, he wouldnt look near as close to concrete GOAT. He got to play patrick ewing and charles barkley and karl malone led teams.. all second tier players. He never had an adversary like nadal for a long length of his prime.
Federer's peak was against teenage Nadal..it's like Bird on the 86 Celtics saying "well, we faced Michael Jordan"...yeah, you faced him on a garbage roster. The same way Fed was playing an underdeveloped, 18-21 year old version of Nadal that was nowhere near the all-court player he'd become later on when Fed was getting older. Still a great, great player, but not complete.

Fed's biggest competition at his peak was teenage Nadal...then Hewitt, Roddick, grandpa Agassi, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, etc. Just a weak, weak era.

Of the big 4, Andy Murray is the weakest player and even he at his best is better than anyone Fed faced in his peak aside from Nadal himself.

Federer didn't start dealing with prime Djokovic, Murray, and obviously Nadal until he was well out of his prime and had wrecked a weak field from 2004-2007.

[mentallooser]

I think we can all agree though that getting to watch the big 4 go at in this era is a ****ing treat. I do miss there being a top US mens player in the mix, but **** it. We have Fed, Nadal, Nole, and Murray along with the likes of Ferrer and Tsonga battling fairly consistently. I love tennis right now. If only we could have prime Sampras back though.

[Milbuck]

I think we can all agree though that getting to watch the big 4 go at in this era is a ****ing treat. I do miss there being a top US mens player in the mix, but **** it. We have Fed, Nadal, Nole, and Murray along with the likes of Ferrer and Tsonga battling fairly consistently. I love tennis right now. If only we could have prime Sampras back though.
I'd say 2012 was the absolute peak of this era, it was just incredible to watch.

Djokovic had just come off one of the most dominant seasons ever and was still a monster on tour, Nadal had finally to some extent figured out Djokovic and made a rivalry of it again, Federer bounced back from some down years and won a slam, and Murray finally broke through as a great player with an Olympic Gold medal and USO win.

With Murray's back injury, Federer getting older and older, Djokovic starting a family and losing some motivation, Nadal dealing with injuries left and right, etc..we need to cherish this era of tennis.

Tennis really needs guys like Delpo, Dimitrov, Raonic, Janowicz, Gulbis, etc to step up.

[edrick]

People trying to discredit Federer? Shocking. :rolleyes: Dude had 1 guy that gave him problems during his prime, and on clay. Nadal could literally chase down every shot that is hit while playing on clay. Nadal ruined his ****ing knees with how he played.

[rmt]

Federer's peak was against teenage Nadal..it's like Bird on the 86 Celtics saying "well, we faced Michael Jordan"...yeah, you faced him on a garbage roster. The same way Fed was playing an underdeveloped, 18-21 year old version of Nadal that was nowhere near the all-court player he'd become later on when Fed was getting older. Still a great, great player, but not complete.

Fed's biggest competition at his peak was teenage Nadal...then Hewitt, Roddick, grandpa Agassi, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, etc. Just a weak, weak era.

Of the big 4, Andy Murray is the weakest player and even he at his best is better than anyone Fed faced in his peak aside from Nadal himself.

Federer didn't start dealing with prime Djokovic, Murray, and obviously Nadal until he was well out of his prime and had wrecked a weak field from 2004-2007.

Well, what do you say about an old Federer winning wimbledon and regaining the #1 ranking at 31 WHILE Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were in their prime mid-20s?

[rmt]

No doubt Nadal is king of clay but 8 of his 13 grand slams are at the same Grand Slam (French Open on clay). Federer has dominated at 3 of the 4 Grand Slams - 7 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens, 4 Australian Opens and 1 French Open (of course because Nadal has been winning them all).

I stand corrected - 9 of his 14 grand slams are at one major (clay). That's not GOAT - that's the best clay courter ever.

[hahaitme]

Well, what do you say about an old Federer winning wimbledon and regaining the #1 ranking at 31 WHILE Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were in their prime mid-20s?

On an evidently slowed grass too.

If the AO and W were still fast like the 90's, Fed would eat these kids up. Just look at what happens at Cincinnati

[Milbuck]

Well, what do you say about an old Federer winning wimbledon and regaining the #1 ranking at 31 WHILE Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were in their prime mid-20s?
Yes, because Nadal was perfectly healthy throughout 2012. It's not like he was gone the second half the year or anything.

And it's not like Federer was doing anything incredible..

Australian Open - gets his ass handed to him by Nadal, as usual.

Roland Garros - gets his ass handed to him again, this time in straights by Djokovic

Wimbledon - wins it, props to him on that

US Open - Loses a somewhat close match to Berdych in the QF

And loses in the Olympics to Murray.
On an evidently slowed grass too.

If the AO and W were still fast like the 90's, Fed would eat these kids up. Just look at what happens at Cincinnati
Cincinnati? Isn't that the same North American series tournament, which Nadal swept through last time he was there?

Nadal wins 23 straight hard court matches in 2013 (wins Indian Wells, then wins Rogers Cup, Cincinnati, and the US Open back-to-back-to-back), and goes 37-4 overall on the year, but it's only because of surface homogenization, right?

But when Federer wins it, he's the GOAT surface king.

Wonderful double standard.

I stand corrected - 9 of his 14 grand slams are at one major (clay). That's not GOAT - that's the best clay courter ever.
Well obviously..he's not the GOAT yet.

If he wins 2 more non-clay slams, say 1 AO and 1 more USO..he has a very, very strong case.

He'd have thoroughly owned his biggest rival, and have a winning record against the other 2 of the big 4 as well. He'd have one of the, if not THE best overall winning % in tennis. He'd have the Olympic Gold medal. He'd have multiple davis cups.

But most importantly, he'd have 16 slams. 7 off his best surface, which is the same amount as all-time greats like Edberg, Becker, Djokovic (right now), Wilander, McEnroe have TOTAL.

He's not there. But he's getting there.

[Mr Feeny]

On an evidently slowed grass too.

If the AO and W were still fast like the 90's, Fed would eat these kids up. Just look at what happens at Cincinnati

Exactly! Doesn't he hold the record for most wins at Cincy? In thr only tournament somewhat still fast? Says a lot.

It would have beem delicious to watch Federer take on this lot on the old, faster grass.
It's also very telling that Nadal has bee embarassed 3 straight years in Wimbledon by scrubs every since it was FRACTIONALLY sped up while a 33 year old Federer is reaching finals.

[Da_Realist]

An article I just ran across...

http://www.givemesport.com/497996-rafael-nadal-is-destined-to-be-greater-than-roger-federer

[Da_Realist]

Hoping Federer can beat Djokovic in the US Open Final this year. And I'd love for him to get one signature win against Nadal in a Grand Slam Final. I'm more than content if that happens. Maybe the new racquet and renewed focus to attack the net can help make this happen.

[rmt]

Hoping Federer can beat Djokovic in the US Open Final this year. And I'd love for him to get one signature win against Nadal in a Grand Slam Final. I'm more than content if that happens. Maybe the new racquet and renewed focus to attack the net can help make this happen.

Getting a signature win against Nadal in a GS final is not important. What's important is that he keeps his lead in total grand slams. The rest of his resume - weeks at #1, 6 WTFs (to none), etc. is already way ahead of Nadal's - uncatchable by Nadal.

[poido123]

Jordan isn't even consensus greatest in his own sport let alone sportsman.:facepalm



You are a such a loser.

You responded to yourself 3 times just on this one page...

Have you no shame?

What do you do for work btw?

[Da_Realist]

Getting a signature win against Nadal in a GS final is not important. What's important is that he keeps his lead in total grand slams. The rest of his resume - weeks at #1, 6 WTFs (to none), etc. is already way ahead of Nadal's - uncatchable by Nadal.

The competitor in me wants that one big win against him. Just one. He could retire the next day and I wouldn't care.

[Mr Feeny]

The competitor in me wants that one big win against him. Just one. He could retire the next day and I wouldn't care.

Like he said, Nadal doesn't matter. What's paramount is having the most grandslam titles all time. That is what everyone is going to look at when discussions about the GOAT take place.

[Sarcastic]

People trying to discredit Federer? Shocking. :rolleyes: Dude had 1 guy that gave him problems during his prime, and on clay. Nadal could literally chase down every shot that is hit while playing on clay. Nadal ruined his ****ing knees with how he played.


Go look at the dudes he beat when he was winning the majority of his slams. They were all chumps.

[Mr Feeny]

Go look at the dudes he beat when he was winning the majority of his slams. They were all chumps.

Sarcastic?

[SpanishACB]

Like he said, Nadal doesn't matter. What's paramount is having the most grandslam titles all time. That is what everyone is going to look at when discussions about the GOAT take place.

Except tennis is a 1v1 sport. There are no stacked teams, no scape goats and no excuses.

And you can't be GOAT when you're 23-10 against a guy that has as much of a case for it. Can't say that with a straight face.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Except tennis is a 1v1 sport. There are no stacked teams, no scape goats and no excuses.

And you can't be GOAT when you're 23-10 against a guy that has as much of a case for it. Can't say that with a straight face.
I guess Muhammed Ali can't be the GOAT heavyweight because he lost to Ken Norton (arguably all 3 times). And Pacquiao is lower than Marquez since he quite clearly lost all 4 fights..

Styles make fights and the same is true in Tennis. Nadal is a bad match up stylistically for Federer.

[DMAVS41]

Except tennis is a 1v1 sport. There are no stacked teams, no scape goats and no excuses.

And you can't be GOAT when you're 23-10 against a guy that has as much of a case for it. Can't say that with a straight face.

Why not?

Head to head is hardly the end all be all...

One could turn around and say you can't be GOAT if 9 of your 14 grand slam titles come on kind of a flukey surface like clay.

Both are stupid.

You take the entire body of work and evaluate it.

Right now, Federer deserves to be ranked over Nadal....but I could definitely see that changing if Nadal has great longevity like Fed and continues to win grand slams.

[Da_Realist]

I guess Muhammed Ali can't be the GOAT heavyweight because he lost to Ken Norton (arguably all 3 times). And Pacquiao is lower than Marquez since he quite clearly lost all 4 fights..

Styles make fights and the same is true in Tennis. Nadal is a bad match up stylistically for Federer.

I think you're missing the point of his post. There are two parts...

1) Superior, even dominant, H2H record and
2) Case for GOAT is almost or just as strong as Federer's

Ken Norton may have satisfied the first argument (not to the degree of Nadal/Federer) but clearly hasn't satisfied the 2nd. The case for Nadal isn't that he has more titles but that he has enough titles to make the H2H domination matter.

Read the article I posted last night. There will always be dissension when "Federer as GOAT" is discussed precisely because of his horrible H2H record against Nadal. That's why H2H will always matter. You won't find an article anywhere over the next 20 years that labels Federer as the GOAT without it mentioning Nadal. H2H matters because Nadal has won enough for it to matter. Being dismissive of Nadal doesn't change that.


One could turn around and say you can't be GOAT if 9 of your 14 grand slam titles come on kind of a flukey surface like clay.

Actually, the French Open is the least flukey of all the Slams. The clay neutralizes power and requires strategy, endurance, patience and fortitude. Admittedly, there are more exciting Slams, but the French is very straightforward. It's the hardest slam to win. You can't beat your opponent with one to two shots. It's the ultimate war of attrition. Winning the French 9 times is the greatest accomplishment in tennis. Not only does it take a lot to win it once but to do it 9 out of 10 years? Incredible. This a BONUS in Nadal's favor, not a detriment.

[Da_Realist]

My favorite Slam is the US Open. It is the most accepting of different styles of play. Guys like Federer, Sampras, Hewitt, Rafter and Agassi have all been very successful playing there even though they play different stylistically. This means, you can get titanic matchups where neither player has a clear advantage. All the other slams favor a certain style more than others.

Plus the vibe of NYC and especially the night matches... You just can't beat it. It's too bad they got rid of Super Saturday. The best version being the men's semi - ladies' final - men's semi setup. That was the best day in all of tennis.

[dankok8]

Rafa has always been my very favorite player before Djoker took over his spot the last few years. But to call him better than Fed is crazy...

These arguments for Nadal > Federer argument ignore different surfaces (Federer is better on two out of three by huge margins...) and that too many of their match-ups happened as a peak/prime Nadal faced a way past his prime Federer.

First of all the simple accomplishments by surface:

Hard Courts

Federer has 9 combined AUS + US Opens and 54 hard court titles.
Nadal has 3 combined AUS + US Opens and 16 hard court titles.

Grass Courts

Federer has 7 Wimbledons and 14 grass court titles.
Nadal has 2 Wimbledons and 3 grass court titles.

Clay Courts

Federer has 1 French Open and 12 clay court titles.
Nadal has 9 French Opens and 45 clay court titles.

On clay Nadal is the undisputed king but he's nowhere near Fed on either grass or hard courts.

Also up to and including the 2010 AUS Open Federer took 16 of his 17 grand slams and since then he's never been dominant. Taking his entire career until the end of 2010:

Federer was 8-14 against Nadal but 4-2 on hard courts and 2-1 on grass courts (and of course 2-11 on clay)

Federer was 13-6 against Djokovic including 4-2 in Grand Slams

Federer was 20-2 against Roddick including 8-0 in Grand Slams

And the "Federer played in a weak era" argument is funny too.

He wasn't the type of player to start winning at an early age which is unusual for tennis. But so what he won 17 grand slams. Why the [expletive deleted] should anyone care? And look who Fed faced as a teenager... Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Roddick, Hewitt... that might be the GOAT tennis era actually.

Mental midget Roddick? You might wanna look at his H2H against top players especially up to 2009 when he just fell off the cliff. Roddick is 3-7 in his career against Rafa but 1-1 in grand slams and the last 3 Rafa wins came within a year of Andy's retirement. Roddick is also 5-4 for his career against Djokovic including 1-1 in grand slams. The only reason Roddick doesn't have 5-7 grand slams is because of Roger freaking Federer who destroyed him when they faced off. Andy Roddick is still the greatest server of all time and arguably the greatest net player as well. The man was an offensive machine. By comparison to Nadal, Federer for his career is 21-3 against Roddick and 8-0 in Grand Slams. Domination!!

Weakling Lleyton Hewitt? Hewitt's career record against Rafa is 4-7. However while still a top 10 player Lleyton was 4-1 against Rafa including 2-1 in grand slams. Nadal racked up his wins and won the last 6 matches in their rivalry against an irrelevant Hewitt who was decimated by injuries. Federer of course is 18-9 against Hewitt including 8-0 at Grand Slams. Domination!!

Marat Safin is 0-2 against Nadal. However Federer spanked a prime Safin 10-2 including 4-1 in grand slams.

Of course Fed also has 302 weeks as #1 including 237 consecutive weeks. The latter record will never be broken. From 2003 to 2007 Federer was unbeatable. What Nadal (2010) and Djoker (2011) could do for a year Fed did for 4 years. I was there. I saw it.

[Sarcastic]

Rod Laver is the GOAT.

[deja vu]

How the hell does a thread about a selfie turn into 10 pages?

:biggums:

Didn't know there are lots of tennis fanatics here.

[Da_Realist]

How the hell does a thread about a selfie turn into 10 pages?

:biggums:

Didn't know there are lots of tennis fanatics here.

I don't run across many tennis fans but the ones I do know are hard core.