Yeah, could have sworn Nadal has 4 non-French majors and has won at the US, Aussie along with his two at Wimbledon. Not exactly a one trick pony. Even if you take into account a lot of the H2H against Federer came on Nadals best surface its still extremely impressive.

so pretty much:

-rafas non-clay court victories dont count bc he only got there bc he was playing well
-rafas clay court victories dont count bc thats his best surface

but

-feds 03-06 (pre nadal) titles count despite extremely weak fields
-feds 2 grand slam victories over rafa count despite being on feds best surface and facing rafa when he wasnt even at his best

got it

It shouldn't be overlooked in the GOAT discussion that Federer's first 7 grand slam titles were won beating opponents who weren't even remotely in his league. Yes he beat Agassi in a US Open final, but Andre was 35 years old.

Edit: GeoffRass22 beat me to it.

facepalm

rafa is one of the greatest players of alltime dont get me wrong but the h2h against federer is very misleading due to reasons mentioned above(using the h2h statistics to prove a point is therefore just ridiculous)

federer was dominating every single opponent but rafa for years and years without exception(23 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals ffs) and even now at almost 30 he is was able to beat an onfire djoko on his worst surface, so lol @ you for discounting rogers earlier titles due to weaker fields

That Rog is better? This is a really good point that cashy made and I'm not sure how you're not seeing it. From 2004-2007, Rog's dominant run, when he was clearly better than Nadal on all non-clay surfaces, he met him 7 times on hard/grass and was 5-2. Even though there are roughly twice as many hard/grass tournaments as clay tournaments Rog met him the exact same number of times on clay, 7, and was 1-6. There might be a flaw in the logic, but it seems Nadal should have met him 7 more times on the other surfaces during this stretch if they were equals, because there are twice as many of those tournaments. If that had happened you're looking at another 5-6 wins in Rog's favor and this discussion stops being close.

Federer is the GOAT in my eyes right now.

However, while Federer still cannot beat Nadal on clay, Nadal has stepped up his game on all other surfaces which has enabled him to win all 4 grand slams before the age of 25 beating Federer in both the Aussie Open final and the Wimbledon final.

Hypothetical I know but;

If Nadal meets Federer at Wimbledon and US Open in the final and wins both where does that leave things seeing he will have beaten Federer on every surface in a Grand Slam final.

Will it just be a matter of Nadal beating Federer's major's records in order to surpass him as the GOAT?

lol you realize I left out 2004 where Federer won 3 slams

even if you just go 08-11 non-RG

Nadal has 4/9 finals 4wins
Federer has 6/10 finals 3wins

I mean this is after Federer's true dominant run and he still has roughly the same production as Nadal during his peak away from clay

I think Fed can beat Nadal on clay. There's a difference between being able to do something, and actually doing it though (or having it actually happen).

I mean even today the 1st 2 sets were reasonably tight. Roger is capable of winning both if he just makes a handful less errors.

I think one thing that needs to be mentioned is Rafa's obvious use of PEDs, and the fact that his physical style of play is likely to shorten his career because of injuries and general fatigue. It's safe to say that Rafa won't be #3 when he is 30yo. He will probably be confined to a wheelchair or something.

One thing's for sure, Federer is much better at being an arrogant, sore-loser douche:

So is Fed saying that he's only played well against Nadal 8 times out of 23? Because that would be pathetic.

from Wimbledon thread

Federer didn't win a GS (or even reach semis, I think) until he was almost 22. But you want to hypothesize all these missed H2H finals when he was in his prime vs. a 17-20 yo Nadal. Sounds fair.

well you want to count his past prime results at full value, just saying the h2h has a ton going on besides the raw numbers

When Nadal was 21 his GS line was F/4R/SF/W

That same year? Fed went W/W/SF/F

Nadal's first 6 majors after turning 22: W/SF/W/4R/A/SF

Federer over that span? F/W/F/W/W/F


You can't really talk about "age" when Federer has played elite tennis throughout his 20's and Nadal is a walking injury box that just turned 25.

Oh, I actually didn't know the same sub-debate about h2h's was going on in this thread, was just posting here to not further derail Wimby thread.

Federer didn't reach a semi til he was 21 and you want to debunk Nadal's solid h2h record with Fed by showing Nadal didn't reach a ton of hardcourt finals when he was 18-21.

I think the first part of bolded actually supports the idea fields were weaker. Beating Djoko at 29 was impressive but doesn't really address the strength of 2003-2007 competition.

Wtf is this competition thing I saw in the other thread? Djokovic has been elite for like a year now since he fixed his serve, and has Nadal even had to beat him in a major during that time? Pretty sure he has been in Federer's way much more since they are the #2 and #3 seeds. And all I have say about Murray is LOL. I mean he is fine talented player and all, but he is a mere pest in a GOAT's quest for majors, regardless of whether he was in his prime during Nadal or Federer's reign.

Djoko's been top 3 in the world since '07. Compare to random oscillations in mid-2000's top players... Davydenko, Ferrero, James Blake? Federer originally had to wrest the #1 ranking away from... Andy Roddick. If Murray is a mere pest I don't know what that makes these guys.


Aqua, your response had nothing to do with my post you were quoting. I wasn't saying that we should evaluate age 21-22 grand slam results to see who's GOAT. I said giving phantom wins to Fed's H2H record for a time period when Nadal was a kid makes no sense.

You showed that Nadal reached a Wimbledon final before Fed at his age, and won his 3rd major by the age Fed won his 1st. I don't see how Fed's performance those periods is relevant... I could point out that since turning 25 Nadal has gone W/W/W/QF/W and possibly another W impending, with Fed QF/QF/SF/SF/F/QF that same period, but it's pretty meaningless. While still pretty trivial, it'd be better to compare Fed's first 6 majors after turning 22: 4R/W/3R/W/W/SF. Not much better considering he was healthy the whole time and faced imo easier relative competition.


Injuries are no excuse. You can't say "Well, Nadal would've won every major if not for the fact he got injured". But it is pretty impressive that in majors where knee injury isn't involved since turning 22 his results go: W/W/SF/W/SF/W/W/W/W.

Walking Injury Box: 17
Elite Tennis Player in his 20's: 8

Really is sick just how dominant both these guys have been in the past 6-7 years.

i believe if we stopped the clock right now, fed is the greatest tennis player of all time. i believe most tennis fans would agree...

but there's one set of analogies that both tarnish this title, and proves i can't say he's CLEARLY the goat:

- NOBODY would argue that michael jordan was not the goat and
- NOBODY would argue that wayne gretzky was not the goat

if federer was SO clearly the greatest of all time, nobody would be saying he isn't

126-49.

The numbers don't lie.

Super grunch, because I'm not a super follower of tennis other than the majors - but I think it will be Fed. His style of play seems to be easier on the body than Nadal's, and I feel like Nadal will start wearing down and not play as good as long as Fed did, solidifying Fed as the GOAT. This is even more evident from me to the several injuries we had heard Rafa say he is playing with in addition to his comments that the tennis schedule is too hard to play and making him worn out.

there are still a lot of MorAns out there that think LAbron is the GOAT, but I get what you're saying.

GOATs come in ranges too.

On the far right side, we have the undisputed GOATs like Jordan.

In the middle, we have the disputed GOATs like Federer.

On the left, we have several candidates for GOATs without any frontrunner.

Jordan and Gretzky weren't in a unique situation where a heir apparent is playing in the same era and threatening their records. We are witnessing something very special. 10 years ago, it'd be unimaginable to see anyone overtaking Sampras's tally of 14 majors. An all time great like Agassi only had 8. Within, 8 years, this guy Federer overtakes that. Then within 3 years we have another player threatening to outdo Federer. Nadal is only 25 for christsake and he already has 2 more majors than Agassi. But 6 more majors is a lot once you are past your peak. The question is, how long will Nadal's peak last and how long before Djokovic's peak surpasses Nadal's?

"People" as a collective are morons and not an authority to be appealed to. I think Nadal is better than Federer and even I would never suggest an exercise like this at all meaningful. Between this, and the "wikipedia length" argument you made, you seem to have a pretty weird outlook on how to evaluate sports.

GOAT footballer of all time is practically 50/50 between Maradona and Pele, with now Messi pushing into the equation. So a player dfoesn't have to be clearly the GOAT to be the GOAT. If some people say Federer isn't, it doesn't mean he isn't. If somebody says Nadal isn't, it doesn't mean he isn't. It doesn't have to be unanimous imo.

It's convenient that if Nadal fails to win majors in the next 3-5 years it will be because the competition is harder.

Why is that convenient? Are you saying the competition isn't significantly harder? Do you actually believe that? Are you this smug in everything you say off the internet?