again, its convenient that his peak ended when nadal started beating him on non-clay surfaces

fed played really ****ing good at '08 wimbledon/'09 aussie, i think its likely he was still at his best. i know it sucks that he lost playing his best but thats the way it goes when someone is better than you

So, he was playing at his best and losing in straight sets to Novak, Stepanek, Mardy Fish. You guys are trying too hard. if you really believe players like Stepanek, Fish and Novak were that much better than him in 2008, then LOL

Borg in his peak won 11 grandslams by the age of 25. He came back and won 0. The competition is that much better all of a sudden? Is it possible, he lost some of his reflexes, some of his desire and that little difference can be decisive at the highest levels?

Not being at his peak doesn't mean he can't play ****ing good inconsistently. Maybe this is the first time you're witnessing a dominant athlete's decline.

Anyone?

Competition argument doesn't count for Rafa. Clay makes up 60% of his titles afterall. Conceding this point = accepting defeat

I'm pretty sure that at his best, Federer gets more than 50% of his 1st serves in. Unless Nadal has magical powers that make Federer miss his serves, Federer just wasn't playing his best that match.

care to respond to my earlier post? i addressed all the points you brought up and would be interested to hear the counterarguments to those.

It's obvious neither of these guys actually watch or at least pay attention during matches. One guy is saying that Blake was one of Federer's main rivals during his peak. Another guy is arguing that 2008 Federer who lost to Stepanek, Fish is better than 2005 Federer. This whole debate is hinged on ignoring facts and repeating baseless claims.

James Blake was ranked 4th in the world in November of 2006. That's right in the middle of Federer's peak. Cmonson.

The most important question you have to ask yourself is this. If you took both players in their absolute primes and put them against each other on in a best of 7 series on hard, clay, and grass, who would be the betting favorite. Nadal clearly would be.

well, nadal winning the french in '05/'06 as an 18 and 19 yo was impressive and not that impressive at the same time. impressive bc he was winning major finals vs the GOAT in his peak as a 19 yo, but it loses impressive points because he really didn't have to beat other great players to get to the finals

2008/2010/2011 his domination is definitely sick though, a lot more good/great players to get through.

He never ever threatened to win any tournament of note.

nadal's magical powers are being better than fed

fed never had to deal with adversity from 04-07, the only times he did were at french open finals and he choked all those away too

a big part of nadal>fed is nadals WIM, fed is a pretty huge choker at heart he was just so much better than the scrubs in 05 that it never showed

How many grandslam finals did Blake play against Federer? how many semifinals? Do you also consider Mardy Fish one of the rivals to Nadal now that he's top 10 in "GOAT Competition" era? How about Baghdatis? Is he a rival to Nadal?

Federer is a clear favorite on both grass and hard courts unless you intentionally ignore facts. Check Federer's grass/hard court stats during his peak and then check Nadal's. Nadal a huge favorite on clay obviously.

Says a lot about the level of competition in 2006 then, doesn't it?

Kevin solved it at the top of the page as for who will go down as GOAT

Two things. One, significantly harder? No, but I do think it's slightly harder. Until recently Dkojovich wasn't super-elite. LOL Murray. Del-po played really well in one slam.

Two, it's an absurd question to ask who beats who in their respective peaks. They never played each other when both were in their peaks, and it's possible we don't know what Nadal's peak is because of the chance he hasn't reached it yet.

And still they avoid the clay court question. This is quite comical at this stage.

Does it say anything about today's competition now that Fish is in the top 10? That Ferrer is in the top 10? That Roddick was still in the top 10 until this year?

Awful smiley use and like the 9th time you've said this

I mean Nadal would have the opportunity to smack down Fed again in a major final but Feds going down in the quarters these days.

Pretty sure KB24 is Federer's fat girlfriend

This would solve it if all players careers follow similar age-performance graph. Jesus, you can't be this thick.

Oh gmafb. Djokovich is 24 already. According to every single pro-Fed poster itt, he should have been in his prime for like 2 years already. He'd also never leave the #2 spot had he been around back then and neither would Murray. Both guys are much, much better than Roddick and it has nothing to do with the game evolving. It's just the variance of when each of them were born.

There's just massive inconsistencies in the Federer argument because people keep shifting everything they say to make it seem like every time Federer won it mattered and every time he didn't it didn't.

Except Roddick wasn't the #2 player during Federer's prime. For majority of Federer's prime, Nadal was the #2. If you didn't know this by now without looking up, you should stop with these "tennis debates". Look things up before you waste other people's time. Also, one player's age and peak doesn't tell us about other players' age and peak. This is basic logic.

Djok about to be World #1 so we might see a Nadal/Fed US open semis

id predict somethin like

6-3 6-4 6-7 6-4 for Nadal

that is if Federer can beat the Tsonga

Yes it should, ridiculous not to. Clay makes up one quarter of the majors. Yet it accounts for 5/9ths of their heads-up play in majors (and a similar ratio in their total heads-up play). So clear that this is a testament to Federer and not a knock on him that it is absurd that it keeps getting held over him. Yes, if you discount clay properly and assign it 1/4 of their head to head play, Nadal STILL beats Federer, of course. But that is the proper way to look at it, and then it close enough that you can't use head-to-head to account for the difference between 16 and 9 majors. Even beyond just the surfaces, you have playing style issues (left-handed topspin forehand that no other player uses to destroy Federer's one handed backhand, all day). Again not saying this should be disregarded, but how is not accounted for in GS titles?

I have no idea what argument is that the head-to-head is not properly accounted for in their major tallies. Seems like double counting to me. Federer doesn't have 16 Grand Slams BUT a losing record against Nadal, he has 16 GSs DESPITE a losing record against Nadal. And the opposite is true for Nadal. And before it comes, no I am not saying this is actually a positive in Federer's direction, he obv does not get credit for majors he didn't actually win, but how is the head-to-head not properly reflected in Federer "ONLY" having 16 majors?

And comparing what they did at different ages is a useless exercise. Clay court tennis is a young man's game because of the huge role that fitness and movement play, and the toll it takes on the body causes clay court specialists to peak earlier. Look at this list of youngest Grand Slam winners and the disproportionate number of French Open wins at the top: http://www.tennis28.com/slams/agerecords_winners.html

It is possible that even at age 25 Nadal is already past his peak (though he is obv still playing at a very high level). That is all that people who are saying Nadal is not YET the GOAT are saying. Let us see how he ages, let us see him actually win what he is "projected" to win. Its not as easy as Nadal, and previously Federer, have made it look to rake up majors. Hell, despite Nadal already being in the semis and Federer knocked out (Federer was considered significantly more likely to win than Djokovic by sportsbooks), you can still get Nadal to win Wimbledon at +139. If he is only competing for majors for a little more than 2 years, you look at his chances of winning each major, and well its going to be tough. If he is close enough to peak to compete for 3-4 more years, then it is looking pretty likely.