Bit of good discussion going on in the US Open thread so maybe it deserves its own. With a poll!

In my mind we are watching the best 2 players in the history of the game. Roger is the GOAT as of now but Rafa is only 24 and has the potential to surpass Federer.

So who will end up as the GOAT?



OR



Thanks to iCrush Souls for these statistics:

Federer vs. Nadal at the very same age
Nadal on 9/13/10 and Federer on 11/18/05

Rafael Nadal

Overall Record: 460-98
Winning Pct.: .824
Titles: 42
Major Titles: 9
Majors Played: 26
Davis Cup Titles: 3
Olympic Gold Medals: 1
Longest Win Streak: 32
Rank: 1
Weeks at No. 1: 60
Record vs. No. 1: 14-6

Roger Federer

Overall Record: 390-119
Winning Pct.: .766
Titles: 33
Major Titles: 6
Majors Played: 27
Davis Cup Titles: 0
Olympic Gold Medals: 0
Longest Win Streak: 34
Rank: 1
Weeks at No. 1: 93
Record vs. No. 1: 2-3

Go!

Andy Murray

Ilie Nastasie

I thought you were a Djokovic man? Granted, with global warming it seems unlikely, but hey, it could really be just an environmentalist conspiracy, he might still have a shot!

Snapcallled Federer

if nadal stays healthy he will be goat

EDIT: who will end up as GOAT. Never mind. No clue.

Being a Nadal fan, I hope Nadal can stay healthy long enough to reach GOAT status.
However, I voted for Federer. 5 more years of excellence for Nadal seems to much to ask of him.

However if the question is, who was better at their peaks, I think there's a good argument for voting for Nadal now.

with health issues you've gotta go w/ federer, who still has a few years to scoop some grand slams from nadal in his prime. nadal isn't going to have nearly the longevity federer did, when was the last time federer had any sort of injury issue that wasn't like jet lag or something?

Nadal....those knees are gonna hold up and he's gonna finish with ~30 majors

I don't see how you can say this. With a proper gameplan to get Nadal peaking at major time he can easily surpass the # of majors won by Federer.

I'm a big Nadal fan, but I'm concerned how his body will hold up given his intense playing style. If he can stay healthy/effective, he could come close to matching Federer, but that's a very big "if" in this sport. I'm assuming career grand slam titles are the primary measurement for GOATness in this argument.

Also, how many challengers are on the horizon for Nadal over the next five years? It seemed like Federer started his run at the right time. Until Nadal came along there didn't seem to be many serious challengers to Federer Prime. I could be wrong about that though, my tennis memory is fuzzy.

Who is to say someone starts challenging Nadal in a couple of years just like Nadal has challenged Federer? Also Nadal has already had repeated injury problems while Federer already has the majors record locked up. I think there is a much higher chance that between the two, Federer ends up with more titles at this point in time by the end of their career cause their is little variance in what Federer ends up with but there is a ton of variance in what Nadal could end up with. I think the chances that Nadal exclipses Federer's record are probably in the 10-20% range.

Definitely Nadal

ISNER

I think you just proved your own point. even 3 ish years ago there was no grass or hard court challenger on the horizon for Rfed. and then BOOM Rafa. declines and rises can happen fast

the 2007 Wimbledon final was the first final in which Rfed went 5 sets. he had already won 5 at that point

Yeah, I remember Lleyton Hewitt was another one of my favorite players, too. Unfortunately, he's a good example of how fast these elite players can fall off a cliff.

It's not that there were no challengers, it's that Federer was so much better than everyone else that he made it look easy.

Hewitt was always going to tail off very quickly because of his style of play.

There are no young guys coming through that we know of. We all heard of Novak, Rafa, Murray and Del Potro before they got into the Top 10 in the world.

Nadal will win the French and Wimbledon for the next 3 years. Thats 6 more GS Titles!

I think going on pure major counts, Federer is a reasonable favorite. I obviously think Nadal has a better shot at it than most - I'd say Nadal is 4:3 against, maybe 3:2.

Peak-to-peak comparisons are tough, I could see a reasonable argument for either. To a certain extent, I think Nadal specifically is kind of kryptonite for Federer; Federer is probably better against the rest of the world at his peak, but I think Nadal might beat Federer head to head. (Yes, people make good arguments about how their head-to-head record is deceptive because many of their early meetings were on clay because Nadal wasn't good enough to get to slam finals on hard courts. The flipside of this argument is that as Federer declines, he is less likely to be playing high quality modern Rafa late in slams. I think these effects might be a wash, but that's knee-jerk analysis.) I feel like at some point McEnroe pointed out that a lefty putting as much spin as Rafa does on the ball causes problems for one-handed backhands; this could explain why Nadal poses particular problems for Federer.

To me, there's a difference between "Best Player of All-Time" and "Best Career of All-Time" ... for me, this question comes down to, if you took Federer and Nadal (or anyone else you want in this conversation), and had them play at their peak, absolute best against each other, who would win? That's how I define "best ever."

Of course, with tennis, there's other issues to consider. Court surface being a big one. I suppose you could say, "OK, have them play their peak, absolute best against each other on all three surfaces, best 2-of-3 takes it." Also, if you choose someone like Laver or Borg or someone else from 20-plus years ago, you have to bring advances in equipment into play, and try to level that variable.

I personally think Federer is the most talented player ever from a pure skill standpoint. I also think Nadal is pretty close at this point, and also plays harder, more consistently, than any player I have ever seen.

At their absolute peaks, I think Federer wins on grass and hard courts and loses on clay, so I give it to Federer. Barely.

+1

GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAR

I had a long post written out about why its ridiculous to think that Nadal > Federer, but if you don't just sort by Grand Slams and actually think about it its not so far fetched, but it comes down to Nadal's health, his ability to keep up his current level of play, and when Federer's decline will hit. If Nadal can get to say 14 or 15 majors and Fed doesn't win many more (1 or 2), then you have a legitimate argument I think. But the problem is Nadal is so brittle that thinking he can keep up his level for another 5 years is unrealistic, not to mention guys like Djokovic and Del Potro and others you've never heard of can come along.

The biggest argument is that Nadal has absolutely owned Fed is majors, but Fed has so far had a much more dominant career while Nadal has basically beasted only at the French Open and has very good yet a bit less impressive run at other majors. Remember, Nadal had to retire already this year at the Aussie Open due to his knees when he was getting trounced by Murreye and couldn't defend the Wimbledon title last year.

How about by surface:
GOAT in clay: Nadal. Second place Borg.
GOAT in grass? Sampras, Borg and Federer are kind of even.
GOAT in hard court? Sampras-Federer

I don't know how Pancho Gonzalez was with respect to surfaces or how Rod Laver was. So probably they would jump into the equation for some of those. However, it seems like Nadal is the best ever on clay. His 80+ win streak eclipsed the previous record of 53 by Vilas.

I think antidan444 nailed it. There is more to this discussion than how many slams a player has won or will win.