Why Federer Must Wait For Nadal Until Being Proclaimed GOAT

Some say physical, some will say mental. After today's performance there can be no shred of doubt that Federer cannot hold his focus and concentration when facing Nadal. Those who witnessed Federer mauling Nadal at WTF who thought just maybe Federer's career had a second wind blown into. Any chance of that happening has been thwarted here in Melbourne. Federer at 4-1 in the first set was coasting. Then a nervy service game at 4-2 handed Nadal a much needed route back into the match. At 7-6 and break up in the 3rd Federer against anyone else would have dispatched them at that point in the match and won in 3. 4-3 in the 3rd break once again, Federer loses his advantage. This isn't a case of stamina prevails over talent. Far from it. Nadal is far more comfortable at killing Federer off than Federer is killing Nadal off. Quite simply Nadal is the better hunter. Berdych will tell you the same thing, Nadal needs just 1 chance and he can take the match away from you. Why has Djokovic dominated Nadal? Because when Nadal gives out gifts, he doesn't give them straight back. Federer just doesn't seem to want to 'fight' out a match. Yes his game has the grace and beauty of a swan, but when he falters, it is like a platoon shooting the swan to bits. It is just that ugly, cruel and un-watchable. Take past greats. If Borg or Sampras were a set up against Nadal, they would've finished him brutally. There is no scarier proposition then facing Nadal on serve at 0-30 down because once that serve comes back, the pressure is on.

Back to the topic. Can Federer still claim his GOAT? In my opinion no. When Sampras retired he was hailed by many as the GOAT. Federer when he surpassed Sampras at Wimbledon 2009 he delightfully took that crown from Sampras. I think until Nadal retires, Roger will have to relinquish that crown for the time being. Yes he has 16 Slams, but look at how many more he could've had if hadn't been for Nadal? When Federer was being hammered on Clay I heard fans say well let's see on Grass, roll 2008. After that they said wait until Hard. Roll on 2009 and now today. Only the courts of Flushing Meadows remains un-tested for both. For me 7 defeats in Grand Slams, 6 Finals. Sampras never had such a blemish on his CV with Agassi. Borg didn't have the best record against McEnroe, but finished with more Slams and less brutal H2H.

For GOAT's they need to have had dominance over the field, and while Federer has at the Slams with Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Roddick, with Nadal, he doesn't. Nadal is now in another GS Final, we could be witnessing Slam number 11.

So the GOAT debate for me, rages on.

I don't agree. The whole crux of the GOAT debate is performance against the field and achievement. There is also a subjective element of purity and aesthetics. Federer is the most accomplished on all of these accounts. A losing record against one player does not change that. Everyone has their kryptonite, even the GOAT. Likewise Fed doesn't have nearly the same probs against Novak as he does against Rafa, yet Novak has completely dominated Rafa over the last 12 months and they're basically of the same age. Even worse for Rafa is that Novak does it playing a very similar game. He can play Rafa's game, with some minor adjustments, but is better at it.

Point me in the direction of GOAT that has a blemish like Federer's?

Show me a GOAT that had to face a player that poses such unique match-up problems like Roger with Rafa?

Of course the record will only get uglier, Roger is five years older.

People forget that up until 2008 it was only 8-6 to nadal and that's after he had raced to a 6-1 lead in the early matches (five of those were on clay)

7 defeats? Make it 8 defeats. 6 in finals and 2 semi finals.

There is no need to wait. I have got already his name: Bjorn Borg.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the various GOAT candidates but it seems most commentators and the media usually settle on those who've won the most grand slams and if they won all the majors. Conversation about weak eras and asterisked slams is a conversation only tennis obsessives (like us have) the wider public don't care and will look at the same thing commentators and the media look at.

On those two counts, Federer is ahead of his potential rivals, winning the French was vital but having more was also important. It's fair to say we need to see how Nadal does but really, won't losing to Djokovic continuously seriously undermine Nadal's case? I know he won today, but the key thing about why I'm confident Djokovic will beat Nadal is that he's an excellent retriever. Bear in mind the grand slam head2head is 3-1 in Djokovic's favour already. After 4 grand slam finals, it wasn't even that with Fedal finals, it was 2-2. Another Djokovic victory in a final would make it 4-1, that's even worse than Fed's record with Nadal in grand slam finals. Fed's record's not perfect but nor is Nadal's, let's wait until after Sunday before we proclaim Fed's legacy (still not set) is severely undermined, Djokovic might do him a favour!

GOAT is subjective indeed, however, the number of Major singles titles a player wins, is by far and away, the most substantiative yard stick, by which "greats" of the game of tennis are measured.

Federer holds 16 Major singles titles, Nadal holds 10. The difference is too great at this point to make much of an argument between those two players.

Sampras failed, where Federer has won each of the four Major singles titles, and so to date, is the most accomplished Major singles winner, in the history of our sport.

No Davis Cup, no Olympic gold - so what? Until another player, Nadal or otherwise gets "close" to 16 Major singles titles AND has won these other things, then it's not relevant.

Federer's head to head against Rafa is a disappointment to him, and his legion of fans, but it doesn't detract from the Majors that he HAS won already.

Sampras lost a match from two sets up in a Major, was within a couple of points in Aussie Open v Agassi in 1996, and lost it...there are no absolutes in terms of something like differing players' sporting records and comparison thereto.

Across the length of their careers, when comparing the achievements of tennis players, and I mean "lasting, record book" achievements (read Major titles), the smaller issues of head to head, Davis Cup (team competition where OTHER players' perfomances come into play), jus don't sway the vote.

Nadal may well be on his way to becoming hailed as the greatest player ever, but as of today, he's not there yet (and there is no bigger Rafa fan than I, tonight's match was agony to watch because of the ebb and flows, and closeness of it). One can say with hindsight that Federer didn't look the winner, but we've seem him turn it all around in 10-15 minutes of play before...just didn't happen tonight.

That said, even for the "unbelievers," it is clear Nadal is "in" Federer's head and has been for quite some time; IF he could get over that, the game is still capable, but till the heart believes....??

Rock on Rafa, look to Murray in 4 over Djokovic - then battle on, for the final...hopefully his 11th career Major....

Nicely written article.
Physical/mental/ethereal/spiritual/metaphysical...whatever the reason, Nadal has dominated Federer with his wicked spin, passing shot, court coverage and retrieving tactics.

Does it look ugly? maybe to some, but A subjective question, nevertheless, with no factual relevance.

Irony of it all is Rafa has been receiving a fair dose of his own tonic from Djokovic, who looks imperious at the moment, to say the least.

If Djokovic wins again maybe both Rafa and Roger should call it a day

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:There is no need to wait. I have got already his name: Bjorn Borg.

Please ! A guy who ran off into retirement in his mid 20's with zero USO titles ?

Most consistent/Best players of Federer's career with H2H are:

Nadal 9-18
Djoko 14:10
Murray 6-8

Overall 29-36 DOWN (Won 44.6%)

Nadal:
Djoko 16-13
Fed 18-9
Murray 13-5

Overall: 47-27 UP (Won 63.5%)

Djoko:

Fed 10-14
Nadal 13-16
Murray 6-4

Overall: 29-34 DOWN (Won 46%)

Murray:

Fed 8-6
Nadal 5-13
Djoko 4-6

Overall: 17-25 DOWN (Won 40.5%)

Nadal so far has shown to be the most successful during these matchups. Federer has a losing H2H against 2 of the other 3 best players of his time and has a lower overall % of wins that both Nadal and Djoko.

Nadal is the only one who currently has a winning H2H against all three of his main competitors and has won over 60% of matches vs the others.

Its Impossible for Fed to be classed as Goat, unless he significantly improves this disparity before retiring.

The head 2 head doesn't matter in the long run, he could be 0-20 vs Nadal and still be ultimately greater as they also play the rest of the field.

Roger is too stubborn like Murray to change his style vs Nadal and it cost him as usual.

I concur yloponom69 and I0IS.

As you said I0IS, it is curious how the edge Nadal has over Fed mentally, Djokovic now has over Nadal. As a Federer fan, it was richly deserved to see the end of the insufferable arrogance of Nadal fans and their cheerleaders proclaiming him the best ever after the USO 2010 and saying Federer was nothing short of an endangered species.

About 16 months later and things don't look so rosy for Rafa anymore. I would be lying if I said I don't take delight in seeing Djokovic beat Rafa so I guess I sort of understand how Nadal fans felt when they saw Nadal beating Fed. It's funny, us Fed fans and those few Nadal fans on here actually share more in common now then we might have thought.

BTW, I don't want to detract from Nadal reaching his fourth str8 final (well done Rafa), but this has Djokovic's to lose written all over it. The question is how many sets Rafa takes it to, or will it be str8 sets?

I remember when Sampras and Agassi finished there was still debate about who was greatest because of Agassi's career slam on very very different surfaces. Still think Agassi's career slam has perhaps the most weight out of all who have taken all 4 slams at one time or another.

Also before Sampras got the 14th slam, there was not that much weight put on Slam count, partly because many players did not play all four slams that often (skipping AUS) - of particular Note for Agassi's early career; and secondly - look up who was sat on 12 slams before Sampras and see where that player figures in GOAT debates?

For me Slam count is not the be all and end all - there is much more to it - in particular who and how they play and the type of tough matches they managed to win in their careers all help define greatness - which of course is why its all so subjective.

Nice article.
The thing is, many GOATs have come and gone, until the next one comes along, and the rest are forgotten. The debate will rage on forever. Imagine in years to come our children/grandchildren will have a debate over two players that haven't even been born yet, and we will laugh and say... "in our time, we used to say it was 'a' or 'b' who was the best"
Just a matter of opinion.
Federer will always be my GOAT, and thats all that matters to me.

luciusmann wrote: I would be lying if I said I don't take delight in seeing Djokovic beat Rafa so I guess I sort of understand how Nadal fans felt when they saw Nadal beating Fed. It's funny, us Fed fans and those few Nadal fans on here actually share more in common now then we might have thought.

I hear you man! Don't worry. In all likelihood I will be feeling your pain on Sunday should Rafa lose to Djokovic. You have my sympathies for today

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The head 2 head doesn't matter in the long run, he could be 0-20 vs Nadal and still be ultimately greater as they also play the rest of the field.

Roger is too stubborn like Murray to change his style vs Nadal and it cost him as usual.

Of course it matters in the long run. Try telling that to Soderling when your showing him hs H2H vs Fed.

I guess we'll just have to settle for him being the most successful player to date.

Soderling hasn't even got a slam to his name!

The head2head doesn't trump the achievements in terms of titles won and where they were won. That's how most people judge it, the rest is just semantics.

Anyway, Nadal is 25, he has a good chance of catching Fed but that's if he masters how to beat Djokovic and right now, we don't know if he's got the answers.

luciusmann wrote:Soderling hasn't even got a slam to his name!

The head2head doesn't trump the achievements in terms of titles won and where they were won. That's how most people judge it, the rest is just semantics.

Anyway, Nadal is 25, he has a good chance of catching Fed but that's if he masters how to beat Djokovic and right now, we don't know if he's got the answers.

I think the point flew somewhere above your head.

Useful contributions from Tom_______

In the past the AO was skipped by many, so in the past total GS titles was not considered such an important metric. I seem to recall several clay courters skipping Wimbledon because of Wimbledon's seeding policy. In the further past players used to play each other in special serial matches played across the tennis courts of various countries - where H2H was the defining outcome between them.

Perhaps Laverfan (or other historians of the game) could give more details

Nadal is the one big blot on claims to Federers supreme greatness, but in the next breath he is the great yardstick for Federer's career without which its storyline would be considerably less fascinating.

If Nadal gets 17 slams he can be the GOAT, but not in any other circumstances.

In the meantime there are a handful of respectable claimants for GOAT each of which has plus and minus aspects to the claim - Federer is most certainly one of those.

I don't really care - when he is no longer playing I'll remember HOW he has played more than anything else, which is why he and McEnroe are my personal GOATs.

Not especially, although I do note how you only made an appearance today, funnily enough when Nadal and Fed play. I had a feeling you would resurface around now, perhaps to rub it in the face of Fed fans?

I imagine you'll disappear again if Nadal is beaten by Djokovic (should he make the final) and I won't mind that at all as we won't be graced by your condescension either.

There's been much discussion about match ups previously but I imagine that will be over your head as you haven't been here for those. As was shown, someone can have a superior head2head but may have less title wins overall, doesn't mean that player with the better head2head is the best ever.

Here is a quote from Pete Sampras that seems to support Tom_______'s viewpoint:
"It’s one-on-one out there, man. There ain’t no hiding. I can’t pass the ball."

and here's one from Yannick Noah: "I have always considered tennis as a combat in an arena between two gladiators who have their racquets and their courage as their weapons."

Nore Staat wrote:Here is a quote from Pete Sampras that seems to support Tom_______'s viewpoint:
"It’s one-on-one out there, man. There ain’t no hiding. I can’t pass the ball."

and here's one from Yannick Noah: "I have always considered tennis as a combat in an arena between two gladiators who have their racquets and their courage as their weapons."

Not at all. They sound like they are talking about how it is in individual matches, certainly Sampras's comment read that way. You should know that quoting out of context (as Sampras's quote comes across) gives a misleading impression.

Is Borg damaged because McEnroe put him to bed?

Is Pete dumped because he failed at the French and Federer has passed him?

Answers to both are no, because their achievements stand independently of how they fared on specifics.

The only way to look at it is achievements, plus subjective opinions about aesthetics. The reason I watch tennis is to see what a McEnroe or Federer does. I would rather watch a marathon that watch the style of play that Nadal or frequently Murray plays. I am actually quite positive towards Noval Dkjokovic's style of play as he attacks.

Nore Staat wrote:Here is a quote from Pete Sampras that seems to support Tom_______'s viewpoint:
"It’s one-on-one out there, man. There ain’t no hiding. I can’t pass the ball."

and here's one from Yannick Noah: "I have always considered tennis as a combat in an arena between two gladiators who have their racquets and their courage and intra-articular injections as their weapons."

there, fixed that for you

Nore Staat wrote:Here is a quote from Pete Sampras that seems to support Tom_______'s viewpoint:
"It’s one-on-one out there, man. There ain’t no hiding. I can’t pass the ball."

and here's one from Yannick Noah: "I have always considered tennis as a combat in an arena between two gladiators who have their racquets and their courage as their weapons."

Sampras is dead right - but I don't think he's inviting you to conclude that Krajicek was a better player than him.

I can see where Noah is coming from, but a gladiator's career stats would usually be X:1, it being difficult to come back from a defeat.

Tom_____ wrote:Most consistent/Best players of Federer's career with H2H are:

Nadal 9-18
Djoko 14:10
Murray 6-8

Overall 29-36 DOWN (Won 44.6%)

Nadal:
Djoko 16-13
Fed 18-9
Murray 13-5

Overall: 47-27 UP (Won 63.5%)

Djoko:

Fed 10-14
Nadal 13-16
Murray 6-4

Overall: 29-34 DOWN (Won 46%)

Murray:

Fed 8-6
Nadal 5-13
Djoko 4-6

Overall: 17-25 DOWN (Won 40.5%)

Nadal so far has shown to be the most successful during these matchups. Federer has a losing H2H against 2 of the other 3 best players of his time and has a lower overall % of wins that both Nadal and Djoko.

Nadal is the only one who currently has a winning H2H against all three of his main competitors and has won over 60% of matches vs the others.

Its Impossible for Fed to be classed as Goat, unless he significantly improves this disparity before retiring.

That's pretty selective isn't it? How does Murray (with zero slams) become 2 of the best 3 players of federer's time? Or did Roger only join the tour in 2006/7?

How about Agassi, who Roger played 11 times? Or was he too old to be considered? Or Hewitt, Safin, etc (all grand slam champions) How can Roger be expected to improve the disparity against those players when he is five to six years older? Isn't that a little unfair? Let's not forget, Roger was 13-7 ahead of Djokovic until the start of last year. Clearly age and different peaks have a role to play in all of this. Nadal was 16-7 against Novak until the start of last year. He had the benefit of being a precocious teenager in tennis terms but now Novak is making up the lost ground. To paint the picture as black and white with selective stats as you have done is misleading. The arguement is much more nuanced than that. Otherwise, all Federer fans have to do is point to his numbers against the entire tour spanning a decade. 16 slams, 23 finals, 6 WTF, 18 masters, 70 titles, 285 weeks at number 1, etc. None of the current players even compare.

Finally, with regards to H-2-H, tennis is often a game of styles. Federer may lose to Nadal but Nadal has lost 5 of 6 matches on HC to Davydenko. Should that diminish his status. NO, because it's an anomaly, not the rule.

emancipator wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:Most consistent/Best players of Federer's career with H2H are:

Nadal 9-18
Djoko 14:10
Murray 6-8

Overall 29-36 DOWN (Won 44.6%)

Nadal:
Djoko 16-13
Fed 18-9
Murray 13-5

Overall: 47-27 UP (Won 63.5%)

Djoko:

Fed 10-14
Nadal 13-16
Murray 6-4

Overall: 29-34 DOWN (Won 46%)

Murray:

Fed 8-6
Nadal 5-13
Djoko 4-6

Overall: 17-25 DOWN (Won 40.5%)

Nadal so far has shown to be the most successful during these matchups. Federer has a losing H2H against 2 of the other 3 best players of his time and has a lower overall % of wins that both Nadal and Djoko.

Nadal is the only one who currently has a winning H2H against all three of his main competitors and has won over 60% of matches vs the others.

Its Impossible for Fed to be classed as Goat, unless he significantly improves this disparity before retiring.

That's pretty selective isn't it? How does Murray (with zero slams) become 2 of the best 3 players of federer's time? Or did Roger only join the tour in 2006/7?

How about Agassi, who Roger played 11 times? Or was he too old to be considered? Or Hewitt, Safin, etc (all grand slam champions) How can Roger be expected to improve the disparity against those players when he is five to six years older? Isn't that a little unfair? Let's not forget, Roger was 13-7 ahead of Djokovic until the start of last year. Clearly age and different peaks have a role to play in all of this. Nadal was 16-7 against Novak until the start of last year. He had the benefit of being a precocious teenager in tennis terms but now Novak is making up the lost ground. To paint the picture as black and white with selective stats as you have done is misleading. The arguement is much more nuanced than that. Otherwise, all Federer fans have to do is point to his numbers against the entire tour spanning a decade. 16 slams, 23 finals, 6 WTF, 18 masters, 70 titles, 285 weeks at number 1, etc. None of the current players even compare.

Finally, with regards to H-2-H, tennis is often a game of styles. Federer may lose to Nadal but Nadal has lost 5 of 6 matches on HC to Davydenko. Should that diminish his status. NO, because it's an anomaly, not the rule.

yeah exactly - the players referenced by Tom are NOT Federer's contemporaries - they are from the following generation

My view is that all GOAT's end up being taken out to pasture.

Nore Staat wrote:My view is that all GOAT's end up being taken out to pasture.

... surely the GOAT of all goat jokes

reckoner wrote:... the players referenced by Tom are NOT Federer's contemporaries - they are from the following generation

That is probably a fair point: Here are some birth dates of a few MultiSlammers (I have added Murray in brackets):

Jimmy Connors: born September 2, 1952

Björn Borg: born June 6 1956.

John McEnroe: born February 16, 1959.
Ivan Lendl: born March 7, 1960

Andre Agassi: born April 29, 1970
Pete Sampras: born August 12, 1971

Roger Federer: born 8 August 1981

Rafael Nadal: born 3 June 1986
[Andrew Murray: born 15 May 1987]
Novak Djokovic: born 22 May 1987

Nore Staat wrote:

reckoner wrote:... the players referenced by Tom are NOT Federer's contemporaries - they are from the following generation

That is probably a fair point: Here are some birth dates of a few MultiSlammers (I have added Murray in brackets):

Jimmy Connors: born September 2, 1952

Björn Borg: born June 6 1956.

John McEnroe: born February 16, 1959.
Ivan Lendl: born March 7, 1960

Andre Agassi: born April 29, 1970
Pete Sampras: born August 12, 1971

Roger Federer: born 8 August 1981

Rafael Nadal: born 3 June 1986
[Andrew Murray: born 15 May 1987]
Novak Djokovic: born 22 May 1987

I'm sure if Tomic or whoever starts to beat Federer next year, that'll be used to drag his achievements through the mud by some!

barrystar wrote:Nadal is the one big blot on claims to Federers supreme greatness, but in the next breath he is the great yardstick for Federer's career without which its storyline would be considerably less fascinating.

If Nadal gets 17 slams he can be the GOAT, but not in any other circumstances.

In the meantime there are a handful of respectable claimants for GOAT each of which has plus and minus aspects to the claim - Federer is most certainly one of those.

I don't really care - when he is no longer playing I'll remember HOW he has played more than anything else, which is why he and McEnroe are my personal GOATs.

Superb summary there barry

I for one love the tennis Federer plays and the likelihood of seeing the same brand of tennis ever played will be a no.

When someone has a claim to the title of GOAT, I think they need all the ingredients. Federer has the most of any, but Nadal is the only one who can surpass and better his achievements.

reckoner wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

reckoner wrote:... the players referenced by Tom are NOT Federer's contemporaries - they are from the following generation

That is probably a fair point: Here are some birth dates of a few MultiSlammers (I have added Murray in brackets):

Jimmy Connors: born September 2, 1952

Björn Borg: born June 6 1956.

John McEnroe: born February 16, 1959.
Ivan Lendl: born March 7, 1960

Andre Agassi: born April 29, 1970
Pete Sampras: born August 12, 1971

Roger Federer: born 8 August 1981

Rafael Nadal: born 3 June 1986
[Andrew Murray: born 15 May 1987]
Novak Djokovic: born 22 May 1987

I'm sure if Tomic or whoever starts to beat Federer next year, that'll be used to drag his achievements through the mud by some!

Federer may not be Nadal's contemporary, but the fact remains that when Federer was at his pomp and Nadal was on the way up there was only one year in which Federer had the better of Nadal, 3:2 in 2007. Fed's next best years against Nadal have been 1:1 in 2005, 2009, and 2010. Otherwise Nadal has had the better of him each year they have played one another: 1:0 in 2004, 4:2 in 2006, 4:0 in 2008, 3:1 in 2011, and 1:0 in 2012 so far. Even if you were to take out 2008 onwards on the basis of a Federer decline (he has won 4 slams in that period) a young Nadal still has an 8:6 advantage over peak Federer, which becomes 12:6 if you include 2008.

The only fig leaf is that if Federer wasn't such a good all-court player and had not made it through the draw in all those clay tournaments the H2H would change from 18:9 against to 6:7 in his favour - but then Fed would not have the same claim to greatness that he does and Nadal still has the edge in slams.

It doesn't make Nadal overall a greater player than Fed, but it's a blot on Fed's GOAT claim. There's no other way of looking at it.

barrystar wrote:
Federer may not be Nadal's contemporary, but the fact remains that when Federer was at his pomp and Nadal was on the way up there was only one year in which Federer had the better of Nadal, 3:2 in 2007. Fed's next best years against Nadal have been 1:1 in 2005, 2009, and 2010. Otherwise Nadal has had the better of him each year they have played one another: 1:0 in 2004, 4:2 in 2006, 4:0 in 2008, 3:1 in 2011, and 1:0 in 2012 so far. Even if you were to take out 2008 onwards on the basis of a Federer decline (he has won 4 slams in that period) a young Nadal still has an 8:6 advantage over peak Federer, which becomes 12:6 if you include 2008.

The only fig leaf is that if Federer wasn't such a good all-court player and had not made it through the draw in all those clay tournaments the H2H would change from 18:9 against to 6:7 in his favour - but then Fed would not have the same claim to greatness that he does and Nadal still has the edge in slams.

It doesn't make Nadal overall a greater player than Fed, but it's a blot on Fed's GOAT claim. There's no other way of looking at it.

If you outline two ways of looking at something, then dismiss one as a "fig leaf", then yes there only remains one way of looking at it, because you have dismissed a key factor out of hand.

It's a fig leaf because it's a self-defeating point. If you make Federer a less good player so that he can avoid his nemisis on clay and preserve a better H2H against Nadal he's just what you've made him for that purpose, a less good player.

barrystar wrote:It's a fig leaf because it's a self-defeating point. If you make Federer a less good player so that he can avoid his nemisis on clay and preserve a better H2H against Nadal he's just what you've made him for that purpose, a less good player.

huh?

if you consider certain aspects of match data you aren't altering the player in any way. you are just hypothesis testing.

does the hypothesis that outside clay they are pretty even stand up, given the data?

that's all there is to it, no need to magically make players better or worse.

Have to say I agree with the last few posts, its very easy to forget that Federer is essentially a cross generation player. That is to say he has faced the best (in some cases a little past their best) across 2 generations.

2 of his first 3 Wimbledon victories were against a young, physically on top of his game powerhouse Roddick. These came when Roddick was 22 & 24 respectively. He also defeated Hewitt in the US Open 2003...the same Hewitt who was by then a 2 time slam winner. He also defeated Andre Aggasi in 05: and while he may have been past his best he showed he was still pretty handy on the hard court as he reached at least the last 8 of the Aussie & US open in 2004 & 2005.

Looking to recent years he has beaten Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in either slams or master series. In fact from 07-10 he reached an incredible 12 of 13 possible slam finals, this in a time when Nadal, Djovokic & Murray were all beginning to enter their prime & some would say Roger was beginning to ever so slightly decline.

Coupled to that he has managed to reach the last 8 of the last 31 GRAND SLAMS!! No one has ever come close to matching that kind of consistency. (put in bold to highlight not only how good this record is but also because this is a major point i take into consideration when looking at the GOAT claim)

With Career stats as follows:

23 Slam Finals - 16 wins 7 RU
30 Masters Finals - 18 wins 8 RU
7 End of Year Finals - 6 wins 1 RU

Over 100 career finals of which he has won 70%. An Olympics Gold medal.

And all done whilst playing the best players the last 10 years has had to offer.

For me his is easily the GOAT and whilst the likes of Nadal & lets not forget maybe Djokovic if he can keep up his last 2 years still could surpass it..they still have quite some way to go.

owen10ozzy wrote:Have to say I agree with the last few posts, its very easy to forget that Federer is essentially a cross generation player. That is to say he has faced the best (in some cases a little past their best) across 2 generations.

2 of his first 3 Wimbledon victories were against a young, physically on top of his game powerhouse Roddick. These came when Roddick was 22 & 24 respectively. He also defeated Hewitt in the US Open 2003...the same Hewitt who was by then a 2 time slam winner. He also defeated Andre Aggasi in 05: and while he may have been past his best he showed he was still pretty handy on the hard court as he reached at least the last 8 of the Aussie & US open in 2004 & 2005.

Looking to recent years he has beaten Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in either slams or master series. And you would have to say that they are all now in comfortably in there primes.

Coupled to that he has managed to reach the last 8 of the last 31 GRAND SLAMS!! No one has ever come close to matching that kind of consistency. (put in bold to highlight not only how good this record is but also because this is a major point i take into consideration when looking at the GOAT claim)

With Career stats as follows:

23 Slam Finals - 16 wins 7 RU
30 Masters Finals - 18 wins 8 RU
7 End of Year Finals - 6 wins 1 RU

Over 100 career finals of which he has won 70%. An Olympics Gold medal.

And all done whilst playing the best players the last 10 years has had to offer.

For me his is easily the GOAT and whilst the likes of Nadal & lets not forget maybe Djokovic if he can keep up his last 2 years still could surpass it..they still have quite some way to go.

and they have a loooong way to go!!

owen10ozzy wrote:Have to say I agree with the last few posts, its very easy to forget that Federer is essentially a cross generation player. That is to say he has faced the best (in some cases a little past their best) across 2 generations.

2 of his first 3 Wimbledon victories were against a young, physically on top of his game powerhouse Roddick. These came when Roddick was 22 & 24 respectively. He also defeated Hewitt in the US Open 2003...the same Hewitt who was by then a 2 time slam winner. He also defeated Andre Aggasi in 05: and while he may have been past his best he showed he was still pretty handy on the hard court as he reached at least the last 8 of the Aussie & US open in 2004 & 2005.

Looking to recent years he has beaten Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in either slams or master series. In fact from 07-10 he reached an incredible 12 of 13 possible slam finals, this in a time when Nadal, Djovokic & Murray were all beginning to enter their prime & some would say Roger was beginning to ever so slightly decline.

Coupled to that he has managed to reach the last 8 of the last 31 GRAND SLAMS!! No one has ever come close to matching that kind of consistency. (put in bold to highlight not only how good this record is but also because this is a major point i take into consideration when looking at the GOAT claim)

With Career stats as follows:

23 Slam Finals - 16 wins 7 RU
30 Masters Finals - 18 wins 8 RU
7 End of Year Finals - 6 wins 1 RU

Over 100 career finals of which he has won 70%. An Olympics Gold medal.

And all done whilst playing the best players the last 10 years has had to offer.

For me his is easily the GOAT and whilst the likes of Nadal & lets not forget maybe Djokovic if he can keep up his last 2 years still could surpass it..they still have quite some way to go.

As you like Stats:

Winner of Slams on Clay, Grass and Hard in a calendar year
Most Masters Titles
Holder of Olympic gold, Wimbledon, French Open and Australian Open
Has 107-1 record in Grand Slams when winning the first set
Boasts the only 80%+ win in Masters events
Tied for the most titles as a teenager
Best career outdoor winning %
Quickest player to reach 400 victories before playing 500 matches

Who holds them do you think?

legendkillar wrote:

As you like Stats:

Winner of Slams on Clay, Grass and Hard in a calendar year
Most Masters Titles
Holder of Olympic gold, Wimbledon, French Open and Australian Open
Has 107-1 record in Grand Slams when winning the first set
Boasts the only 80%+ win in Masters events
Tied for the most titles as a teenager
Best career outdoor winning %
Quickest player to reach 400 victories before playing 500 matches

Who holds them do you think?

A fine set of achievements, though some of those W-L numbers may change a little bit in the coming years.

I'm pretty sure the same guy holds the record for the number of apparent knee injuries disclosed just before grand slams too...

LEGENDKILLAR:

I could literally pull out multi stats on Federer such as being the only player to ever have more than 7 20+ match winning streaks, or winning 178 grand slam matches in a row when being 2 sets to 0 up.

Im not putting Nadals' achievements down by any means, in fact only a complete idiot would argue that they are not extremely impressive. But the fact remains he has yet to amass as many grand slams or achieve the kind of longevity & consistency that Federer has. Couple that with the fact I feel Federer has played against more 'great' players in their prime than Nadal has had to face then it is these kind of 'stats' that ultimately leave Nadal trailing in 2nd place as the GOAT.

reckoner wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

As you like Stats:

Winner of Slams on Clay, Grass and Hard in a calendar year
Most Masters Titles
Holder of Olympic gold, Wimbledon, French Open and Australian Open
Has 107-1 record in Grand Slams when winning the first set
Boasts the only 80%+ win in Masters events
Tied for the most titles as a teenager
Best career outdoor winning %
Quickest player to reach 400 victories before playing 500 matches

Who holds them do you think?

A fine set of achievements, though some of those W-L numbers may change a little bit in the coming years.

I'm pretty sure the same guy holds the record for the number of apparent knee injuries disclosed just before grand slams too...

Nice stats LK, but as I'm sure you know, those are not the important ones. Federer has a page full of stats similiar to those (check wiki) but he also holds a huge advantage in the first line stats used to determine GOAThood.

owen10ozzy wrote:LEGENDKILLAR:

I could literally pull out multi stats on Federer such as being the only player to ever have more than 7 20+ match winning streaks, or winning 178 grand slam matches in a row when being 2 sets to 0 up.

Im not putting Nadals' achievements down by any means, in fact only a complete idiot would argue that they are not extremely impressive. But the fact remains he has yet to amass as many grand slams or achieve the kind of longevity & consistency that Federer has. Couple that with the fact I feel Federer has played against more 'great' players in their prime than Nadal has had to face then it is these kind of 'stats' that ultimately leave Nadal trailing in 2nd place as the GOAT.

not 2nd by a long chalk!

Owen, Nadal is not in 2nd place. Sampras and Borg and Laver are still ahead of him. It could be argued that the likes of Lendl and Connors and Agassi are also ahead. They have fewer slams and don't have a career slam (except Agassi) but their longevity, tour titles, weeks at number one etc far exceeds Nadal's.

I have a question. How can Nadal be considered the GOAT when he has spent approx 100 weeks as the number one player in the world? In other words, for 80% of his career he has been the second best player or less against the tour.

emancipator wrote:Owen, Nadal is not in 2nd place. Sampras and Borg and Laver are still ahead of him. It could be argued that the likes of Lendl and Connors and Agassi are also ahead. They have fewer slams and don't have a career slam (except Agassi) but their longevity, tour titles, weeks at number one etc far exceeds Nadal's.

I have a question. How can Nadal be considered the GOAT when he has spent approx 100 weeks as the number one player in the world? In other words, for 80% of his career he has been the second best player or less against the tour.

Good point Emancipator and I can bet you the answer is going to be fairly simple from Nadal fans (usually but also some Djokovic fans): weak era.

Yup, I mean the emphasis now just seems to be on slams, but that's a recent phenomenon. Some of the guys that I mentioned didn't even play all four slams for many years.

I agree that stats are just that stats and despite the merits, it makes the GOAT for me still debatable. One poster mentioned Borg. See the question I ask myself is Roger the best of his generation? And I say I don't know.

And I hope the 'weak' era does not rear it's ugly head here!