Federer v Nadal (The Greatest Ever Debate)

I have removed this article...

Defining the best player ever for me comes down to time at number one and grand slam wins.

Last I heard Federer held both records.

There really is no debate here. If Rafa ends up with more slams or more weeks At no.1 then it's a worthy discussion. Right now, it isn't.

17 v 11

302 v 102



That's was a quick debate wasn't it?

Danny_1982 wrote:...There really is no debate here....

We can but hope. Of course, if other posters want to repeat all the arguments that have previously been made, and drive others posters away from the forum in despair, this is the thread to do it

Nadals a lot younger though and playing in a much stronger era, i don't think you can really judge until both's careers are over.

Ok let me play the role of nadal fans aka devil's advocate.

bla bla bla bla bla yackity smackity head to head

bla bla bla hip hop lingo olympic gold singles

bla bla bla blue blaa bleee masters titles

blaaaaaa blaaaaa bloody blaaaaa federer's slams happened during a weak era

I think that is about it.

Bogbrush. Ha ha! 19-10, 8-2, 22-21 but probably most important of all 26-31

The first comment under the linked article says it all

What makes the rivalry so fascinating is both camps have a legitimate claim.

JuliusHMarx. I just saw your comment before posting. Seriously! The most talked about topic in tennis is one of the debates that is on the list of topics to be avoided on606v2?

From the linked article

Luckily, the greatest-ever debate is happily meaningless and cheerfully harmless. Choosing Federer or Nadal is like choosing whether San Francisco or Sedona has the better view. There is no poor choice.

The proprietorship that fanatics from each camp have for their stars is hilarious and passionate, but the real victory of the debate is just being able to have it, while both make the big stage that much brighter.

We have two all time greats in tennis. Who are these tennis fans who don't want to post on a forum that discusses them? I am bemused because I thought by posting this old favorite I would lighten the mood.

World Record for completion if thread luv sports.

Oh, by the way Hawkeye - great way to lay your position down on the Enforcer thread.

bogbrush. If you don't like this topic fair enough avoid it. But why throw your weight around and try to claim a win and shut down further discussion at the same time. ie "Federer's the best" The end...

Don't get me wrong, I like both Roger and Rafa. The game is lucky to have them.

But Roger is miles ahead in slams and weeks at number 1. If Rafa has more at the end of his career I'll happily say he's the all time number 1.

But at this point he hasn't. Sampras is closer to Roger in both weeks at no.1 and slams!!

This article will obviously go on and on... But it's incontrovertibly clear for me. Roger is number 1.

monte junior. Good points. Of course we can't judge until their careers are over but they have played quite a few matches so we still have something to talk about. Federer is nearing 900 wins and Nadal got his 600th win at IW's

OK, then. Nadal is the best. Now it's even.

HE is clearly trying to make a point about Enforcer's thread i.e. I'll post what I damn well like, even if the Mods/Admins have politely asked us not to for a while, and even if it makes the forum worse and drives posters away who I don't really care about anyway. Correct me if I've got any of that wrong.

Nadal is 4th on the all time slam list and and 7th on the all time "weeks at number 1" list.

If there is such a thing as "greatest ever", it's not Nadal.

Danny_1982

You have clearly made up your mind so I'm not attempting to change it...

But for me the least important stat is weeks at number 1. Pfft! For players of their standard and achievements ranking is of little importance and they both have sat in the number one spot.

Just for example What would be considered the greatest achievement? If Nadal surpassed Federer's weeks at number one but remained stuck at 11 slams. Or if Nadal surpassed Federer's slam count but never regained the number one position.

Made my mind up? It's not really a process of deciding... Statistically he's miles clear of anyone... Well, not miles clear of Sampras but clear enough for it to be indisputable.

Which is better, weeks at number 1 or slams? Personally I'd say slams.... But as Roger has both there's not much thought that needs to go into it.

No contest - Federer wins. More slam wins and more weeks at number one. Is there any need to go on? Rafa holds claim to the greatest clay courter of all-time whilst Roger is perhaps the greatest grass-courter of all-time but Federer is superior to Rafa on hard courts.

This is a worthy thread by a credit to the forum so I decided a short comment was necessary. In fact this might be the only topic that can break us out of the distilled water and wonder bread taste left in our mouthes. Due to injuries nadal has not had the durability to rely on, he also faced stronger competition, and has completely dominated the head to head. If nadal gets another 2-3 slams and fed stays pat, then I think nadal will supplant federer as goat. An epic thread

before you said you would given nadal the nod if he got at least 15 slams, now it could be as low as 13?

socal1976 wrote:This is a worthy thread by a credit to the forum so I decided a short comment was necessary. In fact this might be the only topic that can break us out of the distilled water and wonder bread taste left in our mouthes. Due to injuries nadal has not had the durability to rely on, he also faced stronger competition, and has completely dominated the head to head. If nadal gets another 2-3 slams and fed stays pat, then I think nadal will supplant federer as goat. An epic thread

OMG a friendly face... you wll be cast adrift without so much as an oar to paddle your raft socal..
You bad boy now we are both on bread and water

LuvSports! wrote:before you said you would given nadal the nod if he got at least 15 slams, now it could be as low as 13?

My intricate research into the weakness of fed's competition from 03-07 plus the ever increasing brilliance of the golden generation nadal has had to contend with has forced me to reassess my previous analysis. But you are right at 14 and 15 slams it becomes much harder to argue

Even if Nadal wins another 10 slams I don't think I'll see him as equal to let alone better than Fed. To me it's how you win that's most important and Fed plays the tennis I want to see. Everyone has to be reminded constantly about Nadal's charisma when in reality that's the only department he is equal to Fed in i.e. it's negligible. I accept though that most people go by records and would likewise accept they'd have him at the top were he to win a bunch of slams. To me Fed's numbers mean nothing in proving his relative greatness, you only have to look at them both play and it's obvious where the tennis is coming from... I'm just happy my favourite player enjoyed so much success.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

socal1976 wrote:This is a worthy thread by a credit to the forum so I decided a short comment was necessary. In fact this might be the only topic that can break us out of the distilled water and wonder bread taste left in our mouthes. Due to injuries nadal has not had the durability to rely on, he also faced stronger competition, and has completely dominated the head to head. If nadal gets another 2-3 slams and fed stays pat, then I think nadal will supplant federer as goat. An epic thread

OMG a friendly face... you wll be cast adrift without so much as an oar to paddle your raft socal..
You bad boy now we are both on bread and water

Haddie while you and I have not always seen eye to eye let me say that I would never cast you adrift and value your contribution to 606v2 tennis, but 606v3 has left me not as enthusiastic as the previous version

Both are great players but Federer is currently clearly in front in a GOAT debate. Whether this will still be the case by the time Nadal retires is another question.

socal1976 wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

socal1976 wrote:This is a worthy thread by a credit to the forum so I decided a short comment was necessary. In fact this might be the only topic that can break us out of the distilled water and wonder bread taste left in our mouthes. Due to injuries nadal has not had the durability to rely on, he also faced stronger competition, and has completely dominated the head to head. If nadal gets another 2-3 slams and fed stays pat, then I think nadal will supplant federer as goat. An epic thread

OMG a friendly face... you wll be cast adrift without so much as an oar to paddle your raft socal..
You bad boy now we are both on bread and water

Haddie while you and I have not always seen eye to eye let me say that I would never cast you adrift and value your contribution to 606v2 tennis, but 606v3 has left me not as enthusiastic as the previous version

Socal

Who said that we should alll see eye to eye on forums where we all have different opinions. Isn´t that supposed to be what debating is all about. You have strong views Socal and you are not afraid to voice them.. I admire that frankly. Posters take it or leave it. Thank you Socal we have had our moments you and I but neither of us seem to very accomplished at walking on egg shells.

Exactly, Haddie, and occassionally there will be dustup, but I have always enjoyed your honesty and passion, isn't a little passion and debate why we post in the first place. But I don't want to be accused of hijacking this thread. It is a wonderful topic.

Break in the Fifth no question federer is a great and sensational player who plays a more classical style than Nadal on the other hand has smashed the existing tennis forms with his extreme and unorthodox forehand that has impacted the style of play of every player that is coming up now. The lasso forehand is something that if he didn't invent he certainly popularized and it represents an evolution of the game. Federer is like Rembrandt, he does wonderful portraits and is clearly a master of the classical style. Nadal is like Van Gogh, who created something new and unseen before and influenced painting more because no one could see art the same way. After Starry Night, abstract and modern art was born, for better or for worse. Federer is an accomplished practicioner of classical attack tennis the best we have ever seen, but he is not a tennis revolutionary like Nadal and there have been very few in the history of the game.

Not only that Socal but he's encouraged a generation of kids to pick up racquets...I speak to dozens of junior players, when you ask who is their favourite player who do you think they say? Very few mention Federer, I think his demographic is the more established player or adult. So Nadal's impact on tennis goes beyond his own game.

Yes, Lydian, I mean his influence has arguably already overshadowed that of federer's. Eventhough among fans federer may still be as big or a bigger draw than Nadal. Nadal has as you said influenced the young juniors. They buy his clothes, buy his racquet and practice a shot as the basis of their game that simply didn't exitst before Nadal. I mean the babolat Nadal plays with is the most common racquet in clubs and at junior levels. I was a dead flat hitter of the tennis ball before Nadal, I had an eastern grip and looked at topspin as what defensive players used in large amounts. I had the same disdain for the socalled moonballer. But after seeing the destruction that thermonuclear spin imparts on his opponents and how it opens up angles never before seen before I went western and began to hit heavier and heavier. And guess what I hit more winners than I did when I didn't hit with that spin because of the angles that I can now get to my game that simply is impossible with a flat shot.

So when socal disagrees with haddie and has strong views that he is not afraid to espouse haddie admires it,
but when I speak passionately about a subject on drugs in sport (with no accusations towards nadal) you vilify me no end!

bogbrush wrote:17 v 11

302 v 102



That's was a quick debate wasn't it?

This 'debate' does make me laugh. But it is also extremely tiresome. To suggest Rafa is better purely because he has a better head to head record is ridiculous. Until Novak and Murray upped their game Rafa was the only person who could stop Roger. Unfortunately the same could not be said for Rafa. More people, could and did, beat Rafa. Hence his grand slam tally outside Rolland Garros. If it was just about the h2h record, where Rafa admittedly is ahead by a way, why hasn't Rafa won more Grand Slams outside Paris.

In any sport if a team finishes top of the league loses to teams in the relegation zone, who is the better team? The team winning the league or getting relegated? I.e. head to head counts for nothing. In the overall grand scheme of thing Federer is clearly the better player. You do not measure greatness against results vs one player!

@SoCal... Wee Keira into this thread is unnecessary. If Nadal was Federer's competition from 2004+, such a moniker also puts Nadal in the same era.

2008+

Djokovic - 6 slams (AO, USO, W) - No Clay Slam
Nadal - 6 slams (AO, USO, W, RG)
Federer - 5 slams (AO, USO, W, RG)
Murray - 1 slam (USO)

Del Potro - 1 slam (USO)

They are all wonderful players.

GOATness can be assigned perhaps after individual retirements.

The subjective debates for environmental factors can continue till eternity.

Del Potro is the best

Johnyjeep wrote:

bogbrush wrote:17 v 11

302 v 102



That's was a quick debate wasn't it?

This 'debate' does make me laugh. But it is also extremely tiresome. To suggest Rafa is better purely because he has a better head to head record is ridiculous. Until Novak and Murray upped their game Rafa was the only person who could stop Roger. Unfortunately the same could not be said for Rafa. More people, could and did, beat Rafa. Hence his grand slam tally outside Rolland Garros. If it was just about the h2h record, where Rafa admittedly is ahead by a way, why hasn't Rafa won more Grand Slams outside Paris.

In any sport if a team finishes top of the league loses to teams in the relegation zone, who is the better team? The team winning the league or getting relegated? I.e. head to head counts for nothing. In the overall grand scheme of thing Federer is clearly the better player. You do not measure greatness against results vs one player!

Nobody is measuring it solely on H2H there are players that are just bad matchups or their careers matched up in a way where one player was in his prime and the two played a great deal, while then when player B got very good player A was nowhere to be found. You analyze the h2h look at Nadal's respective accomplishments and his superior competition level and now more factors than mere H2h favor Nadal. Add to that the fact that I do give Nadal credit for how many slams he would have won, and how many fed maybe wouldn't have won if Nadal had better luck with injuries. Whenever Nadal has been healthy since 2008 he has been the best player with exception of 2011, when he was healthy and Novak just took it from him. That is what makes this year so interesting because Novak is the best and he is healthy and Nadal is in his stalking horse position and looking ferocious.

socal1976 wrote:Add to that the fact that I do give Nadal credit for how many slams he would have won, and how many fed maybe wouldn't have won if Nadal had better luck with injuries.

Luck, perhaps, but managing schedules and styles and effort are factors, that should not be neglected. Should GOATness be measured in terms of how many times a player retired from a match in progress?

Hypothetical what-ifs. What if Nadal had reached finals instead of losing to Blakes, Ferrers, Mullers of the world and lost in the finals? You seem certain that he would have won if he had made the finals that he did not make, why? What if Federer had won the first set at RG 2011? What if Federer had won USO 2010 and 2011 against Djokovic, because he had match points? What if he had made won the MP against Safin at AO 2005?

socal1976 wrote:Whenever Nadal has been healthy since 2008 he has been the best player with exception of 2011, when he was healthy and Novak just took it from him. That is what makes this year so interesting because Novak is the best and he is healthy and Nadal is in his stalking horse position and looking ferocious.

You can make the same health argument vis-a-vis all of Djokovic's retirements and hypothesize that AO 2009 against Roddick if he had won, he could have won the AO beating Nadal (or Verdasco for that matter). What if he had beaten Nadal at W 2007? Or RG 2006? What if he had beaten Coria at RG 2005?

Be careful with what-ifs.

What if United 93 had crashed into the White House instead of Shanksville, PA?

All I am saying is that I weigh his injuries in the totality of circumstances Laverfan. The man isn't exactly bare in the trophy case as is, he is clearly head and shoulders the best clay courter to ever step on the court and damn good on everything else. Most masters, davis cup, olympic gold and on top of that I still hold Fed as GOAT. But if Nadal gets pretty close, with all the other factors discussed, time lost to injuries and superior head to head, not having the good fortune of playing chubby wubby dave and one shot Andy as his main rival I would give the nod to Nadal. Lets say 14 or 15 slams and if Roger stays pat. I will say this, if Roger wins wimby this year that would go a long way to cementing it for me. But you can't just look the other way at Rafa's massive edge against Fed in slams. It is like Gale Sears or Bo jackson, people rate them much higher in the running back list than what their career numbers were because of their sheer brilliance and because their career was cut short by injury. Now if Djoko in Rafa's prime surpasses Rafa and dominates the rivalry from here on out that will take some weight away from the argument. Ironically, Novak Djokovic Roger's least favorite rival maybe the guy that guarantees Roger his goathood.

laverfan wrote:@SoCal... Wee Keira into this thread is unnecessary. If Nadal was Federer's competition from 2004+, such a moniker also puts Nadal in the same era.

2008+

Djokovic - 6 slams (AO, USO, W) - No Clay Slam
Nadal - 6 slams (AO, USO, W, RG)
Federer - 5 slams (AO, USO, W, RG)
Murray - 1 slam (USO)

Del Potro - 1 slam (USO)

They are all wonderful players.

GOATness can be assigned perhaps after individual retirements.

The subjective debates for environmental factors can continue till eternity.

laverfan. All pro players are wonderful at hitting a tennis ball. But don't you agree that the whole point of sport is that it is a competition to see who is the best?

If you have Nadal as Federer's rival from 2004 though why not Djokovic and Murray as they are both roughly the same age as Nadal? Or at least 2005? Why are they excused because they weren't good enough? Why place a baby Nadal in the same "era" as a peak Federer? To be strictly fair all players should have their "era" calculated in the same way and starting at the same age. Any wins achieved outside this age (either younger or older) should be recognized as exceptional because they are. Players should be given credit for this not penalized as you have done by theoretically expecting Nadal to compete fully with Federer in 2004.

Also I'm sure it must have been a mistake but you've left a huge space between Murray and Del Potro. Don't you think he's wonderful too? Why did you start the chart in 2008? You didn't explain.

BTW, since 2008 it's 8 slams for Nadal.

We do we always look back? Why not look forward...how many slams are the top4 likely to end on?
Comparing careers is hard enough without forgetting that Nadal is still only 26.

HE, clearly Nadal 'peaked' earlier, particularly clay of course. If you assume most pros at the top might get 1000 matches into their careers if you have a decent run then you can say Federer is just about done, Nadal is 72% done, Djokovic is 62% done and Murray 52% done. This casts a different light on matters when you look at when players are peaking and what time they have left to amass more wins. Once you take Federer out of the equation (I think he's won his last slam), it stands to reason that the next 20 slams will be divided mainly amongst Nadal, Djokovic and Murray with say 3-4 going elsewhere. So how are the 16 slams going to be divided between N, D and M? 4, 9, 3? That would put them on 15, 15 and 4. So then who becomes the better player out of Nadal and Djokovic?

Right now, for me Federer is still the top dog. His statistics are impossible to ignore, but this thread is illuminating regarding the perceptions of people, and what matters to them. Look at Bit5 and socal. One says Fed will always be the greatest to him, (almost) irrespective of slam count due to the style and quality of his play. socal has Nadal being the superior player to Fed if he can get within range (2-3) of the slam count. Both valid arguments because we judge by our own criteria.

I do feel that Federer will never go away in the GOAT debate, purely on the basis of his style of play - it seems to attract no end of praise from fans. Even if he gets surpassed by Nadal or Novak in the slam counts, he will always be considered due to this, allied with his stats. How often do you hear Federer being described as a grinder, or workmanlike, or boring? All words that have been (unfairly) leveled at Nadal and Djokovic. It's the sole aspect of his career that cannot be dissected easily, and it could well stand him in good stead when we all look back over the coming decades - sentimentality is a powerful thing when it comes to career retrospectives, rightly or wrongly.

I actually think they'll all wind up in the 13-17 region, and from there it's a toss-up depending on who you ask. But right now, it's Federer - as for Nadal, he still has time to make the debate even more interesting, and I hope Novak can edge his way in there too. Nadal will always have his own piece of history, even if he retires right now...the H2H over the current GOAT, his Masters titles, his clay record, and of course the career slam.

socal1976 wrote:All I am saying is that I weigh his injuries in the totality of circumstances Laverfan. The man isn't exactly bare in the trophy case as is, he is clearly head and shoulders the best clay courter to ever step on the court and damn good on everything else. Most masters, davis cup, olympic gold and on top of that I still hold Fed as GOAT.

This is very subjective what-if analysis of parallel universes and picking one that is the most favourable to player X.

socal1976 wrote:But if Nadal gets pretty close, with all the other factors discussed, time lost to injuries and superior head to head,

Let us assume that is actually the case, so 2003-2007 Federer v Nadal (no credentials outside clay) is very similar to 2008-2012 (Nadal v Djokovic)

Djokovic on Clay is 116/35 with 7 titles and as long as Nadal is healthy (bar 2011) Djokovic may not have much silver accrue from Clay.

Federer on Clay is 178/53 with 10 titles in contrast during the 'Greatest Clay Courter Era'.

Murray on Clay is no-existent as is Djokovic on Grass compared to Federer. At least Nadal had some competition on Grass. If Federer was not around, Nadal may have another 3 or 4 more Ws, correct?

socal1976 wrote:not having the good fortune of playing chubby wubby dave and one shot Andy as his main rival I would give the nod to Nadal.

Now you understand the Admins 'Warning' OP. How many times do you need to repeat this? In every sentence? Be creative SoCal.

socal1976 wrote:Lets say 14 or 15 slams and if Roger stays pat. I will say this, if Roger wins wimby this year that would go a long way to cementing it for me. But you can't just look the other way at Rafa's massive edge against Fed in slams. It is like Gale Sears or Bo jackson, people rate them much higher in the running back list than what their career numbers were because of their sheer brilliance and because their career was cut short by injury.

Injuries and genetic conditions are what one deals with. What if Nadal had taken up Football or Golf?

socal1976 wrote:Now if Djoko in Rafa's prime surpasses Rafa and dominates the rivalry from here on out that will take some weight away from the argument. Ironically, Novak Djokovic Roger's least favorite rival maybe the guy that guarantees Roger his goathood.

I am not so sure. Nadal coming back and winning 3 titles after a seven month layoff, does not bode well for rest of the competition.

lydian wrote:BTW, since 2008 it's 8 slams for Nadal.

Yes.

lydian wrote: If you assume most pros at the top might get 1000 matches into their careers if you have a decent run then you can say Federer is just about done, Nadal is 72% done, Djokovic is 62% done and Murray 52% done. This casts a different light on matters when you look at when players are peaking and what time they have left to amass more wins. Once you take Federer out of the equation (I think he's won his last slam), it stands to reason that the next 20 slams will be divided mainly amongst Nadal, Djokovic and Murray with say 3-4 going elsewhere. So how are the 16 slams going to be divided between N, D and M? 4, 9, 3? That would put them on 15, 15 and 4. So then who becomes the better player out of Nadal and Djokovic?

1. Lendl's longevity may be what Federer comes close to. As can Djokovic.
2. Connors (1242), Lendl (1027), Vilas (923), Federer (891) are exceptions in the match wins list. If Nadal plays 70 matches a year, that is 280 matches in four years, when he will be 30. It is too far to predict, IMVHO. He is at 600-123, and assuming a 80+% W/L, 224 match we get 824-199179.
3. Can I add the homogenization of court surfaces as a major factor in such calculations?

great post silver.

Not that LF's isn't its btw

We look back because it is simpler. It has happened. It is irrefutable. Looking forward is fine in itself. But the problems emerge when individuals start using their own predictions as fact and then using said fact in debates such as these.

Yes, Nadal has emerged great things by 26. Not least his ability to remould his game to win on all four surfaces. But this is not the reason for this thread. The discussion is who is the GOAT. By any reasonable measure Federer is comfortably ahead.

As i've alluded to before, I think h2h are way down on the list of determining who is the best tennis player overall. To be fair most people seem to agree. Unfortunately for Nadal, some fans cling to this one stat like a child to his security blanket. Nadal for example has yet to usurp Sampras or Emerson and is tied with Borg. As Sampras and Federer have shown, winning these final few majors is not straight forward. Nadal may have similiar difficulties.

His time at No.1 and y/e number 1 is also a huge blot for his GOAT claim. As is not winning the y/e end tournment. To claim to be the best ever when you have only spent 2 years of your career as the pinnacle of your peers is somewhat of a bould leap. To simply discount this as meaningless is strange because it is the true measure of your standing on all surfaces against all opponents. Its certainly more reflective of how good your game is rather than a h2h vs one player

This argument about weak opponents in 2004-2007 does not hold any water for me either. Nadal won his first Grand Slam in 2005, beating Federer enroute. Clearly therefore he was good enough during this same time period to win (more) Grand Slams. Yet he did not. Federer and Nadal therefore faced the same opposition. You cannot have it both ways. It is widely acknowledged Nadal developed earlier than Federer. But then this early develoment is discounted when it comes to talking about perceived weaker opponents. A man, any man, cannot control who is on the opposite side of the net. To degenerate any mans achievements through a measure he has no control over is, IMHO, quite spiteful. Plus the logic of that argument is flawed. If Federer had lost some of these Grand Slam titles to other players would he be held in higher esteem because his opponents were Major champions? So by being so good he is actually not very good?!

If it was not for Nadal, Federer would be out of sight in terms of Grand Slams. He was the only person stopping him from winning multiple French Open titles (where Federer has reached finals on a regular basis) and all the further records that would have followed as a consequence. The same can not be said of Nadal. Other opponents were able to beat him. The same weak opponents dismissed by Federer apparently.

This is not an attack on Nadal. Far from it. He quite clearly is a force of nature. Truly one of kind. His behaviour vs Rosol last year at Wimbledon not withstanding and that guff around a 2 year ranking system aside he always seems to come across as a humble individual who just loves to play tennis and can't quite believe his luck that he's been made a multi-millionaire as a result. With the look on his face when he loses, you can just feel his pain. But at the moment he has no claim (other than a better h2h over Federer!) to be the GOAT. And tbf to him I'd be suprised if he thought any different.

socal1976 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:before you said you would given nadal the nod if he got at least 15 slams, now it could be as low as 13?

My intricate research into the weakness of fed's competition from 03-07 plus the ever increasing brilliance of the golden generation nadal has had to contend with has forced me to reassess my previous analysis. But you are right at 14 and 15 slams it becomes much harder to argue

Helpfully worded in the style of wum posters of the past.

Tiresome.

There are two measures, one subjective, one more objective but very limited.

Subjectively I think that they both deserve mention amongst the handful of greatest ever to play - but since I didn't see Laver, Gonzalez, Budge, or Tilden and I don't really know how to compare Federer and Nadal with Borg and Sampras, who played in very different circumstances, that's as far as you can go. If pushed I think Nadal is lower down the pecking order than Federer judged on their overall career achievements to date. I'm not a wee Keira devotee.

Objectively you can only compare their records in slams and important tournaments with players whose heyday was from mid 1980's onward, which was when the Aus Open finally took (re-took?) its place as the fourth most important tennis tournament head and shoulders above whichever tournament is/was No. 5. On that basis Federer is the most successful player during the last 25 years - there's no argument about that.

@Barry... The challenge with Pancho/Laver/Emmo is the ProAm divide and hypotheticals that respective fans - subjectively - apply.

@JohnyJeep - The h2h argument falls down with Davydenko's h2h with Nadal. Davydenko may never make it again to face Nadal. .

Arbitrarily picking a specific stat, and ignoring others is like the Draw Rigging guff.

I can play A minor on the Piano, does that mean I am Grieg?

I can play the note A minor too...its all the rest coupled together I struggle with.

My point LF is about total matches, nit total wins. In 'modern' times you're looking at around 1000 matches for a pro in their career I'd say...the point is that Nadal is much nearer that total than Novak or Andy.

Wow what a great discussion What intelligent, thoughtful and knowledgeable posters we have here on 606v2.

To throw my bit in...

I like the way barrystar divided the two ways of measuring "greatness" into subjective and objective. Of course neither of these measures can be exclusive and often there will be an overlap.

I can definitely identify with break_in _the_5th's extremely subjective view that Federer will always be the best because of his style of play and adding or subtracting a few numbers will not alter this. I've watched both Federer and Nadal play at their very best and no player I've seen comes close in terms of quality. I also have seen enough so that my views on where they stand won't alter even if neither never win a match again. Unless some young upstart comes along and matches the quality of their play (even if they have better numbers) I won't be swayed from my view.

It's interesting how Lydian has noticed Nadal's inspiring effect on young players. His style is innovative compared to Federer's more conservative style. This perhaps explains some of the polarization of opinion on the two players and it means when judging playing style it is not comparing like with like.

But I like numbers also and neither player is lacking in these...

Federer is older and this makes it a little biased if we expect Nadal to have the same numbers as him at such a young age. If he did at 26 there would be no question about who was the greatest.

Despite Nadal missing quite a lot of time through physical problems he is still on track to surpass Federer's numbers. Whether you think Nadal should be given any allowance when judging how good he is perhaps depends on how physical problems are viewed. Some view physical problems as sort of self inflicted and therefore not being able to manage them is a problem similar to a technically poor backhand. I tend to view injury as bad luck. A great player who has a bit of bad luck is no less of a great player.

Nadal's H2H with Federer has been discussed but I think it worth mentioning that he has a positive H2H with all active players apart from Davydenko were he trails by one match 5-6. He therefore has a virtually flawless H2H against the entire tennis field.

Actually it's a rubbish thread rehashing everything that's been done a million times before without anything new.

If you like that sort of thing then great, but really this is just some posters ways of telling Enforcer they'll do what they like, as shown by Hawkeyes first sentence in the post above this.

lydian wrote:I can play the note A minor too...its all the rest coupled together I struggle with.

My point LF is about total matches, nit total wins. In 'modern' times you're looking at around 1000 matches for a pro in their career I'd say...the point is that Nadal is much nearer that total than Novak or Andy.

I'm not sure how relevant this is. Once a player hits 28/29 things will start to get a little more difficult. If a players career is represented by some sort of bell curve of achievement covering a theoretical 1000 matches. I doubt it can begin and end at any age. There are limits. I would say the brick wall limits are at the older age on the scale too.

bogbrush wrote:Actually it's a rubbish thread rehashing everything that's been done a million times before without anything new.

If you like that sort of thing then great, but really this is just some posters ways of telling Enforcer they'll do what they like, as shown by Hawkeyes first sentence in the post above this.

bogbrush. I'm sorry you don't like it. Not sure why as there's a lot of positive stuff here about Federer. And also about Nadal. But if it's not for you why spoil it for others who clearly do like talking about these two great players.

If you noticed I did remove the article (basically a link to an ESPN article on the same topic) because I'd been told it had upset some posters and I don't want to upset anyone... However when I came back today I found this interesting discussion and couldn't help joining in.

Silver wrote:Right now, for me Federer is still the top dog. His statistics are impossible to ignore, but this thread is illuminating regarding the perceptions of people, and what matters to them. Look at Bit5 and socal. One says Fed will always be the greatest to him, (almost) irrespective of slam count due to the style and quality of his play. socal has Nadal being the superior player to Fed if he can get within range (2-3) of the slam count. Both valid arguments because we judge by our own criteria.

I do feel that Federer will never go away in the GOAT debate, purely on the basis of his style of play - it seems to attract no end of praise from fans. Even if he gets surpassed by Nadal or Novak in the slam counts, he will always be considered due to this, allied with his stats. How often do you hear Federer being described as a grinder, or workmanlike, or boring? All words that have been (unfairly) leveled at Nadal and Djokovic. It's the sole aspect of his career that cannot be dissected easily, and it could well stand him in good stead when we all look back over the coming decades - sentimentality is a powerful thing when it comes to career retrospectives, rightly or wrongly.

I actually think they'll all wind up in the 13-17 region, and from there it's a toss-up depending on who you ask. But right now, it's Federer - as for Nadal, he still has time to make the debate even more interesting, and I hope Novak can edge his way in there too. Nadal will always have his own piece of history, even if he retires right now...the H2H over the current GOAT, his Masters titles, his clay record, and of course the career slam.

Great post Silver, I really can't argue with much of what you say. But the playing style of federer and his elegance maybe give him an advantage in regards to subjective aesthetics that many fans do value. And again as you say it is a personal choice. But I really do believe that the massive h2h advantage of Nadal in grandslams and the fact that he beat federer at 17 when Fed was at his absolute peak does give Nadal the tiebreaker over fed. If Nadal gets within strike range of 17 slams and fed stays pat I think you will say the weight of opinion shift to federer. Weeks at #1 is a great statistic to have in your corner, but when you consider the level of almost seasonal injuries Nadal has had the fact that he has amassed this many slams while fighting chronic leg problems in my mind adds to the luster does not take away from it.

Laverfan, I think Novak can and will beat Rafa on clay, just like I think Rafa can and will beat Novak from time to time on hardcourt. I think it is an open question at this point which of these two greats will dominate the next couple of seasons. Djokovic, in my opinion is the only one who stands much of a chance of beating Nadal at RG although I would favor Nadal.

Lydian makes some great points with the paucity of great talent coming up right now and with Djokovic and Nadal still being young by modern standards it is not difficult to envision a lengthy period of dominance by these two with Murray in there as well.