Federer v Nadal (The Greatest Ever Debate)

First topic message reminder :

I have removed this article...

Hi Hawkeye.

Yes those are undoubtedly excellent stats from Nadal. I mentioned Borg as an analogy for what could have happened if. which is a oft used argument for determining what Nadal could have achieved if not for injuries. I have no doubt Nadals will drop slightly when he reaches the twilight of his career and his level will drop like what happens to all tennis players. In snooker no one rates Steve Davis any less due to his desire to just keep on playing. My point being if Federer continues playing till he is 40 just cus he enjoys it his ratio will drop still further. And that shouldn't be held against him. Thats why as far I know, and I do read a fair bit about sport, I've never heard anyone using match win ratio as a gauge for determining who is better. Tournaments won yes. No.1 yes. Indeed if Nadal only played on clay from now till he retires who would probably be streets ahead of everyone in the match win ratio. It doesn't unfortunately tell the whole picture.

yes imagine if each of the surfaces were split equally, how good would feds grass stats be ey!?!

LuvSports. I know about Borg and I can also vaguely remember seeing him play. Don't think I would rate hime higher than Federer and Nadal. Don't know much about Laver apart from his often quoted records but if he's thrown in there Pancho Gonzalez should be too. But I'm not sure it's worth comparing players from completely different era's. When I look at old film it looks like a completely different game. It was and is a completely different game. If anyone has the opinion that Borg was better than Federer or Laver better than Nadal. I would just accept it as an opinion

We are very lucky to have two of the best players playing during the same period so we can compare (I hope anyway on 606v2...). The best way of course is to watch them play matches against each other but as many have pointed out a H2H is only part of the story.

Jonyjeep. I just threw in the stats because you mentioned measuring continual level of play and they are good indicators of it. Also win loss ratio is a way of comparing how players from different era's performed against contemporaries. It can't show level of play as that's something more subjective.

It would be great if Federer and Nadal continued to play into their 40's. Ha ha! With bad backs and busted knees their winning percentage would definitely drop but I bet they would still be capable of putting on a show. I would attempt to bribe the ATP to encourage them to introduce a system of protected stats in order to persuade them to do so. Once over 40 they should also be allowed to take as long as they wanted in between points...

Luvsports. Federer's win loss ratio on grass is .873. Not quite as good as Nadal's on clay. Admittedly I don't think the grass statistics are as useful as so few tournaments are played on grass. Generally Wimbledon and a warm up tournament for Wimbledon.

Federer has 7 Wimbledon titles and Nadal has 7 FO titles. Federer 1 FO and Nadal 2 Wimbledons. So they are almost perfectly balanced.

but it would help his overall win loss ratio no? with less clay and hardcourt.

yes and 1 US open to 5 US open's and 1 aus open to 4 aus opens, almost perfectly balanced

I like this thread and it's a shame the article was taken down. It's just one thread in a whole forum that was debating this. I find myself sympathising with HE's and Socal's points of view, on the viability of this debate (not on tennis). I can't see why a thread like this would put anyone off.

Anyhow to address your points Socal, from the first page. Aside from some a forehand that's very effective on clay and never seen before fitness, I'm not sure what else Nadal has brought to revolutionise the game that Fed hasn't. True Fed's style is classic and the core of it has all been seen before but he's hit many more shots that are unique to him. Nadal's style hasn't been leading to flat hitters becoming top spinners on the tour and many players that have added topspin to their shots has just been for safety as most shots can be retrieved.

Again, I don't see the problem with this article. I think Fed is awesome. I don't think Nadal can be mentioned alongside him for many reasons. I understand though that other people think more of Nadal and less of Fed.

break_in_the_fifth

Here's the link

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/9074703/debating-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-greatness

The site also did a poll. 75% of votes agreed with you and only 25% agreed with me. Although for me I think the margin between them is small. 25% of 52,725 is still quite a lot. It also shows that in the US this is considered a hot topic.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll/conversation/_/id/3587763

hawkeye. So to you those 9 extra wins in the head to head, a better win/loss %, a gold medal and 1 more masters mean more than 6 slams?

That poll asks who will be regarded as the greater player when their careers are done, I think there's a much greater chance than suggested there that Nadal will, though not by me, as majors are the currency of greatness and now more than ever it looks like there's no one to stop him. I was never properly convinced by Djokovic.

It's interesting that you put his injuries down to bad luck. Part of what I admire about Feds game is that he knows when to let the ball go. The way I see it is a player has mental and physical resources available to them throughout the match and Fed uses his really well. I won't get into my opinion on how the others use theirs as we're probably in enough trouble for this thread.

LuvSports.

I don't think I've mentioned the gold medal or the H2H with Federer. I did mention Nadal's H2H with all other active players and his best since records began career win/loss ratio as both do define him as great. But if you read through my other comments there are other reasons why I might just give him the edge. Me and at least 13,181 other tennis fans

break_in_the_5th

I think perhaps like you I feel like I've seen enough to make my judgement so whether Nadal goes on to pass Federer in the slam count or not won't change things. Personally I would find it sort of neat if they both ended with the same number. Also if any player in the future got more slams than either they would also have to demonstrate their quality for me to credit them with being greater. I can be quite difficult to please. Ha ha!

I do think injuries are a bit of bad luck. From what we can see I think both players do their best to look after themselves but being a pro athlete is asking for trouble.

Oh and thank you for sticking up for my article. And all the others who did also. It's much appreciated as I had felt a little disappointed and even a little sad at some of the reaction here.

once again dodging the question HE

Luvsports. Is a FO worth more than a Wimbledon? Is a Davis cup winning rubber worth more than Cincinnati? Is a topspin forehand worth more than a sliced backhand. Is a WTF worth more than a defeat to the other in a hard court final. Is a superior win/loss ratio worth more than a superior total number of wins (nearly 900). I don't think it's worth or even necessary getting tied up in this sort of detail.

Just throw whatever Federer has on one half of the scale and whatever Nadal has on the other side. Which way does the scale tip. From where I sit I see a slight "tip" on Nadal's side.

Hope you don't have any plans to open a fruit and veg store any time HE.

With dodgy scales like those I reckon you'd soon be in trouble with the Weights & Measures inspector .......

Hawkeye you are right. Lets not get bogged down in detail.

17 Grand Slams are definitely worth more than 11.

302 weeks at number 1 is definitely more than 102 weeks.

5 year end number 1's definately beat 2 year end number 1's

6 year end championships is better than 0

76 tournament wins are more than 53

Granted 20 Masters Trophies are definitely not more than 21

And that's the point Hawkeye. You HAVE to get bogged down in detail because anyone who suggests Nadal is better would be considered a WUM merchant. And you want to get bogged down in detail? Do a search on records held by Federer and records held by Nadal. See who has the longer list. It's Federer by a mile.

All this is countered with..Nadal has a better match record winning percentage of 1.5%? A better head to head record? A better winning percentage against top 20 players. The tour is made up of more than just one or twenty players. And he gets injured a lot. Plus Federer had easier opponents! Even though I'm fairly sure they won their first Grand Slam 2 years apart? Does the structure of the tour change that much over that time period!? I think not. Plus you cannot penalise a chap for who is on the other side of the net. That's just spiteful.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I like this thread and it's a shame the article was taken down. It's just one thread in a whole forum that was debating this. I find myself sympathising with HE's and Socal's points of view, on the viability of this debate (not on tennis). I can't see why a thread like this would put anyone off.

Anyhow to address your points Socal, from the first page. Aside from some a forehand that's very effective on clay and never seen before fitness, I'm not sure what else Nadal has brought to revolutionise the game that Fed hasn't. True Fed's style is classic and the core of it has all been seen before but he's hit many more shots that are unique to him. Nadal's style hasn't been leading to flat hitters becoming top spinners on the tour and many players that have added topspin to their shots has just been for safety as most shots can be retrieved.

Again, I don't see the problem with this article. I think Fed is awesome. I don't think Nadal can be mentioned alongside him for many reasons. I understand though that other people think more of Nadal and less of Fed.

Sorry it took me awhile to answer your post I have a time difference and have to do some work. I agree of course that era comparisons and goat debates are a staple of any good tennis site like a comfortable old shirt or chair that from time to time we like to slip into. Not only is Nadal's forehand revolutionary Bo5 but the level of aggression he has in his court positoning on running around that forehand is revolutionary. Nadal against most players probably hits 90 percent forehands in the rallies because he stands so far over in his backhand corner where effectively he really doesn't have a backhand corner. He didn't invent running around the forehand but the level he has taken it to in conjunction with the revolutionary lasso technique has impacted the entire tour and created many players who have taken from him. Nobody positioned themselves like that before Nadal, nobody hit with that lasso forehand that is so common now. Djokovic basically copied some of Nadal's more vertical swing plane and incorporated it into his own flat forehand.

There is a misnomer that hitting the ball with more spin will reduce your winner count, maybe, but I have never known Nadal to lack the ability to pile up winners on the forehand side or many of the other spin oriented forehands like Djoko or others on tour. I started hitting an eastern forehand, went semi western, and now I am completely western. With a western you can still hit flat forehands and you can still hit spin forehands with an eastern. Since I went western I hit more winners than I ever have. Why because with a flat shot there is only so hard you can hit the ball, clear the net and have the ball comeback and bounce in the court. Also you can never attain the same angles with a flat forehand that you can with the spinning forehand this extends the size of the court your opponent has to cover. Furthermore, you can hit the ball with more kinetic force with spin than you ever can flat. You can take bigger and bigger swings imparting more and more energy on the ball which will translate not only to higher miles per hour but also more bitting spin.

hawkeye wrote:MMT1. Very thoughtful post and it's great to have new insight into "The greatest ever debate". I hope I don't upset anyone by responding to this.

Of course majors are important when measuring greatness in tennis. If we go strictly by that measurement then there is clearly no contest because 17 is more than 11. Nadal himself has this view. I presume you've seen the argument that Nadal is younger than Federer and also the argument about how he has missed more competition through physical problems and decided that these are not reasons you believe should be taken into account?

So I'll throw in something a little different. Greatness could be judged by how good a peak performance is. A bit like a sprinter is often judged by their best record time and not by the number of times they ran a "good" speed. Same with a high jumper their personal best will always be used to determine just how good they were. I realize that tennis isn't a sport that can be easily measured in that way but there are enough people that believe that when Federer or Nadal play at their best they are better than the rest. It's a subjective judgement but a few judge Nadal's best level to be as high as Federer's best level. That's the reason that this topic keeps coming up whenever and wherever tennis is discussed (although I do now realize it is upsetting for some here on 606v2). Personally I would go a little further as I think Nadal's best level may be slightly higher than Federer's best. But Federer is a great player and I can well understand the view that Federer's best beats Nadal's best.

How lucky we are to have them both playing in the same period.

I think there were questions in there for me so, if I may, I'll take a stab at answering them.

For me, I think it is better to go with what we know, rather than speculate, because speculation is quite subjective, whereas what actually happened is not. As for Nadal being younger, if that is to say he has more time and could become the GOAT by surpassing Federer's major tally, I would agree with that, but for me, until he does, Federer is still bederer...sorry, couldn't resist. Finally, the one issue I have with the track analogy is that I don't know if Bob Beamon is considered a greater long jumper than Carl Lewis - Lewis many never have broken his record, but 4 olympic gold medals to 1 is, in my opinion, a closed case.

lags72. Your last comment had me worried but I have just checked the scales out and they appear to be working perfectly along with the other 13,181 that got the same result. Maybe you should check your out? Ha ha!


MMT1.That's interesting about Carl Lewis and Bob Beamon. I had never heard of Beamon so I looked him up. He set the WR in Mexico in 1968 and held it until 1991. The Mexico altitude apparently made this a controversial record so I imagine it's not just in tennis that the odd * is thrown about. Good point though.

socal1976. Great post about Nadal's forehand. It's to read interesting views like that that make me keep returning to 606v2. In fact you have given me an idea...

hawkeye - I'd get those scales fixed pronto if I were you.

The Weights & Measures Inspector has taken careful note of the data neatly summarised by Johnyjeep (10.04pm) and you're likely to be in for a heavy fine if he catches you still using them, whilst trying to con customers that they're actually in working order. There's an almighty number of ATP ranking points in all those extra Slams, career titles, WTF titles and years at Number One. And all those points carry so much weight - literally - that there's only one way the scales can possibly tip.

I understand the penalties can be especially severe if there is evidence that you have already been warned that your scales are clearly dodgy (and I doubt that any defence along the lines of " I didn't see Johnyjeep's post" would hold much water).

lags72

As I'm sure you are aware "Greatness scales" are capable of weighing everything and not just objective things like numbers. I believe you may be using a set of the old variety that aren't capable of measuring the more subjective but equally valid greatness qualities. Please check because those Weights and Measures inspectors won't be happy if you are. Failing that you could always try Specsavers as I can clearly see a small but definite tip...

Haha Hawkeye. Fair enough. You just keep dismissing these 'old variety' indicators just because they don't produce the results you want. That's a brand new way of debating that I'e not come across. Just bury your head in the sand and completely refuse to acknowledge those achievements I've mentioned. And that's what they are. Achievements. Not stats. I'd love to know when those achievements I talked about became 'old variety'. Since when was Tennis about winning things eh?

hawkeye did you read johnyjeep's post?

did you? huh? did ya did ya see it hawkeye? did ya choose to ignore it?
Im guessing you did

You are funny at times hawkeye.

Just as well we can rely on a tried & tested, wholly impartial sets-based scoring system in tennis. Otherwise we'd be awarding trophies based on subjective opinion, and all manner of "equally valid greatness qualities" - artistic merit maybe, nice shirts ........??

I'll leave you with your opinion-based scales ("I think that's about a kilo, sir") but won't be be buying from you any time soon. Whether produce or theories .......

Lags72 and Luvsports!

I'm beginning to think Hawkeye has blocked my posts or they are invisible lol its become quite surreal to the extent its humorous now. Nadal is an astonishing individual. He's certainly done things on a tennis court I don't think anyone else could do IMO. But Nadal as the GOAT when he pent less than 2 years as the best of his contemporaries? And rankings..like league tables...do not lie. They measure the whole tour over a 12 month period.Its fair for everyone.

Anyway Hawkeye I will leave it there. We both certainly have not got much more of watching Federer and unfortunately I fear Nadal in the future.

Nicely put Johnyjeep

Not sure how many of hawkeye's past contributions you might have seen since joining, but suffice to say they quite often have what might be diplomatically described (must be polite here...) as a fairly loose connection with evidence-based logic.

And yes you're right..... Federer certainly won't be around much longer, and Nadal has perhaps only a couple of more truly 'prime years' still to come, so best enjoy them both while we can.

Johnyjeep. I wasn't ignoring you but I thought I had addressed your points in my other responses. Although there is a healthy support elsewhere for Nadal's qualifications in "the greatest ever" debate here on 606v2 is a little more sparse... Ha ha! So as the chief defender I may miss a few "attacks".

You teamed some of Federer's good statistics with some were Nadal falls short. I could pair some of Nadal's good statistics with ones were Federer falls short... but as I explained it wouldn't really prove anything. They are both very high quality players and have some excellent numbers to back this up. It's not like anyones trying to say a player who isn't even close to Federer is greater because of their beautiful backhand.

There is no definitive way to "prove" who is the greatest because it will always be a subjective award. break_in_the_5th said that even if Nadal passed Federer on slam counts they would still regard Federer as "greater". I think that's fair enough as to me they are quite close. But equally it makes no sense to dismiss Nadal entirely because some of his numbers don't stack up. Especially when there are good reasons for this. Principally age although missing part of the tour could be viewed as another reason. You mentioned league tables in your last comment. I wonder how they would compare if tennis was played like a league? Ie no draws and knock out tournaments but everyone playing everyone and different divisions.

lags72. I do try to amuse but maybe I got a bit carried away with the scales idea. But I was in the beginning trying to make a point about looking at the bigger picture.