Federer v Nadal (The Greatest Ever Debate)

First topic message reminder :

I have removed this article...

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.

Our new catchphrase on 606v2 is civility dear BB, and everyone is being civil so I don't know what your issue is, no one is being shrill or insulting, although I would say that your last post does threaten in that direction.

Nah, you threw a big fat wum post in earlier and the article is just thumbing a nose at Enforcer.

Why add bull to it all? Be proud of what it's all about. Stand up for your opinion, why hide behind mock form?

hawkeye wrote:

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.

My disdain for the thread has nothing to do with the comments about players. It's just old, boring and designed to tell Admin that they don't run the place, which I find juvenile.

But hey, if it brightens your day and the forum chiefs don't mind them good on you!

Well that is your opinion BB, and your entitled to it, I disagree. I like the topic that is why I talk about it. I talked about it before Enforcer ever made his post.

I've spent most of the day decorating and whilst this thread provides a bit of a break from watching paint dry, the overall excitement factor is not too dissimilar.

As laverfan says, best leave any new articles on goatness assessment of active players until those concerned have retired. That will most likely be pretty soon in the case of Federer, but a few years more for Nadal.

In the meantime, I'm not especially surprised that some members simply cannot wait that long and feel the need to spend the intervening period in creating yet more articles - complete with a barely-veiled cynical dig at the Admins/Mods too - on a tired old subject that has been done to death already. It would at least have been worth adding other players to the mix : even before Nadal can surpass - let alone match - Federer on Slam count and weeks at Number One, he has yet to equal Emerson and Sampras (on Slams) and Sampras, Connors, Lendl, McEnroe and Borg (on weeks in the top spot).

Socal

I know. You liked the topic every time it's posted, hence posting on it every time, saying the same things every time in response to the same posts from others every time.

Really, its so good we should all do this again. And again.

Dear moderators, as much as I like the contributions of my fellow posters, and loathe to hurt their tender sensibilities I feel like Lags and BB are hijacking this thread from the discussion. Could we please refrain and regulate our hostility in the spirit of not frightening away new posters.

bogbrush wrote:Socal

I know. You liked the topic every time it's posted, hence posting on it every time, saying the same things every time in response to the same posts from others every time.

Really, its so good we should all do this again. And again.

Isn't that what people objected to about Tenez?

Federer the greatest, say Agassi:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/federer-the-greatest-says-agassi/story-fnbe6xeb-1226563048942

Federer the greatest of all time, say Laver:
http://dawn.com/2012/07/05/federer-greatest-of-all-time-says-laver/

Sampras: Federer is the ‘best ever’:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/06/08/federer.great.tennis.sampras/

Federer still tops, say peer (Soderling, Berdych and Ferrer)
http://www.sport24.co.za/Tennis/Federer-still-the-best-say-peers-20100925

Federer still the best: Soderling
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/sports/26-Sep-2010/Federer-still-the-best-Soderling

Federer remains best in the world on his day, says Henman
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2066659/Roger-Federer-remains-best-world-day-says-Tim-Henman.html

Based on the above sources, “Federer is the best ever” is a view shared not only by past greats but also Federer’s own peers, including David Ferrer. I googled “Nadal greatest of all time” but couldn’t find one single news article supporting that view.

Based on Fed’s established records, not nadal or any of the current field comes close to Roger’s achievements. However, nadal has a slight advantage of time. If he plays another 5 years and wins 5-7 more slams, he can technically overtake Fed’s 17. But overall, Fed has the best records thus far. That’s not something debatable, it’s a fact. This article appears to be another wishful exercise to press a non-issue.
[b]

socal1976 wrote:Dear moderators, as much as I like the contributions of my fellow posters, and loathe to hurt their tender sensibilities I feel like Lags and BB are hijacking this thread from the discussion. Could we please refrain and regulate our hostility in the spirit of not frightening away new posters.

Your contempt for Admin is screaming through your posts, it's just so childish.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Dear moderators, as much as I like the contributions of my fellow posters, and loathe to hurt their tender sensibilities I feel like Lags and BB are hijacking this thread from the discussion. Could we please refrain and regulate our hostility in the spirit of not frightening away new posters.

Your contempt for Admin is screaming through your posts, it's just so childish.

That's why I left it there

lydian wrote: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.

I disagree to a certain extent- my grandson is a top ranked junior in our state (10's, 12's, now 14's) and I've traveled with him to different touraments for years. It's quite obvious that the better players- the seeded kids, the serious tennis players gravitate towards Federer. You see the RF hats, the Wilson bags, the Polo shirts... It's the club kids, the local kids who are the early round fodder that typcially have the babolet racquets, etc...

Fine since talking about this topic is deemed contemptuous of the administrators, i will just stop my pariticipation in the thread. By the way of the last 10 threads I have personally started not a single one was about weak era or GOAT. But lets not let facts get in the way of BB's portrayal of events. I don't want to be labelled as uncivil or unfriendly, or contemptuous. It is funny those calling for civility can be so uncivil.

HM Murdoch wrote: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.

Spot on-- this is reality. Nadal is one of the best ever, the greatest clay courter ever, but he's not on the Federer, Laver, Sampras tier yet.. That's what funniest about the Fed/Nadal debate.. Nadal has to pass some other guys first to even get there.. Every single all time great including Nadal himslef- Common Sense posted some good links- consider Federer the best ever, or at worst within the big all time 3. The best Nadal can get is one guy McEnroe saying he "belongs in the conversation" and then listing his rankings as Federer, Laver, Sampras, Nadal... and sometimes switches Bjorg with Nadal.

Nadals reality is he has a player his own age from his own generation that is a lock to pass him for weeks at #1 and will prob end up with more yearend #1's. This guy is closer in the slam count to Nadal than Nadal is to Federer. Let's hold off and see how that plays out... becasue there is a distinct possiblity that Nadal would have spend the vast majority of his carreer at #2 behind two players.

When looking at Fed- like Jack Nicklaus- you also have to look at all the runnerups, semifinals, quarters... the sustained excellence.. Even all those runnersups to Nadal at the French come together to show pure greatness. Those aren't a negative when combined with all of his victories. The guy has finished #1 or #2 in big tournaments a vast amout of times.. Years and years without early round upsets or exits. It's just an amazing carreer.

Ruffin, I realize you are a new poster but we have been directed that talking about GOAT arguments are akin to uncivility and bringing down the site. I would love to discuss this issue with you but since my doing so will result in hostility from the moderator and attacks from other posters I won't be able to. Interesting that you find this debate worth posting on, were you not turned off by the GOAT debate?

TRuffin wrote:When looking at Fed- like Jack Nicklaus- you also have to look at all the runnerups, semifinals, quarters... the sustained excellence.. Even all those runnersups to Nadal at the French come together to show pure greatness. Those aren't a negative when combined with all of his victories. The guy has finished #1 or #2 in big tournaments a vast amout of times.. Years and years without early round upsets or exits. It's just an amazing carreer.

Very well said.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Dear moderators, as much as I like the contributions of my fellow posters, and loathe to hurt their tender sensibilities I feel like Lags and BB are hijacking this thread from the discussion. Could we please refrain and regulate our hostility in the spirit of not frightening away new posters.

Your contempt for Admin is screaming through your posts, it's just so childish.

Socal, I like your posts. You talk sense and even though I don't agree with all your stuff I think you post well. However I think Bogbrush is spot on here. The admin folk are just trying to do their job. If they ask a little something from folk who use the boards, which lets face it was not entirely unreasonable, I think we can try and play ball. I know it wasn't you but simply starting a thread immediately after Enforcers request which opened up a debate that was the cause of concern in the first place is pretty childish. Little snide remarks at the authorities is not far behind.

Johnyjeep wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Dear moderators, as much as I like the contributions of my fellow posters, and loathe to hurt their tender sensibilities I feel like Lags and BB are hijacking this thread from the discussion. Could we please refrain and regulate our hostility in the spirit of not frightening away new posters.

Your contempt for Admin is screaming through your posts, it's just so childish.

Socal, I like your posts. You talk sense and even though I don't agree with all your stuff I think you post well. However I think Bogbrush is spot on here. The admin folk are just trying to do their job. If they ask a little something from folk who use the boards, which lets face it was not entirely unreasonable, I think we can try and play ball. I know it wasn't you but simply starting a thread immediately after Enforcers request which opened up a debate that was the cause of concern in the first place is pretty childish. Little snide remarks at the authorities is not far behind.

HE, the point about the bell curve is highly relevant. Roger is at the end of his curve, the others aren't. You're trying to stoke up the GOAT debate when the paint isn't dry, when N/D/M are still making their statements. Yes we know Rafa has missed a lot of time through foot injuries but we don't know what he could have done otherwise. Can Nadal even be considered a GOAT player? No. Can Federer? Yes. That's the difference right now. Nadal needs to do a bit more to get into that kind of discussion. The only thing bringing him into contention is his H2H with Federer - its more a blot for Federer than a positive for Nadal in terms of GOATdom.

But come on guys, this is a turgid topic...what is there to discuss on this other than the future? A key battleground will become the records of Nadal vs Djokovic - provided both can persist. Looking at Novak's elbow last night, he might be headed into injury issues himself.

As I said, Interceptor, Johnny Jeep, I have no burning desire to talk about GOAT or weak era theories. I rarely start a thread on the topic myself. And I agreed that the one substantive critique was that threads would drift that way when the door would be opened on an unrelated thread I was happy to jump in. I don't think asking people to censor topics and to not post negative threads of players because their fans will get their feelings hurt is a minor issue. If I thought it was minor, I would just do it. We aren't supposed to knock tennis players now on a tennis forum because their fans might get their feelings hurt. Again, lets just let bygones be bygones. I don't care to have this fight over and over again. I don't want to be accused of being uncivil and conetmptuous so I will cease my participation on this thread as long as you guys stop directing posts at me. I just find it very amusing that the defenders of not hijacking threads, have hijacke this thread. That the defenders of civility have called me uncivil, contemptuous, and childish and yet I have done nothing but be as tender as new born lamb.

socal1976 wrote:That the defenders of civility have called me uncivil, contemptuous, and childish and yet I have done nothing but be as tender as new born lamb.

How can a fellow Macallan brother be uncivil, feisty perhaps, yes.

Well I am not being that way LF but it is interesting that is how I am being portrayed by people. Who brought the in civility to this thread? Who hijacked it off of op's original intent? Either way I don't care much it seems that people with certain views are deemed unworthy and it is open season on them funny how much friendlier this site was a week ago.

I don't want to run foul of the enforcer so I'll put this as dispassionately as possible.

The greatest implies some amount of something that surpasses all others. The backbone of tennis is the majors - they are the most coveted, most followed and most uniformly competed competitions in the game - no other competitions or measures of quality have as long or as uniform a history as the majors. That's not to say it is a perfect measure, but because of the reasons above, it is the closest thing we have to a perfect measure. The reason the majors are the majors is because we assume that only the best players in the game can win majors - that may be an imperfect assumption, but less imperfect than any other assumption required for any other measure of greatness.

For all these reasons, it makes sense that he who has the most majors is considered the greatest.

There is a fundamental flaw in the arguments for putting Nadal up for consideration in the GOAT debate when he only has 11 majors - his merits seem to be his own major total plus his head to head record against Federer. However, that is only significant under the reasonable conclusion that Federer is the GOAT because he has more majors than anyone, and by virtue of Nadal's superior head to head, he is greater than the greatest.

But how can one standard (majors won) be applied to Federer, but another one applied to Nadal (that actually depends on Federer's accomplishments?)

It's a little bit like saying we're going to have a competition to design the best cars, and the winner will be the one that is fastest. Then we identify the 10 fastest cars and suddenly, we decide that instead, since the the 4th fastest car has more horsepower than the fastest car, the 4th fastest car is the winner. It's illogical, it's a little unfair to the fastest car, and it invalidates the entire premise of the competition. And this is precisely what putting Nadal ahead of Sampras, Borg and Laver does (with all due respect to Roy Emerson), to the basic premise that we all accept - that the majors are the most coveted titles in the game because only the best players are capable of winning majors.

Now I know there is more to tennis than the majors, but there is nothing more important in tennis than the majors. In 2011 Djokovic won Rome and Madrid masters, and I'm guessing he would have won Monte Carlo had he played it. But when he lost in the semi-final at Roland Garros, we all figured it was a shame that he didn't do it when it counted.

So if we can agree that what counts the most in tennis is the majors, and Federer has the most majors, it seems to me that this is the best measure of greatness in the game. This is not a permanent accolade, so if someone comes along and wins more than Federer, they would necessarily be greater, but until someone does, I think it just makes sense to proclaim Federer the greatest.

There are some arguments out there for others, but I don't really think it can logically be applied to Nadal until he surpasses Federer's major tally.

Oh what is this a new poster of quality who wants to talk about GOAT? I thought this was as rare as the dodo bird. MMT1, are you not bored and simultaneously terrified by this conversation? I was lead to believe that new posters would flock to this site if only I stopped bringing it down with GOAT talk.

As for Nadal I give the man some credit for his injuries, for his h2h record, and the fact that he defeated tougher competition than Federer on average. Roger had a lengthy period of time where he dominated a very weak and transitional field boasting a 35 year old agassi, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt, Dave Nalbandian, and Marat Safin. Roger lacked a real rival till Nadal rose up and then later Murray and Djokovic who where not real threats until 07 and 09 respectively.

In my book if Nadal gets to withing striking range of fed 2-3 slams, dominates the h2h, fights off all the top rivals in this golden period of tennis, and has missed so much time due to injury and is still close to fed's total slam count; then a strong case stands for giving him the GOAT crown. But I agree right now the scales tip towards fed, but if Nadal gets to 14 or 15 slams and has more masters, the h2h advantage, tougher competition, and all that time missed to injury I feel that the case in his favor would be strong.

Sorry but I felt that this well thought out and intricate post deserved a response, the poor guy has to make his post with the first line as a disclaimer and a plea for mercy and forbearance from the management. This is my effort of being welcoming and friendly to new posters.

socal1976 wrote:Fine since talking about this topic is deemed contemptuous of the administrators, I will just stop my pariticipation in the thread. By the way of the last 10 threads I have personally started not a single one was about weak era or GOAT. But lets not let facts get in the way of BB's portrayal of events. I don't want to be labelled as uncivil or unfriendly, or contemptuous. It is funny those calling for civility can be so uncivil.

Followed 19 minutes later by another post, and another four posts subsequently.

Slightly undermines the dramatic impact of the post I think.

MMT1 wrote:I don't want to run foul of the enforcer so I'll put this as dispassionately as possible.

Wish others would follow MMT1's example and be considerate of others.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Fine since talking about this topic is deemed contemptuous of the administrators, I will just stop my pariticipation in the thread. By the way of the last 10 threads I have personally started not a single one was about weak era or GOAT. But lets not let facts get in the way of BB's portrayal of events. I don't want to be labelled as uncivil or unfriendly, or contemptuous. It is funny those calling for civility can be so uncivil.

Followed 19 minutes later by another post, and another four posts subsequently.

Slightly undermines the dramatic impact of the post I think.

Just trying to be friendly and not leave or new poster hanging after he spent time writting a wonderful post. By the way when people address posts at me I feel I should answer their post out of politeness. He posted this thread at a low traffic time for you europeans and therefore I wanted to discuss some of the good points he brought up.

socal1976 wrote:Fine since talking about this topic is deemed contemptuous of the administrators, i will just stop my pariticipation in the thread.

And when I said "stop" ..... I really really really mean it.

Well .... sort of....

If I see a post by someone who I feel might not have had the benefit of reading all about my mythical era theories, I fear I just won't be able to resist the temptation to trot them out all over again. Ad infinitum in fact.

It's only polite, after all.

Excellent post MMT1

Nice post MMT1.
Slam wins are the KPI - then when its close other things come into play...Masters, WTFs, H2H, vs Top10, etc. But we all know the first thing the media say about a great player past or present is "xxxx xxxxxx - the x time slam winner".

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.

Maybe we should include criteria like whether your surname begins with "N"?

Keep trying Hawkeye.

bogbrush. Why does this discussion upset you so much? I presume you are one of those who have complained. If you look I did remove the article when I was told some were upset by it but others continued to discuss it and it and the subject interests me so I've responded. This thread has left me bemused as the comments consist of an interesting intelligent discussion about a tennis topic that is a mainstay of tennis forums everywhere and a few comments from posters telling everyone to be quiet.

I think if we look at absolute level played, Djoko 2011 might be up there, but then we'd also have to discount Borg, Laver etc. and in 10-15 years time (at most) there will almost certainly be a crop of players playing better than Fed, Rafa and Djoko. The game always moves forwards in that respect.

Maybe another issue is people are getting confused with the argument. It is not whether Federer is the perfect tennis player. No one is perfect. Is he better than Nadal? Yes. The record books state overwhelmingly so. Of course Rafa is not finished yet. When he has he finished we shall see. But I wish people wouldn't use his injuries as caveat for what he would have achieved. Borg would have achieved more if he hadnt had a mental disintegration forcing him to retire. Do we judge psychological limitations to be less important than physical ones? We shouldn't. So by that reasoning how does Nadal measure up to Borg?


In case I'm not being clear we do not use what people haven't done (for whatever reason) when discussing greatness.

Julius. Djokovic at his best is very good most would agree that he's not quite in the greatest-ever debate yet. Of course Borg and Laver by some may be considered the greatest. Also Pancho Gonzalez a professional player with 0 slams is sometime given this accolade. But it's difficult for us to judge players across different era's. I suppose that's why the focus is so often on those that we have playing at the moment. They are certainly the two greatest that I have seen. I did see a bit of Borg and IMHO both are better (that's just an opinion. I don't want to upset anyone)

You mentioned Pancho Gonzalez, now you're in for it!

"What's that coming over the hill, is it a laverfan? Is it a lavvveeerrrffaaan???

Regarding Nadals level of play being higher I just don't see it. Tennis by its very nature is a continual measurement of level of play. Over a point, a game, a set, a match and finally by competition. Points are then issued so a level can be measured over the course of a season. Again Nadal does not do well in this when compared to Federer. Tennis is much more than the a match up between two individuals.

I appreciate they are both unbelievable players and when you get to a certain level it becomes harder to separate players. But using subjective attributes to artificially pump the tyres of one player is probably why people get irked (not least me!! )

Johnyjeep Don't get irked most people here agree with you that Federer is the "greatest".

But to argue my point hopefully without upsetting anyone. And it's not just my point otherwise it wouldn't be such a widely discussed topic. Nadal does rather have some rather good stats when you look at continual measurement of play.

He has the best overall win/loss ratio of all players since records were taken.

1) Nadal .830
2) Borg .827
3) Connors .818
4) Lendl .818
5) Federer .815

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Overall-Career-List.aspx

Slams are of course important and he is 2nd in this list behind Borg.

1) Borg .898
2) Nadal .877
3) Federer .869

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Gland-Slams-Career-List.aspx

How well players do against the highest quality opponents is a good measure too. Nadal is second in wins against top ten opponents too. Again ahead of Federer.

1) Borg .705
2) Nadal .669
3) Federer .656

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-10-Career-List.aspx

But unlike Federer Nadal has a positive H2H against ALL active players baring Davydenko (he trails 5-6 to Davydenko). ie whoever he plays he usually wins.

However they are looked at these are first rate stats and part of the reason why Nadal remains firmly in this greatest ever conversation. Although I'll be the first to admit maybe not here on 606v2

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. Why does this discussion upset you so much? I presume you are one of those who have complained. If you look I did remove the article when I was told some were upset by it but others continued to discuss it and it and the subject interests me so I've responded. This thread has left me bemused as the comments consist of an interesting intelligent discussion about a tennis topic that is a mainstay of tennis forums everywhere and a few comments from posters telling everyone to be quiet.

No, I never complained.

This isn't upsetting, it's boring.

Why post 12 times on this thread saying that you don't like it? If it was boring you would just ignore it. It looks like you are trying to make mischief. I've just posted some of Nadal's impressive stats. Are they not relevant to a tennis forum?

Borg's stats are better

Though Borg has to count that dreadful comeback, I guess the part of the problem with those percentages is that Borg never spent the years where his star would be dimming on court and Nadal, one would think, has yet to reach that time.

^ not in the overall category.

Also although Borg and Nadal both have 11 slams Borg never won the AO or the US Open. So does that indicate that Nadal is better on hardcourt than Borg?

Nadal has a better win loss ratio than Borg on clay. Nadal has a ridiculous .930 to Borgs .863. Nadal has 7 FO's to Borgs 6. Borg does have a few more Wimbledons. But Borg isn't going to win anymore...

This article was about Federer and Nadal. I wonder if anyone thinks that Borg is "greater" than Federer?

There is an arguable case for Laver or possibly Borg to be GOAT. There is no arguable case for Nadal. I'd currently say there is a fair chance he will go down as the third best player of this generation.

Just noticed how close Borg and Nadal are on total matches played and won.

Nadal is 600 wins/123 losses and Borg is 608 wins/ 127 losses

Born Slippy. So you would put both Borg and Laver above Nadal and Federer? I presume you've seen them all play. If so that is your call.

No, I'd include Laver and Borg with Fed. I haven't seen either play live.

hawkeye remember how borg like never played at aus (i think it was grass then anyway) and made it to some US open finals, think that was grass, then clay, then hard (could be wrong).

Laver probably would have won at least 20+ slams if the whole pro/am divide didn't happen especially as he won 4 slams in a year twice!