Full Spectrum domination of the alleged GOAT

First topic message reminder :

What we witnessed today as a one handed Nadal dismantled Federer is that Rafa was winning basically every pattern of play. His passing shots are better than Roger's volleys. FH to FH Nadal had the edge, BH to BH big edge for Nadal, fed FH to Rafa BH surprisingly the edge goes to Rafa. And of course Nadal FH to fed backhand was so lopsided as possible. Rafa serve overwhelms Fed's return while Rafa can break federer. In short we are seeing the most lopsided rivalry between two all time greats that I can remember. The final will be coronation and how fitting that Pete and Laver each first tier GOAT candidates could watch this dismantling of one Goathood in favor of the true Goat. Can we stop calling this matchup a rivalry it has not been one for 5 years now. This was like watching the Marines invade Grenada it was over before it began and by the afternoon the boys had busted out the beach towels and sun tan lotion.

25 years ago, the oldest man in the Australian Open draw was Johan Kriek, about two months short of his 31st birthday when the tournament began.  This year, 24 men in the main draw are older. A total of 34 men in the singles draw were over 30 years old. Tied with the all-time record, set in 2012. We have a record for average age in the men’s draw.  That figure this year is 27 years and 137 days, 91 days more than the previous record, set last year. The new record also marks the seventh consecutive year that the average age of the men’s singles draw has increased.

The tour is aging, and quickly...look at these stats,

Players under 23 in top 100
2014: 5%
2004: 25%
1994: 22%
1984: 40%

Players under 21 in top 200
2014: 2%
2004: 11%
1994: 9%
1984: 17%

Players under 20 in top 200
2014: 1% (2 players)
2004: 6% (12 players)
1994: 3% (6 players)
1984: 9% (18 players)

Players over 30 in top 100
2014: 34%
2004: 15%
1994: 9%
1984: 15%

Players over 32 in top 100
2014: 16%
2004: 4%
1994: 3%
1984: 6%

Players over 30 in top 50
2014: 36%
2004: 5%
1994: 0%
1984: 18%

Players over 32 in top 50
2014: 16%
2004: 2%
1994: 0%
1984: 8%

Players over 28 in top 30
2014: 55%
2004: 23%
1994: 7%
1984: 23%

Some interesting reading in there!

All know is that Safin was finished by 2005, Nalbandian never beat Roger in a slam... Andy Roddick went 0-10 vs Roger, and had already lost to Djokovic and Murray (one of which was a dismantling) - Doesn't really say much...

Great stats Lydian.

Players over 28 in top 30 risen from 7% in 1994 to 55% today. That's an incredible statistic.

Danny - I've pretty much left Murray out of my consideration because it's still speculative. It's been two years since they played and, at present, he's not totally fit and we don't yet know what level he will return to.

If he returns to his best, I imagine it will take a couple of tournaments or so. So I don't set expectations too high for IW and Miami, although he may of course be in his stride by then.

Then we are hitting clay, where he's usually at his weakest.

So it could well be July before Andy is giving Rafa a strong challenge.

It's ridiculous how long it has been since their last match though. Think what has happened in that gap! Lendl, Olympics, USO, Wimbledon... an eventful period!

Lydian - incredible.

Why do you think that is? I'm going for simple answer. The younger guys are lacking in various ways.

Seeding up to 32 probably doesn't help them either.

Actually nalbandian did beat federer in a slam, he knocked fed out of Australian open but not sure which year

Slasher - you may have missed that the period under discussion is 2004-2007. Federer won AO 2004, 2006, 2007... he couldn't have lost to Nalby in that time
Hence I also said Roddick went 0-10 vs Federer, when the actual record is a more palatable 21-3.

HM Murdoch wrote:Lydian - incredible.

Why do you think that is? I'm going for simple answer. The younger guys are lacking in various ways.

Seeding up to 32 probably doesn't help them either.

All true, but it can't be just that. Look at Wawrinka, clearly this is the best he's ever been. Playing brilliant stuff and as he's said himself fitter than ever. What is he, 28? 29? For all but a few that's nearly scrap heap time 15- 20 years ago.

Sports science being better? Slower courts meaning less net play, which some say is a more explosive movement? .... Frankly I have no idea. Previously if you hadn't done it by 25 you can forget it. Those days are gone.

... Oh and point taken with Rafa v Andy Murdoch.   

Who's andy murdoch?

LuvSports! wrote:Who's andy murdoch?

Brilliant new youngster coming through. Watch out for him.

Yes the stats are interesting. The 84 ones are a little weird but then tennis was so different back then that's its probably not worth trying to correlate from that period given the modern prototype player hadn't really arrived in earnest...e.g. Becker, Edberg, Wilander, even Lendl was still young.

Looking at 94 onwards...conditions have slowed, particularly since 01-03 making the game more physical. This made the game more physical which put more emphasis on fitness, recovery, diet, etc. Slower conditions put emphasis on extended rallying, innate speed isn't as important across the tour. So younger guys who rely on youthful speed, not power, can't break through. Older, fitter, stronger guys...who might have lost some speed but that's not as important anymore...dominate.

I still believe Federer was a beneficiary of a transitional period, he adapted the best (his talent!)...now we have a tour dominated by the same 4-8 guys, always getting to the quarters & semis. That creates less shocks but means the top guys have to keep beating the same other dominants to win. Plus we have more strength in depth I believe given young guys can't break in.

Prime windows are later and longer too. Federer may be 32 but he's hardly alone...there are 7 other >32s in the top 50, 18 players over 30yo. We shouldn't be so surprised to see Federer doing well anymore at 32, nor that Nadal is achieving longevity. Modern training, recovery and medical science is ensuring these guys just keep on running and running. Plus I don't believe innate timing significantly slows until after 35. If they can maintain the training schedules...that's the hardest bit...they keep up their fast twitch muscle fibre density...so speed can be maintained. Like I said before, many athletics world records are set by guys in their 30s. But speed isn't as key as it used to be in tennis, the older guys have more time to get to shots with slower conditions.

So we're seeing new guys can't really break through anymore until at least 23-25yo. Yes there is less variety but that's not the deal breaker for me...slow conditions force less variety. For all Federer's getting Edberg on board he looked like a sitting duck at the net yesterday...think he made around 25% of net approaches. Against guys like Nadal that style of play on all but the fastest surfaces is defunct unless you really pick your moments. Fed looked out of ideas and pulverised on the backhand side so just kept coming in regardless. Nadal served 92% of 1st serves to Fed's BH...Fed won 16% of those. Considering Nadal is usually 35-40% of return pts won Fed is never going to beat him.

BTW, this is Wawrinka 2.0. Look at his performances over past 12 months, the guy is top5 material, just needed to be stronger mentally then physically. I think he's a serious risk tomorrow...Nadal being 12-0 is not as relevant going in.

What's also interesting is the breakdown of older guys as the ranking bands strengthen. If we look at current guys in Top 25, Top 50 and Top 100 vs age...

Top 30
> 28: 56% (16 guys)
> 30: 30% (9 guys)
> 32: 13% (4 guys)

Top 50
> 28: 50%
> 30: 36%
> 32: 16%

Top 100
> 28: 50%
> 30: 31%
> 32: 15%

Interesting the %s are similar for each age band, so the distribution of age across all ranking levels is consistent. In other words "ageism" is a cross-ATP issue!

What is shocking is that there are only 20 players under 23yo in the whole of the top 200. In 2004 you had 15 inside the top 50! So something very dramatic has happened to the game. And means we'll be seeing the current top 20 for a long long time to come...

I went for a lot of this Lydian but the continued failure of anyone to break through makes me suspect a deeper malaise.

The pattern of the past is young players come in and displace the older, often not because of age but because the game changes and the older guy has to change on the run while the younger guy enters on that basis. Federer has had to go through two great changes; growing up as a guy with serve volley in the fore (the famous win over Sampras looks from decades ago in style), through the baseline fast game, and into the slower conditions baseline game we have now.

The problem I see is that the game has stopped where it is, medical techniques (some borderline in my mind, but that's not illegal) extend playing careers and the result is no turnover. There's none, and it's not as if anyone under 24 is going to change that.

There's simply no change happening, no evolution.

kingraf wrote:Note how a 26-year old Roger somehow conspired to lose in successive tournaments to Guillermo Canas, on hard courts, in straight sets.

There are many who lose matches. You are focussed on Federer, what about Haas v Djokovic, Nadal v Melzer, Murray v Lu?

There are numerous examples, Fish, Simon, Karlovic, … vis-a-vis Federer, which can be used to beat him up. There are equally good examples of others in Top 4, who illustrate the human side of players. Let us just leave it that.

Wasn't Canas banned for doping around that time? I can't remember exactly when it was.

Some very thought-provoking posts in this topic

Silver wrote:Wasn't Canas banned for doping around that time? I can't remember exactly when it was.

Some very thought-provoking posts in this topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Cañas#Doping

He was exonerated by CAS and blamed the ATP Doctors (a la Rusedski). This is 2005-2006.

Federer was beaten in 2007.

HM Murdoch wrote:The last few months have really changed my view of tennis history.

I've always thought the idea of a weak era was a bit strong but I've been open to the idea of a weaker opposition for Federer pre-08.

I now feel convinced that idea is wrong. The reason for this is looking at the present and recent past.

Federer's finals against Baghdatis and an ageing Agassi can be used to show how his stats have been padded. Yet Nadal has had recent slam finals against Ferrer and now Wawrinka, Masters finals against Isner and Raonic, and all we can say is that Rafa's standing in the game is growing as a result.

Federer had no opposition before 08? Who exactly is Rafa's opposition now? There's one guy on the whole tour who gives him a headache and that player is proving to be too emotionally streaky to challenge consistently. Let's be honest, as soon as Novak is out of a tournament, you can pretty much guarantee a Rafa win.

So the present is no different to 04-07. All that's changed is the identity of the player dominating.

Well said, HMM. . This is why I dislike repetitive derisive comments from SoCal about Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, et al.

Hewitt just beat Federer at Brisbane. He was causing all sorts problems at AO for Djokovic, IIRC.

laverfan wrote:

Silver wrote:Wasn't Canas banned for doping around that time? I can't remember exactly when it was.

Some very thought-provoking posts in this topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Cañas#Doping

He was exonerated by CAS and blamed the ATP Doctors (a la Rusedski). This is 2005-2006.

Federer was beaten in 2007.

Thanks for the clarification LF   

Good post from HM there, I hadn't thought about it from that perspective before. Though I do still instinctively think that the current crop of players is slightly better than the 2003-2007 period, there surely isn't a quantum leap between them.

Further analysis...I'm on a roll at the moment so humour me.

15 players >32 in top 100
31 players >30 in top 100
50 players >28 in top 100
5 players <23 in top 100
1 players <21 in top 100
0 players <20 in top 100
....so, 44 players between 24-27 in top 100
....i.e. more players >28 than <28 in top 100 (56 vs 44%)

From juniors to <23 we gain 5 players.
From >28 to 31 we lose 35 players.

Seems we're not replacing the older guys anywhere quick enough...therefore, will the 24-30 window bunch even further? Then what will happen...is the number of >32s going to shoot up if no young blood is coming in, or will a load of players suddenly disappear and the gap gets filled by dross?

Let me throw in an idea for a possible reason for aging - to see what others think:

How about increased money in the game?  Currently, #100 player probably makes good enough money to make it worth sticking around even if they are getting older and even if they know they will never really make it big.  Maybe in the past, the money was not there, so guys were more likely to bail out younger looking for other things to do with their lives?

I have not given this much thought myself, and I doubt it would explain all of the aging, but what do you think, could that also be a reason?

...I'm going to create a new "ageing" thread so all this data isn't lost and its not related to OP here either. Hang on guys.

Good idea.

Can I, on this thread, now formally ask all posters that we populate Lydians "aging" thread with analysis and reasoned argument, and NO WUMMING at all, no digs or jibes.

We all know a wum post when we see it so no disingenuous denials.

Would everyone agree the mods should police accordingly?

It's up to everyone.

BB, yes, JHM and I can do that.

LF - to answer your earlier post before I engage on matters of youth and all that... I never criticized Federer for losing to Canas, but I asked - and its a question with merit, imo - why is it that Federer lost over half his matches over a four year period to kids, while his big rivals seemed incapable of doing anything other than arriving to get slaughtered? Also - I think Federer losing twice in successive weeks to Canas on hard court is a little different to any of your other comparisons... It's like Djokovic losing to Montanaes indoors successively, or Nadal backing up his Soderling defeat in 2009 with another one...

Djokovic has stated that his focus is now on slams. Murray said something very similar not that long ago. A very sensible approach - not that they won't try for Masters and other events, but it's not where they prepare to peak. As such, they are now and will be in future more prone to losing to lesser players during those events.

Federer was in a similar position back in 2007, 2008. He had already established his hold over his contemporaries with multiple defeats and by that point they were often beaten before they walked on court. The younger generation were out to prove a point, and desperately wanted to not only take on the No 1, but also to win the Masters and 500s - because to them they were still event of great importance. They were hungrier than Fed at those tournies and not as battle-weary when playing him as Fed's contemporaries. Those factors combined to give them an edge when playing Fed that his contemporaries didn't have.
How long did it take Murray and Djoko to establish any sort of hold over Fed in the tournaments that really mattered to him - the slams?

I exclude Rafa, of course, because he is a level above Djoko and Murray and is the exception, rather than the rule.

Now as for where all the kids have gone... Well, that's a good question.

1) I suspect the changing sporting world plays a role. Twenty years ago, mixed martial arts was a niche field, mostly used as a step up to becoming an action hero. Now it's a fully fledged sport, with a global footprint. I don't imagine MMA take away too many kids from tennis, but it's a good example of how the sports world has changed, especially with regards to extreme sports - which have become so niche that they are now so expensive that they could probably be taking kids with the financial help away. I don't imagine Ryan Sheckler is seen as the face of a sport too many parents want their kids doing, but Im pretty sure he is the face of a sport quite a few kids want to be doing

2) The continuous expansion of established sports - According to some tweet re-tweeted by Andy Roddick, the world #800 golfer earned $100k in 2013, the world #800 tennis player earned $5k... The moneylist, and more importantly, how far it down it goes, is a reliable indicator of how popular a sport is, I think (based on the theory that the more players there are doing well financially, the more sponsors there must be, which means there should be a lot of fans). Is the promise of doing better financially while being less proficient at a sport something momagers and daddy-mannys (managers), who may sacrifice their child's education to help them attain sporting greatness - can afford to leave alone? I know there are a few parents on here: would you rather your child was tennis' #80 in the world, or a career starter in the championship (i.e. probably the top 400-ish footballers)

3) The world is getting richer - I read an article years back theorizing that Australia's regression from a former global super power was possibly a result of a more financially comfortable nation. Sport was traditionally seen as a way out - is it worth putting a small fortune in a prospective - and risky - sports career when one can become a middle income earner, due to your parents being able to afford you to an alright school.

4) Tennis is getting too expensive for juniors: On the flipside, while the world may be getting financially better off, it could be said that the cost of producing a tennis virtuoso is growing at a compounded rate, while the worldly wealth is growing at linear rate.

It can't be the talent, as we are living in times when Brittney Griner is being discussed in serious tones as a potential NBA player, and Michael Carter Williams is having the most impressive rookie season since last year, which was the most impressive rookie season since Two years earlier... So the world's athletic talent hasn't diminished - there is just quite obviously something blocking its path to tennis. I know that there's a theory that in modern tennis, you need to be a grown man to hold your own, due to the power and stamina of the game... and It's one I subscribe to, but when there are only 2 players under 21 in the top 200, my instinct tells me it goes a little deeper than that.

Kr - good post - could you move it to Lydian's new thread?

Julius - he lost to Berdych in 2004, Nadal in 2004, Gasquet in 2005, Murray in 2006, Djokovic in 2007... So he was losing to kids his entire reign, is this to say his entire reign he only thought single mindedly about Grand Slams?

The length it took Djokovic and Murray to start beating Federer is irrelevant because - a) you'll note it took Federer a similar age before he beat Agassi in a slam, and more importantly b) I'm not arguing that Djokovic or Murray are better than Federer, so I would expect them to have an inferior record vs him...

I'm just saying it's odd that by 2006, a nineteen year-old Murray, he of the late bloominess had victories over Roddick, Hewitt and Federer, while having been two sets to love up at Wimbledon vs Nalby at eighteen.

He lost to Henman and Hrbaty in 2004 as well - he's not going to win every match.
 
You asked "why is it that Federer lost over half his matches over a four year period to kids, while his big rivals seemed incapable of doing anything other than arriving to get slaughtered?"
 
I answered, you said my answer was irrelevant. Fair enough, I'll call it a day on this one.

Sorry if you took offense to that - But like I said, Federer is a superior player to Nole and Andy, I would expect it to take some time for them to beat him in Slams. Secondly, and to me this is most important - Novak beat Federer in a slam at 23, if you ignore 2008 (I'm still not sure about exactly why we work using this reality, but anyhow)... Federer beat Hewitt in a slam for the first at 23... not far off from Federer's age when he first beat Agassi in a slam is it? So if this is a stick to beat Nole with - surely Federer deserves the same?

Secondly I don't expect Federer to win every match, and I already said his four-year run was remarkable, but I cant for the life of me see how Roddick and co couldn't beat Federer, even in the small events, and yet are somehow more or less equal to Nadal's chasing pack... They were already losing to Nadal and co in 2004-07?

Isn't this proof of the aspect I referred to, when a young player can beat an established one as the conditions of the game change? As the conditions are now static at side to the game has gone.

Let's imagine they change the rules and suddenly it's all fast low bouncing courts. Then we're all talking about how Raonic is the new boy showing Rafas rivals up for the phonies we always knew they were. See what I mean?

No offense taken kr  
 
But any further argument I make will probably be based around the same point. Although it's possible I've lost track of the debate. Are you countering Murdoch's post?

No matter what kind of shots you take at Federer, weak era, the domination of Nadal over him, whatever- he still has an amazing resume that puts him squarely in the Goat category. No one has a perfect resume- certainly not Nadal either. The best of the best, Federer,Laver,Sampras, Nadal, etc have pro's and cons regarding their careers. Other Goats like Laver,Sampras still even after knowing what we know about Nadals domination call Federer the greatest player ever. Federer has proven himself no matter what anyone says- in any era.

I agree the Nadal domination certainly makes it hard for me or anyone to still proclaim Federer as the defnititive Goat- I still think he's the best tennis player ever and plenty of very knowlegable people agree, but there is clearly another guy who have a more effective game than his when they play. Anyone who has been around great athletes or understands sports knows that this type of anomaly can happen. Federer is owned head to head by a guy who also is clearly in the Goat mix and heading in that direction each passing year.

Just the fact that even with the holes in Nadals resume, his domination over Federer is what really puts him over the top in the Goat lists tells us that Federer must be a really really good player. If beating him makes you the best- Fed must be one of the best also

In the end- anyone with a shred of credibility has to acknowledge that Federer is one of the very very top few players of all time.. There is just no reasonable argument that he isn't. Anyone that says he isn't really is just a hater and quite frankly delusional. Is he #1,#2 #3 at worst #5? No one can definitively say- but who gives a flying flip if he is 1 or 5? That's pretty damn amazing to say or be one of the top 5 ever at anything. I seriously doubt any of us including those taking shots at him can say that about ourselves.

So the mocking, the hating on Federer because now some people don't think he's Goat is ridiculous. Anyone who calls themselves a fan of a player but can't handle it if he's not the best ever really isn't a fan. I see that so much with Nadal and Federer fans. They can't just appreciate the amazing tennis, they have to have their guy be the absolute #1. If that was really true to be a fan, no one would have fans except Federer and Nadal.. just dumb. Federer may or may not be the definitive best ever, but he sure is close- and I can say that definitively.

Julius - yeah I was replying to Murdoch's post.

BB - If Raonic went through the big four in one year as a nineteen year old, I think questions about the quality of the big four would have merit...

I don't consider the gap between Fed and the rest (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc ) to be significantly bigger than the current gap between Rafa and the rest (Djoko, Fed, Ferrer, JMDP - hard to say with Murray, they never play each other).
Nor do I consider the current level of 'the rest' to be significantly different than the previous 'the rest'.
And I don't think the previous gap was because 'the rest' were poor, whereas now 'the rest' are great, but Rafa is still way ahead, therefore elevating Rafa above Fed in that respect. 
If the argument is that Fed won in a 'weak era' (not my argument), then I believe the same argument would have to the current 'era'.

All I'm saying is between them, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray managed more slams and masters between them from 2004-2007, than Messrs Roddick, Nalby, Safin and Hewitt, which is saying something..
They also managed more wins over Federer...

Federer's cabinet of Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Roddick managed one slam between them in four years. they ganged up and rounded up all of six Masters titles in four years... and somehow
Djokovic vs the "other four" 2004-2007 = 3-3
Murray = 5-4
Nadal = 7-6
Berdych - 2-3

aggregate = 17-16... Incredibly close, given the fact that one group was just starting out their careers, and the other should have been at their peak... Even results-wise, it isn't close... One slam in four years? Murray and Djokovic have eclipsed that in the last two six slams... Everybody is criticizing a guy like Ferrer for being #3 right now, but guess who he was behind in 2007? Davydenko, Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer... Not Gonzales, or Hewitt, or Roddick... I can't see how that competition was stronger, when the competition was really the youngsters who matured.

In the end, it's all speculation and conjecture. They only won one slam because Fed in that period was too good for them. If it had been Djoko and Murray, he probably would have been too good for them as well, and they'd have ended up like the rest.
I think it possibly means more to you to 'prove' that Rafa is greater than Fed, than it means to me to debate the thing at all. I've no desire to try and change anyone's opinion or to spend too much time on it. I accept that Rafa fans believe Rafa is greater than Fed and am happy to leave it at that.

kingraf wrote:Looking at Federer's 2004-2007 seasons, it's quite noteworthy that He went an incredible (and it was incredible)... 345-24. Unheard of consistency, and there is a real possibility that you could have put peak Sampras, Borg and Laver in front of him, and he would have simply cut through them, that's how hot he was. But... Of those 24 losses, 8 were by way of Nadal. One Djokovic, one Murray, One Gasquet, one Murray, one Berdych. So over half his defeats in his most dominant period came at the hands of players under the age of 21. Quite a remarkable stat, that.

Ding, Ding, Ding absolutely spot on the fact remains when you look at people who could play with Federer even at his peak then you look at the young stars. At the end 0f 07 20 and 21 year old were his nearest competitors were two young stars far from their prime. That tells you all you need to know about how much of a total fail his contemporaries were. Now do people think that all fed's contemporaries succumbing to injuries or not being good enough wouldn't impact fed's level of dominance?

It is all speculation... Like I told Murdoch - I'm not doing any crystal ball gazing, and I'm certainly not trying to build an alternative reality where Nole and Murray were born in 1980, but it's not speculative to factually state that from 2004-2007 Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and friends provided greater opposition than Hewitt and co... it's a statistical fact.

I've never said Roger was/is inferior to Nadal - in fact I'm sure a look at my posting history will suggest the opposite. I've shown no aversion to calling him the better player, not sure I've ever used GOAT, though - not really a term I subscribe much to.

TRuffin wrote:No matter what kind of shots you take at Federer, weak era, the domination of Nadal over him, whatever-  he still has an amazing resume that puts him squarely in the Goat category.  No one has a perfect resume- certainly not Nadal either.  The best of the best, Federer,Laver,Sampras, Nadal, etc have pro's and cons regarding their careers.   Other Goats like Laver,Sampras still even after knowing what we know about Nadals domination call Federer the greatest player ever.  Federer has proven himself no matter what anyone says- in any era.    

I agree the Nadal domination certainly makes it hard for me or anyone to still proclaim Federer as the defnititive Goat-  I still think he's the best tennis player ever and plenty of very knowlegable people agree, but there is clearly another guy who have a more effective game than his when they play.  Anyone who has been around great athletes or understands sports knows that this type of anomaly can happen. Federer is owned head to head by a guy who also is clearly in the Goat mix and heading in that direction each passing year.  

Just the fact that even with the holes in Nadals resume, his domination over Federer is what really puts him over the top in the Goat lists tells us that Federer must be a really really good player. If beating him makes you the best- Fed must be one of the best also

In the end- anyone with a shred of credibility has to acknowledge that Federer is one of the very very top few players of all time.. There is just no reasonable argument that he isn't. Anyone that says he isn't really is just a hater and quite frankly delusional.  Is he #1,#2 #3 at worst #5? No one can definitively say- but who gives a flying flip if he is 1 or 5? That's pretty damn amazing to say or be one of the top 5 ever at anything.  I seriously doubt any of us including those taking shots at him can say that about ourselves.

So the mocking, the hating on Federer because now some people don't think he's Goat is ridiculous. Anyone who calls themselves a fan of a player but can't handle it if he's not the best ever really isn't a fan. I see that so much with Nadal and Federer fans. They can't just appreciate the amazing tennis, they have to have their guy be the absolute #1.  If that was really true to be a fan, no one would have fans except Federer and Nadal.. just dumb.   Federer may or may not be the definitive best ever, but he sure is close- and I can say that definitively.    

I can agree that Federer is in the first tier of GOAT candidates but what I disagree with your post is that Nadal's big claim to world 1 is his head to head against Fed. No it is his soon to be 14 slams in the face of massive injury issues. Or it is his head to head against everyone. Not a single member of the top 30 has a winning record against Nadal. He has won the H2H against every player he has had more than 3 matches with except Davydenko. And even the Davy H2h is not overwhelming and all Davy's wins pretty much come years ago on hardcourt. His resume is nowhere principally contingent on his h2h with fed. More like his h2h with the entire known universe of tennis players and the soon to be 14 slams shinning in his trophy room.

I think fed is the second greatest player of this era and probably second best of all time. I am not a fan of either player and up till Nadal's win last year in the USO I rated fed as the goat. But seeing Nadal win 2 slams at the slam he has struggled the most at in his youth and beating a great player in the final showed me that Nadal had attained another level a notch above Federer.

All I think is that if it had been Murray and Djoko in 2004 -2007 instead of Hewitt and Roddick, the end result would have been the same, because that's how good Fed was in that period. I can't prove, you can't disprove it. At some point the endless debate loses it's interest for me - maybe I just don't feel strongly enough about trying to prove anything.

kingraf wrote:LF - to answer your earlier post before I engage on matters of youth and all that... I never criticized Federer for losing to Canas, but I asked - and its a question with merit, imo - why is it that Federer lost over half his matches over a four year period to kids, while his big rivals seemed incapable of doing anything other than arriving to get slaughtered? Also - I think Federer losing twice in successive weeks to Canas on hard court is a little different to any of your other comparisons... It's like Djokovic losing to Montanaes indoors successively, or Nadal backing up his Soderling defeat in 2009 with another one...

Thanks, KR. I should pick better examples. Perhaps Canada and Cincinnati 2011 are better examples, not sure. We can discuss this aspect some other day, if you like.

socal1976 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Looking at Federer's 2004-2007 seasons, it's quite noteworthy that He went an incredible (and it was incredible)... 345-24. Unheard of consistency, and there is a real possibility that you could have put peak Sampras, Borg and Laver in front of him, and he would have simply cut through them, that's how hot he was. But... Of those 24 losses, 8 were by way of Nadal. One Djokovic, one Murray, One Gasquet, one Murray, one Berdych. So over half his defeats in his most dominant period came at the hands of players under the age of 21. Quite a remarkable stat, that.

Ding, Ding, Ding absolutely spot on the fact remains when you look at people who could play with Federer even at his peak then you look at the young stars. At the end 0f 07 20 and 21 year old were his nearest competitors were two young stars far from their prime. That tells you all you need to know about how much of a total fail his contemporaries were. Now do people think that all fed's contemporaries succumbing to injuries or not being good enough wouldn't impact fed's level of dominance?

I think it's a bad argument what you guys are using against Federer and is a bad argument against Nadal, but just t show how it works against both or any player.

In 2o11, Nadal in an absolute peak year- he lost 15 matches total-   6 of them to Davydenko, Ferrer, Federer, Fish, Dodig, and Mayer-- all Federer era or a couple years behind in Dodig,Mayer....   most of them far from their prime both in rank and ability.  He also lost 6 times to Djokovic...   So only 3 losses to his other contemporaries other than Djokovic-- yet 6 times to Fed era guys...     It's as meaningless as what you guys are trying to prove- but it just shows you- we can pick apart any great record..  I could look at Sampras results, Lavers results and find all the same weaknesses you can find with Federer.     Nadals last major was against a guy Federer is 14-0 against...  should we take that major away from Nadal or discount it? No..  Tomorrow will be against a guy Fed is 13-1 against....  so what.  

We can pick at Nadals clay domination era competition.. Not one single great clay courter except for Federer who, while an all time great on clay, its still his worst surface and  matchup issues were magnified 10 times on clay against Nadal.  Nadals other main rivals of his era- for years- clay was their worst surfac, and Murray is at best avg on clay even today.  We can see from the eye test that Nadal is the best ever on clay or right there just as people could see that with Federer as a Goat as he was rolling through his competition, but just as people pick at the Federer competition for a few years- we can do that to Nadal on clay..   Take Nadal off of clay-   on grass- I now see Nadal fans criticizing Federers grass competiton!!  My god-  Nadal facing the same competition has won only 2 time and lost in the 1st and 2nd rounds!   On hard-  where the competition is more varied-  as of today- Nadal has won 1 AO and 2 US Opens...   Lets not even talk about the WTF.    Fantastic hall of fame numbers by Nadal on all surfaces, but if you pick on Fed you have to pick on them.

As of today- Federer has won 13 Majors against the very same competition Nadal faced in winning his 13.   Do you really think Federer in his young prime couldn't have won those other 4 Majors against any era?

I saw this stat at the WTF so assuming it hasn't changed after another couple of tourmaments.

Of the tournaments where both Federer and Nadal played together during their carreer

On outdorr hard courts- Federer has won more titles.  In tournies where neither won the title, Federer made it to a further round more than Nadal
On Grass- Federer won more titles. In tournies where neither won the title, Federer made it to a further round more than Nadal
On clay- Nadal won more titles- In tounies where neither won- Nadal make it to a further round more than Federer
In indoor hard- Fedeer won more titles- In tournies where neither won- Federer made it to a further round more than Nadal.

That takes into account all the times Nadal whipped Federer...  

I'll say it again- both Nadal and Federer are guaranteed all time GOATS. there are still arguments for both to be better than the other- no matter what the H2h says-- but to knock Fed's competition or how he accumulated his success is at best a slippery slope that opens up the same knocks on every other all time great.

socal1976 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:No matter what kind of shots you take at Federer, weak era, the domination of Nadal over him, whatever-  he still has an amazing resume that puts him squarely in the Goat category.  No one has a perfect resume- certainly not Nadal either.  The best of the best, Federer,Laver,Sampras, Nadal, etc have pro's and cons regarding their careers.   Other Goats like Laver,Sampras still even after knowing what we know about Nadals domination call Federer the greatest player ever.  Federer has proven himself no matter what anyone says- in any era.    

I agree the Nadal domination certainly makes it hard for me or anyone to still proclaim Federer as the defnititive Goat-  I still think he's the best tennis player ever and plenty of very knowlegable people agree, but there is clearly another guy who have a more effective game than his when they play.  Anyone who has been around great athletes or understands sports knows that this type of anomaly can happen. Federer is owned head to head by a guy who also is clearly in the Goat mix and heading in that direction each passing year.  

Just the fact that even with the holes in Nadals resume, his domination over Federer is what really puts him over the top in the Goat lists tells us that Federer must be a really really good player. If beating him makes you the best- Fed must be one of the best also

In the end- anyone with a shred of credibility has to acknowledge that Federer is one of the very very top few players of all time.. There is just no reasonable argument that he isn't. Anyone that says he isn't really is just a hater and quite frankly delusional.  Is he #1,#2 #3 at worst #5? No one can definitively say- but who gives a flying flip if he is 1 or 5? That's pretty damn amazing to say or be one of the top 5 ever at anything.  I seriously doubt any of us including those taking shots at him can say that about ourselves.

So the mocking, the hating on Federer because now some people don't think he's Goat is ridiculous. Anyone who calls themselves a fan of a player but can't handle it if he's not the best ever really isn't a fan. I see that so much with Nadal and Federer fans. They can't just appreciate the amazing tennis, they have to have their guy be the absolute #1.  If that was really true to be a fan, no one would have fans except Federer and Nadal.. just dumb.   Federer may or may not be the definitive best ever, but he sure is close- and I can say that definitively.    

I can agree that Federer is in the first tier of GOAT candidates but what I disagree with your post is that Nadal's big claim to world 1 is his head to head against Fed. No it is his soon to be 14 slams in the face of massive injury issues. Or it is his head to head against everyone. Not a single member of the top 30 has a winning record against Nadal. He has won the H2H against every player he has had more than 3 matches with except Davydenko. And even the Davy H2h is not overwhelming and all Davy's wins pretty much come years ago on hardcourt. His resume is nowhere principally contingent on his h2h with fed. More like his h2h with the entire known universe of tennis players and the soon to be 14 slams shinning in his trophy room.

I think fed is the second greatest player of this era and probably second best of all time. I am not a fan of either player and up till Nadal's win last year in the USO I rated fed as the goat. But seeing Nadal win 2 slams at the slam he has struggled the most at in his youth and beating a great player in the final showed me that Nadal had attained another level a notch above Federer.

Very fair-- there are arguments that can be made either way-- My main point is whether Federer is 1 or 2, or Nadal is 1 or 2..... damn, who cares.. certainly neither can be criticized for that!

TRuffin - Interesting take on the Dodig defeat, and Nadal's 2011 season in general. As you know, Federer has his fair share of odd defeats, but the Canas ones really jumped at me, as they were quite clean, with minimal fuss.

Suppose there are three tiers of conversation here .
- Is Nadal better than Federer
- does Nadal have a better chasing pack than Federer
- How on earth Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick win less matches against Federer in four years than Canas did in two weeks? <- is my question. The other two are oft. covered infertile ground.

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Looking at Federer's 2004-2007 seasons, it's quite noteworthy that He went an incredible (and it was incredible)... 345-24. Unheard of consistency, and there is a real possibility that you could have put peak Sampras, Borg and Laver in front of him, and he would have simply cut through them, that's how hot he was. But... Of those 24 losses, 8 were by way of Nadal. One Djokovic, one Murray, One Gasquet, one Murray, one Berdych. So over half his defeats in his most dominant period came at the hands of players under the age of 21. Quite a remarkable stat, that.

Ding, Ding, Ding absolutely spot on the fact remains when you look at people who could play with Federer even at his peak then you look at the young stars. At the end 0f 07 20 and 21 year old were his nearest competitors were two young stars far from their prime. That tells you all you need to know about how much of a total fail his contemporaries were. Now do people think that all fed's contemporaries succumbing to injuries or not being good enough wouldn't impact fed's level of dominance?

I think it's a bad argument what you guys are using against Federer and is a bad argument against Nadal, but just t show how it works against both or any player.

In 2o11, Nadal in an absolute peak year- he lost 15 matches total-   6 of them to Davydenko, Ferrer, Federer, Fish, Dodig, and Mayer-- all Federer era or a couple years behind in Dodig,Mayer....   most of them far from their prime both in rank and ability.  He also lost 6 times to Djokovic...   So only 3 losses to his other contemporaries other than Djokovic-- yet 6 times to Fed era guys...     It's as meaningless as what you guys are trying to prove- but it just shows you- we can pick apart any great record..  I could look at Sampras results, Lavers results and find all the same weaknesses you can find with Federer.     Nadals last major was against a guy Federer is 14-0 against...  should we take that major away from Nadal or discount it? No..  Tomorrow will be against a guy Fed is 13-1 against....  so what.  

We can pick at Nadals clay domination era competition.. Not one single great clay courter except for Federer who, while an all time great on clay, its still his worst surface and  matchup issues were magnified 10 times on clay against Nadal.  Nadals other main rivals of his era- for years- clay was their worst surfac, and Murray is at best avg on clay even today.  We can see from the eye test that Nadal is the best ever on clay or right there just as people could see that with Federer as a Goat as he was rolling through his competition, but just as people pick at the Federer competition for a few years- we can do that to Nadal on clay..   Take Nadal off of clay-   on grass- I now see Nadal fans criticizing Federers grass competiton!!  My god-  Nadal facing the same competition has won only 2 time and lost in the 1st and 2nd rounds!   On hard-  where the competition is more varied-  as of today- Nadal has won 1 AO and 2 US Opens...   Lets not even talk about the WTF.    Fantastic hall of fame numbers by Nadal on all surfaces, but if you pick on Fed you have to pick on them.

As of today- Federer has won 13 Majors against the very same competition Nadal faced in winning his 13.   Do you really think Federer in his young prime couldn't have won those other 4 Majors against any era?

I saw this stat at the WTF so assuming it hasn't changed after another couple of tourmaments.

Of the tournaments where both Federer and Nadal played together during their carreer

On outdorr hard courts- Federer has won more titles.  In tournies where neither won the title, Federer made it to a further round more than Nadal
On Grass- Federer won more titles. In tournies where neither won the title, Federer made it to a further round more than Nadal
On clay- Nadal won more titles- In tounies where neither won- Nadal make it to a further round more than Federer
In indoor hard- Fedeer won more titles- In tournies where neither won- Federer made it to a further round more than Nadal.

That takes into account all the times Nadal whipped Federer...  

I'll say it again- both Nadal and Federer are guaranteed all time GOATS. there are still arguments for both to be better than the other- no matter what the H2h says-- but to knock Fed's competition or how he accumulated his success is at best a slippery slope that opens up the same knocks on every other all time great.

1. No other great clay courters? Maybe although frankly if not for Nadal Novak Djokovic would probably be considered a great clay courter as he has beaten Nadal in every major clay court final other than RG and has come very close on two separate occassions. Did you watch last years RG match between Nadal and Djoko and feel that Nadal was untested in that final.

2.Fed's major advantage in statistics like weeks at #1 and YE #1s is mainly due to his superior durability and luck with injuries. Now injuries and dealing with them is a big part of sports and Nadal has done incredibly well.  You do not acknowledge that Nadal has missed about 2 years or more of his peak to injuries while fed has been probably the most injury free top level pro I can think of. Yes he has his back and his mono but these are things that are relatively minor compared to what Nadal has suffered. A healthy Nadal would have prevented fed from achieving some of his later successes and would have resulted in more slams and weeks at #1 for himself. 14 slams with chronic leg problems is amazing and more injury issues than any other of the top 4. And it is not his style of play as many players play an even more grinding style than nadal and don't take that many injuries. To me being the less injured player is not in itself a sign of who is the better player, and most of fed's advantages statistically come down to this huge difference between the two. Fed has played basically full seasons his whole career while Nadal has rarely had a full 12 months without missing slams and major tournaments to injury.

3. Fed's greatest rivals (murray, djoko, and Nadal) are all 5 years younger and before these players developed he ran the rest of the tour ragged and even at his peak these guys (before their peak) were tougher matches than his contemporaries. Some would say that fed had 4 years or so of relatively sparse competition that Djokovic and Nadal did not. The infamous weak era theory that I don't want to rehash constantly.

In conclusion Fed's superior stats in my mind vis a vis Nadal are result of Nadal's injuries and weaker competition to a certain extent. But no question Fed is still on the short list of any GOAT debate but he is pretty clearly in my mind #2.

TRuffin wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

TRuffin wrote:No matter what kind of shots you take at Federer, weak era, the domination of Nadal over him, whatever-  he still has an amazing resume that puts him squarely in the Goat category.  No one has a perfect resume- certainly not Nadal either.  The best of the best, Federer,Laver,Sampras, Nadal, etc have pro's and cons regarding their careers.   Other Goats like Laver,Sampras still even after knowing what we know about Nadals domination call Federer the greatest player ever.  Federer has proven himself no matter what anyone says- in any era.    

I agree the Nadal domination certainly makes it hard for me or anyone to still proclaim Federer as the defnititive Goat-  I still think he's the best tennis player ever and plenty of very knowlegable people agree, but there is clearly another guy who have a more effective game than his when they play.  Anyone who has been around great athletes or understands sports knows that this type of anomaly can happen. Federer is owned head to head by a guy who also is clearly in the Goat mix and heading in that direction each passing year.  

Just the fact that even with the holes in Nadals resume, his domination over Federer is what really puts him over the top in the Goat lists tells us that Federer must be a really really good player. If beating him makes you the best- Fed must be one of the best also

In the end- anyone with a shred of credibility has to acknowledge that Federer is one of the very very top few players of all time.. There is just no reasonable argument that he isn't. Anyone that says he isn't really is just a hater and quite frankly delusional.  Is he #1,#2 #3 at worst #5? No one can definitively say- but who gives a flying flip if he is 1 or 5? That's pretty damn amazing to say or be one of the top 5 ever at anything.  I seriously doubt any of us including those taking shots at him can say that about ourselves.

So the mocking, the hating on Federer because now some people don't think he's Goat is ridiculous. Anyone who calls themselves a fan of a player but can't handle it if he's not the best ever really isn't a fan. I see that so much with Nadal and Federer fans. They can't just appreciate the amazing tennis, they have to have their guy be the absolute #1.  If that was really true to be a fan, no one would have fans except Federer and Nadal.. just dumb.   Federer may or may not be the definitive best ever, but he sure is close- and I can say that definitively.    

I can agree that Federer is in the first tier of GOAT candidates but what I disagree with your post is that Nadal's big claim to world 1 is his head to head against Fed. No it is his soon to be 14 slams in the face of massive injury issues. Or it is his head to head against everyone. Not a single member of the top 30 has a winning record against Nadal. He has won the H2H against every player he has had more than 3 matches with except Davydenko. And even the Davy H2h is not overwhelming and all Davy's wins pretty much come years ago on hardcourt. His resume is nowhere principally contingent on his h2h with fed. More like his h2h with the entire known universe of tennis players and the soon to be 14 slams shinning in his trophy room.

I think fed is the second greatest player of this era and probably second best of all time. I am not a fan of either player and up till Nadal's win last year in the USO I rated fed as the goat. But seeing Nadal win 2 slams at the slam he has struggled the most at in his youth and beating a great player in the final showed me that Nadal had attained another level a notch above Federer.

Very fair-- there are arguments that can be made either way--    My main point is whether Federer is 1 or 2,   or Nadal is 1 or 2.....  damn, who cares.. certainly neither can be criticized for that!

It is all about debating and arguing, you can call it criticizing Roger and I am critical of him but I give him what I believe is his rightful due as the #2 GOTE and/or GOAT. I don't criticize Fed because he is #2 GOAT, I criticize him because I am Djokovic fan and he has been a giant huge priick to Djokovic for most of Novak's career. When Fed was #1 Goat I still criticized him and didn't like him. He could have 40 slams and 4 CYGS and I would still not like him and be critical.

socal1976 wrote:
2.Fed's major advantage in statistics like weeks at #1 and YE #1s is mainly due to his superior durability and luck with injuries. Now injuries and dealing with them is a big part of sports and Nadal has done incredibly well.  You do not acknowledge that Nadal has missed about 2 years or more of his peak to injuries while fed has been probably the most injury free top level pro I can think of. Yes he has his back and his mono but these are things that are relatively minor compared to what Nadal has suffered. A healthy Nadal would have prevented fed from achieving some of his later successes and would have resulted in more slams and weeks at #1 for himself. 14 slams with chronic leg problems is amazing and more injury issues than any other of the top 4. And it is not his style of play as many players play an even more grinding style than nadal and don't take that many injuries. To me being the less injured player is not in itself a sign of who is the better player, and most of fed's advantages statistically come down to this huge difference between the two. Fed has played basically full seasons his whole career while Nadal has rarely had a full 12 months without missing slams and major tournaments to injury.

This argument is circular. Nadal's playing style is responsible for his injuries (Talk to Agassi about it). Federer's playing is responsible for his durability. You have a subjective ax to grind. Come up with something new and logical.

No What-if scenarios (Healthy Nadal v Injured Nadal). A 2011 Djokovic would have prevented Nadal from 8 RGs, now what?

So what was Nadal doing during his injury layoffs?

Here is another what-if scenario. What if Nadal did not have his current playing style and lost to Federer every time at RG?

How many more times....Nadal's injuries have nothing to do with his playing style! His congenital foot bone deformity means he's had to wear orthotics since 2005 to take strain off that part of his foot. That results in his leg misaligning due to the creation of artificial supernation which puts strain on his knees. As does playing sport for anyone with super- or pro-nation. But for that bone deformity he'd likely have had a remarkably injury free career with a probable uplift in his achievements to date, partic. Slam wins and time at the top. But that's life, he's not done too shabbily though.