The Greatest Ever Or Second Best?

This article in today's Guardian was an interesting read. The title is "Is Roger Federer the greatest ever or the second best in his generation?" and it's written by Paul Gibson.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/the-balls-of-wrath/2014/sep/11/roger-federer-greatest-tennis-player-rafael-nadal?commentpage=1

Warning don't click the link if you don't like GOAT talk. That means you laverfan

Federer is the 20th best of this era, to what i have seen he has negative h2h against 20 other players as well.

Did the writer think about Rafa's head to head with davydenko and Nick Kyrigous ? does he understand there is a difference between perfect record and the greatest record?

No player in any sport has a perfect record, the closest  I would see is lennox Lewis of boxing [no negative h2h against any player] or the Boner who holds perfect record without a loss [but ofcourse his opponents are debatable].

Greatest record means the one who possess the best stats and not flawless stats, if Rafa possess the best stats of all then he is the GOAT, but even you cannot assure or for that sake would not argue that he posses the best record.

Oh last but not least Murray in Cincinnati lost the title of the best player of the generation when he lost to RF as the stats got tied at 11-11 , if not for that one loss given he too had a positive h2h vs Fed I guess he should have been discussed as well, oh well I forgot his second name is not Nadal, sorry my mistake.

Do not care about Paul Gibson.

Do not care about "greatest ever"

Nor do I care for glory hunters, which is 95% of the people.

Don't care, been done to death. Pointless thread, we should evaluate this when both retire.

DirectView2 wrote:Federer is the 20th best of this era, to what i have seen he has negative h2h against 20 other players as well.

Did the writer think about Rafa's head to head with davydenko and Nick Kyrigous ? does he understand there is a difference between perfect record and the greatest record?

No player in any sport has a perfect record, the closest  I would see is lennox Lewis of boxing [no negative h2h against any player] or the Boner who holds perfect record without a loss [but ofcourse his opponents are debatable].

Greatest record means the one who possess the best stats and not flawless stats, if Rafa possess the best stats of all then he is the GOAT, but even you cannot assure or for that sake would not argue that he posses the best record.

Oh last but not least Murray in Cincinnati lost the title of the best player of the generation when he lost to RF as the stats got tied at 11-11 , if not for that one loss given he too had a positive h2h vs Fed I guess he should have been discussed as well, oh well I forgot his second name is not Nadal, sorry my mistake.

DirectView2. I believe Paul Gibson addressed the issues you've mentioned with this part of his article (quoted from my link)

Federer’s position at the head of the pantheon of greats appeared cemented in place when he became the most prolific winner of tennis grand slams in the history of the sport. To the majority of observers, this is the most significant statistic in tennis and the record book reads that Federer currently has 17 to his name, three more than his nearest challengers, Pete Sampras and Nadal. But as the great 19th century American statesman Henry Clay once said: “Statistics are no substitute for judgement.”

The same record book also reads that as well as being 23–10 down to Nadal in head-to-heads, Federer does not have a winning record against Andy Murray after 22 matches between them. Even so, I doubt even the most patriotic Scotsman would argue that Murray is the greater player. It is therefore necessary to look beyond the magic number 17.


Silver & Josiah Maiestas I did warn you. Why don't you go off and do something you find interesting instead of reading something you have no interest in?

Silver wrote:Don't care, been done to death. Pointless thread, we should evaluate this when both retire.

Game,set,match

hawkeye wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:Federer is the 20th best of this era, to what i have seen he has negative h2h against 20 other players as well.

Did the writer think about Rafa's head to head with davydenko and Nick Kyrigous ? does he understand there is a difference between perfect record and the greatest record?

No player in any sport has a perfect record, the closest  I would see is lennox Lewis of boxing [no negative h2h against any player] or the Boner who holds perfect record without a loss [but ofcourse his opponents are debatable].

Greatest record means the one who possess the best stats and not flawless stats, if Rafa possess the best stats of all then he is the GOAT, but even you cannot assure or for that sake would not argue that he posses the best record.

Oh last but not least Murray in Cincinnati lost the title of the best player of the generation when he lost to RF as the stats got tied at 11-11 , if not for that one loss given he too had a positive h2h vs Fed I guess he should have been discussed as well, oh well I forgot his second name is not Nadal, sorry my mistake.

DirectView2. I believe Paul Gibson addressed the issues you've mentioned with this part of his article (quoted from my link)

Federer’s position at the head of the pantheon of greats appeared cemented in place when he became the most prolific winner of tennis grand slams in the history of the sport. To the majority of observers, this is the most significant statistic in tennis and the record book reads that Federer currently has 17 to his name, three more than his nearest challengers, Pete Sampras and Nadal. But as the great 19th century American statesman Henry Clay once said: “Statistics are no substitute for judgement.”

The same record book also reads that as well as being 23–10 down to Nadal in head-to-heads, Federer does not have a winning record against Andy Murray after 22 matches between them. Even so, I doubt even the most patriotic Scotsman would argue that Murray is the greater player. It is therefore necessary to look beyond the magic number 17.


Silver & Josiah Maiestas I did warn you. Why don't you go off and do something you find interesting instead of reading something you have no interest in?

Because you need to hear the truth, no one knows who the "greatest" is. Sounding more and more like a glory hunter.

hawkeye wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:Federer is the 20th best of this era, to what i have seen he has negative h2h against 20 other players as well.

Did the writer think about Rafa's head to head with davydenko and Nick Kyrigous ? does he understand there is a difference between perfect record and the greatest record?

No player in any sport has a perfect record, the closest  I would see is lennox Lewis of boxing [no negative h2h against any player] or the Boner who holds perfect record without a loss [but ofcourse his opponents are debatable].

Greatest record means the one who possess the best stats and not flawless stats, if Rafa possess the best stats of all then he is the GOAT, but even you cannot assure or for that sake would not argue that he posses the best record.

Oh last but not least Murray in Cincinnati lost the title of the best player of the generation when he lost to RF as the stats got tied at 11-11 , if not for that one loss given he too had a positive h2h vs Fed I guess he should have been discussed as well, oh well I forgot his second name is not Nadal, sorry my mistake.

DirectView2. I believe Paul Gibson addressed the issues you've mentioned with this part of his article (quoted from my link)

Federer’s position at the head of the pantheon of greats appeared cemented in place when he became the most prolific winner of tennis grand slams in the history of the sport. To the majority of observers, this is the most significant statistic in tennis and the record book reads that Federer currently has 17 to his name, three more than his nearest challengers, Pete Sampras and Nadal. But as the great 19th century American statesman Henry Clay once said: “Statistics are no substitute for judgement.”

The same record book also reads that as well as being 23–10 down to Nadal in head-to-heads, Federer does not have a winning record against Andy Murray after 22 matches between them. Even so, I doubt even the most patriotic Scotsman would argue that Murray is the greater player. It is therefore necessary to look beyond the magic number 17.


Silver & Josiah Maiestas I did warn you. Why don't you go off and do something you find interesting instead of reading something you have no interest in?

Paul Gibson addressed nothing, he wrote a vague article which any rambler on street can write and you linked the lazy man's work here and fail to address any of my points.

How can Federer be "second best of his generation" in comparison to Nadal when Federer and Nadal are not from the same generation?

The article is a joke and one sided. All greats had plusses and minuses on their resumes- no one is perfect. Federer has some negatives that swing the argument Nadals way, and Nadal has plenty of negatives on his resume that would swing the title back to Federer, but the author ignores those.

Both are all time greats. Frankly- no one should care if Fed is 1 or 2, or Nadal is 1 or 2 because it means nothing and either way is incredibly impressive. Lets see how Nadal does in his tennis old age compared to Federer and then look at the careers when it's all said and done... and not just talk about head to head and majors. Weeks at #1, Year end #1s, WTFs, Masters, Wins spread out across a whole season and surfaces vs concentrated on one section, defending titles year in and year out..... all that matters.

TRuffin wrote:

Both are all time greats. Frankly- no one should care  if  Fed is 1 or 2, or Nadal is 1 or 2 because it means nothing and either way is incredibly impressive.  Lets see how Nadal does in his tennis old age compared to Federer and then look at the careers when it's all said and done... and not just talk about head to head and majors.   Weeks at #1, Year end #1s, WTFs, Masters, Wins spread out across a whole season and surfaces vs concentrated on one section, defending titles year in and year out..... all that matters.

Maybe no one should care but the truth is many take an interest. That article in the Guardian has already got more comments than the Kei/Marin final and it's only been up a few hours. When you think about it why should anyone care who wins a tennis match unless they have a bet on it.

If you read the article you will see that Gibson is attempting to look beyond H2H's and slams. In fact that is exactly what he has set out to do - look at the bigger picture. By doing that it perhaps it isn't necessary to wait until their careers are over to come to a conclusion? Whether you agree with his analysis is a different thing but he has definitely taken a broader perspective and he used the quote by Henry Clay “Statistics are no substitute for judgement.” to emphasize it.

hawkeye wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

Both are all time greats. Frankly- no one should care  if  Fed is 1 or 2, or Nadal is 1 or 2 because it means nothing and either way is incredibly impressive.  Lets see how Nadal does in his tennis old age compared to Federer and then look at the careers when it's all said and done... and not just talk about head to head and majors.   Weeks at #1, Year end #1s, WTFs, Masters, Wins spread out across a whole season and surfaces vs concentrated on one section, defending titles year in and year out..... all that matters.

Maybe no one should care but the truth is many take an interest. That article in the Guardian has already got more comments than the Kei/Marin final and it's only been up a few hours. When you think about it why should anyone care who wins a tennis match unless they have a bet on it.

If you read the article you will see that Gibson is attempting to look beyond H2H's and slams. In fact that is exactly what he has set out to do - look at the bigger picture. By doing that it perhaps it isn't necessary to wait until their careers are over to come to a conclusion? Whether you agree with his analysis is a different thing but he has definitely taken a broader perspective and he used the quote by Henry Clay “Statistics are no substitute for judgement.” to emphasize it.

Many in terms Nadal fans you mean, I read some where Nadal got more fans now, so no wonder many are raising a non-existent and irrelevant issue.

It's actually a good article, just maybe not for us because we know if all already.

But I am suspicious of the fact the he says Rafa is "Undoubtedly" the greater player. I was also equally suspicious of the Federer arrogant article who said Federer's arrogance was "undeniable". In both cases, by adding the extra words "undeniable" and "undoubtedly" instead of the author saying. "My opinion is....(and feel free to disagree)" it changes the tone to: "I am certainly right (and don't even try to disagree with me)" which, given that both questions (Federer's arrogance and Nadal being the greater player) are clearly subjective, implies an inability to revisit one's position in the light of evidence or consider the arguments of others, which in turns arguably even suggests dogmatic beliefs based on underlying prejudice rather than real analysis. There is a faint whiff of the fanatical about it. Yes, it's journalistic opinion style to be provocative, but I'm not quite buying that as enough of an excuse.

In fact, juding by the focus on GOAT arguments and the unhealthy insistence on one side of the argument, I imagine the journalist is also probably one of the regulars on here.

I will also copy and paste the statement "Nadal is already ahead of Federer in every relevant statistic you can think of". I don't think I need to argue against that, I will just paste it here and laugh. Excellent, that concludes my laughing.
Still, I do think it's a good article and if they could have removed that silly sentence above plus remove "undoubtedly" it would have been a very good article.

Actually he only lost the French Open in 2009 because he was injured, is a bit of a sore point as well. That was the other point of the article that I wasn't sure about, because again something disputed is presented as fact...

"Nadal is already ahead of Federer in every relevant statistic you can think of".
Federer's three best season W/L records 95%, 95% and 93%.
Nadal's best 88%. That's in a 82 match season, Federer's 95% was achieved in a 97 match season.

"Nadal is already ahead of Federer in every relevant statistic you can think of".
Year end no 1s: 5-3
World Tour finals 6-0.
Consecutive slams semi finals 23-5.

Yes, "undoubtedly" sir he is ahead in all of them. Mwahahaha.

The Guardian readers are glory hunters they probably don't even know what Flushing Meadows is. This thread is the same as your Constable/Turner article

I enjoyed his emphasis at the very start of the article, setting his tone
"The Sir prefix is pure facetiousness on my part but it would not surprise me if a SW19 pressure group are currently lobbying furiously behind the scenes for Britain to invade and conquer Switzerland, incorporate it within the realm of the Commonwealth and open the door for Roger to be knighted."

That shows him to be an objective, unbiased journalist determined to stick to the facts and make logical conclusions from them

I'll pay £5 to anyone who can offer anything original or interesting to the debate. No winners yet I'm afraid.

Some people will no doubt feel better about themselves if their favourite player (Fed/Rafa) is anointed GOAT. Others need no such vicarious boost to their self-esteem.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
I'll pay £5 to anyone who can offer anything original or interesting to the debate. No winners yet I'm afraid.

Andy Murray has the best service in the world, there ya go where's my £5

Henman Bill wrote:"Nadal is already ahead of Federer in every relevant statistic you can think of".
Year end no 1s: 5-3
World Tour finals 6-0.
Consecutive slams semi finals 23-5.

Yes, "undoubtedly" sir he is ahead in all of them. Mwahahaha.            

Oh so you forgot the main stats 17 slams to 14 slams

followed by 300+ weeks as number 1 compared to 100+ weeks as no.1

I am willing to buy the argument , if he can confirm who is the GOAT by his argument, if he [and HE] himself cannot buy and prove his argument who bother posting it?

Actually Nadal's stats are better than Fed in all departments coz Nadal's loss during injury is not counted, and the full world know for the fact that Nadal in history has only lost due to injury and hence all his stats are better than Fed except for slams and weeks at no.1, given the hyperbole of HE and the author's explanations thats well in reach for Nadal in a week time.

Now don't ask me how can Nadal become 300+ weeks at no.1 in a week, cause we mortal don't understand Nadal's legacy and ability.

Paul Gibson cv;


"Born and raised in Belfast, Paul left Ireland around the turn of the century when things started getting too peaceful. He has been on the run ever since, living in Kenya, Guatemala, Scotland, England, Germany and now Spain. Everywhere he goes, he writes"

It sounds like the guy was literally born to write about tennis. As for me, I prefer Hawkeye stuff, I am being serious .......

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
It sounds like the guy was literally born to write about tennis. As for me, I prefer Hawkeye stuff, I am being serious .......

hawkeye wrote:

TRuffin wrote:

Both are all time greats. Frankly- no one should care  if  Fed is 1 or 2, or Nadal is 1 or 2 because it means nothing and either way is incredibly impressive.  Lets see how Nadal does in his tennis old age compared to Federer and then look at the careers when it's all said and done... and not just talk about head to head and majors.   Weeks at #1, Year end #1s, WTFs, Masters, Wins spread out across a whole season and surfaces vs concentrated on one section, defending titles year in and year out..... all that matters.

Maybe no one should care but the truth is many take an interest. That article in the Guardian has already got more comments than the Kei/Marin final and it's only been up a few hours. When you think about it why should anyone care who wins a tennis match unless they have a bet on it.

If you read the article you will see that Gibson is attempting to look beyond H2H's and slams. In fact that is exactly what he has set out to do - look at the bigger picture. By doing that it perhaps it isn't necessary to wait until their careers are over to come to a conclusion? Whether you agree with his analysis is a different thing but he has definitely taken a broader perspective and he used the quote by Henry Clay “Statistics are no substitute for judgement.” to emphasize it.

It's a flawed look at the bigger picture though.. Even you as a Nadal fanatic must see that. He has picked and chosen the years he wants to look at purely on his opinion.

There a distinct possibility that Nadal is going to finish with less weeks at #1, tied or less year end #1's, a losing head to head record (maybe overall, but def off of clay) than a player that is actually from his exact same generation in Djokovic..... but Nadal will have more Majors...... and with that we will all say that Nadal is the greater player..

Yet Federer actually beats Nadal in all those catagories except for losing record but is not as great as Nadal? Doesn't make sense.

The author uses Fed's late prime and Nadals emerging prime as a basis to compare-- which is nonsense. 1st- who is this author to decide the years when they were both playing at the same time and in their prime. people win at different times.... As Nadal has found, it's harder to keep defending year in and year out as you enter your later 20's.. At some point- you just lose an edge.. How many US Opens, Australian Opens, Wimbledons in a row was Federer supposed to win to make this guy happy? At some point- the pack catches you. So Federer started to slow down as Nadal came into full steam and that somehow should be the years for basis of comparison? Look what Nadal has done at this age. 1 Major, early exit in Wimbledon, broken down body, lost his #1 to a player of his own generation, and lost #2 to old man Federer--
but he's in his prime according to this guy.

Absolutely love it.

The Balls of Wrath: The deluded thinking man's sports blog.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/the-balls-of-wrath

Is there any wonder HE is trying to peddle this Blog as proper journalism or even sport commentary.

This will have got no where near the Guardian (or any paper) print edition. Why? Because it is rubbish.

You really do like to misrepresent the truth don't you?

So just to be clear to everyone - this was not an article in today's Guardian. It is the blog of a man who calls himself deluded.

One of the things I liked about the article was that it was well written and argued, I mean he know how to turn a phrase, it flows..

Considering suing this journalist for plagiarism

Anyway, jokes aside, it wasn't actually a badly written or argued piece.
I would have liked it if this article was linked to or next to another article which countered it, for balance; thus people could read both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusion.

I more or less agree with HB's verdict on it actually, there are clear and obvious flaws.

Johnyjeep wrote:This will have got no where near the Guardian (or any paper) print edition. Why? Because it is rubbish.
You really do like to misrepresent the truth don't you?

Well firstly it was on the guardian website, so to castigate Hawkeye to this extent for saying 'in today's guardian' because she was talking about the website today rather than the print edition today I think is just unnecessarily mean.

I bought the Guardian yesterday specifically because hawkeye said it was 'in today's Guardian' and I prefer to read a printed copy. Had to read it online in the end because it wasn't in there at all - it was 'on the Guardian web-site' which is a different thing entirely.

Very biased article. I like the way he uses the h2h with Murray to say it is a reason to look beyond the 17 slams whilst, in fact, it is a better argument why he should look past 23-10.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I bought the Guardian yesterday specifically because hawkeye said it was 'in today's Guardian' and I prefer to read a printed copy. Had to read it online in the end because it wasn't in there at all - it was 'on the Guardian web-site' which is a different thing entirely.

I went and bought The Guardian too.

I had to hide it inside a copy of 'Asian Babes' to avoid embarassment.

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I bought the Guardian yesterday specifically because hawkeye said it was 'in today's Guardian' and I prefer to read a printed copy. Had to read it online in the end because it wasn't in there at all - it was 'on the Guardian web-site' which is a different thing entirely.

I went and bought The Guardian too.

I had to hide it inside a copy of 'Asian Babes' to avoid embarassment.

I considered that, but I get 'Asian Babes' delivered anyway.

Interesting to note that Rafa has fallen slightly behind again on the slam chase. Fed won his 15th just before his 28th birthday and his 16th at c. 28.5. Rafa won his 14th just before his 28th and will be 28.5 in Oz. So, if Rafa doesn't win there he will be a full 2 slams behind at that checkpoint. Of course, Fed then had a two year gap so there is time for Rafa to catch up.

Judging by the comments here I doubt many even read the article Maybe it's because they don't have internet access and rely on a newsagent for information?

It would have been interesting to see a counter argument to Gibsons. One that didn't just throw numbers from either side ie "17-14, 10-23, 7-9".... the list could go on. IMO he's made some valid points coming to his conclusion. I particularly liked the way he addressed the way public perception about how good a player is can be influenced by the media. But maybe some here just looked at the conclusion and didn't like it? Although in his conclusion Gibson did refer to one important stat that is seldom mentioned "Quite simply, over time, the greater tennis player will win more often than everyone else." Nadal's win loss ratio is not just better than Federer it is the best in history.

My thoughts have always been the same. I think both are great but if asked to judge I would give the edge to Nadal

hawkeye wrote:Judging by the comments here I doubt many even read the article Maybe it's because they don't have internet access and rely on a newsagent for information?

It would have been interesting to see a counter argument to Gibsons. One that didn't just throw numbers from either side ie "17-14, 10-23, 7-9".... the list could go on. IMO he's made some valid points coming to his conclusion. I particularly liked the way he addressed the way public perception about how good a player is can be influenced by the media. But maybe some here just looked at the conclusion and didn't like it? Although in his conclusion Gibson did refer to one important stat that is seldom mentioned "Quite simply, over time, the greater tennis player will win more often than everyone else." Nadal's win loss ratio is not just better than Federer it is the best in history.

My thoughts have always been the same. I think both are great but if asked to judge I would give the edge to Nadal

Righteo.

Maybe now you won't have to make Nadal/Federer articles after reaching this emphatic conclusion!!!

^
Thank you Q.E.D.

hawkeye wrote:Judging by the comments here I doubt many even read the article Maybe it's because they don't have internet access and rely on a newsagent for information?

As soon as you said it was in the Guardian, I headed straight for the newsagent. Little did I know that it wasn't in the Guardian.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Judging by the comments here I doubt many even read the article Maybe it's because they don't have internet access and rely on a newsagent for information?

As soon as you said it was in the Guardian, I headed straight for the newsagent. Little did I know that it wasn't in the Guardian.

lol Q.E.D. again!

hawkeye wrote:My thoughts have always been the same. I think both are great but if asked to judge I would give the edge to Nadal

I think you may have mentioned this before.

In the end a mate printed it out and sent it to me in the post (first class). I haven't used the internet in months.

Nadal's game perfectly matches up to Federer's but it doesn't mean he is greater.

How many times did Nadal play and beat Federer on Federer's best surface (grass)?

Once isn't it in 5 sets - and only just?

Federer has played Nadal on Nadal's best surface (clay) more times.


Nadal will go down as the greatest clay court player of all time but to be the greatest of all time you need more than that.

Federer is called the greatest of all time because he's got a style,grace and skill that Nadal can only dream of. The article derides Federer for his paltry opposition at the US Open yet he survived longer than Murray, Nadal (wasn't even fit) and equalled Djokovic. Cilic in the final wiped out Nishikori in straight sets.

Federer is still in the slam mix - a final and semi in his last two slams - losing to the two winners isn't a bad effort.

Nadal hasn't shown the same consistency and longevity that Federer has either. Federer's body has held up better.

Federer has also won the atp world tour final - 6 times - that's facing the top players of the year. 36 wins, 10 losses is very impressive.

Brilliant OP and I agree completely.

Also, Nadal has more followers on Twitter and friends on Facebook and obsessives on internet forums.

He's definitely the best.

hawkeye wrote:Judging by the comments here I doubt many even read the article Maybe it's because they don't have internet access and rely on a newsagent for information?

It would have been interesting to see a counter argument to Gibsons. One that didn't just throw numbers from either side ie "17-14, 10-23, 7-9".... the list could go on. IMO he's made some valid points coming to his conclusion. I particularly liked the way he addressed the way public perception about how good a player is can be influenced by the media. But maybe some here just looked at the conclusion and didn't like it? Although in his conclusion Gibson did refer to one important stat that is seldom mentioned "Quite simply, over time, the greater tennis player will win more often than everyone else." Nadal's win loss ratio is not just better than Federer it is the best in history.

My thoughts have always been the same. I think both are great but if asked to judge I would give the edge to Nadal

In tournaments where both Federer and Nadal have entered together.   So this excludes tournaments where only 1 was in the field, all the tournaments where Nadal has missed due to injury.    Both in the field together.

On Grass-   Federer won the title in more of those tournaments than Nadal.  In a tournament where neither won the title, Federer made it to a further round or deeper in the tournament more times than Nadal.

On outdoor hard courts-  Federer won the title in more of those tournaments than Nadal. In a tournament where neither won the title, Federer made it to a further round more times than Nadal.

On indoor hard courts- Federer won the title in more than Nadal. Where neither won, Federer made it to a further round more times than Nadal.

On clay- Nadal won the title more times than Federer. Where neither won, Nadal made it to a further round more times than Nadal.

Look at this year- at an age where most said Federer should be retired while Nadal is smack in the middle of what was supposed to be his dominating period across all surfaces, not just clay-- in the touraments off of clay.  Nadal made it farther at the AO,  at Miami.      Federer made it farther at Indian Wells, Halle, Wimbledon.   Only clay does Nadal perform better against the field...

The facts are clear-  Nadal is greater on clay than Federer, but Federer is greater all around across all surfaces than Nadal. The time at #1 tells us that, the titles tell us that, the fact that Nadal can't hold #1 even once every week of one continuous season start to finish, the inability to defend off clay, on and on..

The greats who played the game tell us that-   Laver, Sampras, Becker, Borg, Conners, Wilander, Edberg, Courier, etc,etc all say Federer is the greatest player..  Every great current player including Nadal himself tell us that.  The only hold outs or guys who have changed their mind are McEnroe who wavers month to month, and Agassi who was promoting a tennis league he and Nadal are both a part of and have ownership interest in and Agassi was being bombarded and aggravated with questions about why Federer had chosen to not take part in.     McEnroe changes his mind constantly- if any of you watched his USA broadcast of the US Open, you would know he has now said during each match that Federer has regained the edge in his mind over Nadal.

H2H does not trump all that.  A look at a small window of time some writer deems relevant does not trump all that.

When Federer and Nadal are both in a tournament- across a whole season, across a whole career (so far) Federer is more successful.

Truffin wrote:In tournaments where both Federer and Nadal have entered together. So this excludes tournaments where only 1 was in the field, all the tournaments where Nadal has missed due to injury. Both in the field together.

Something like this will always be flawed as there is an age gap of 5 years. The only exception is if you can show at a certain point that it is symmetrical- and as different players go through peaks and troughs at different times it's almost impossible for you to do so.
For example if we take Federer and Sampras (who ofc have an even larger age gap), we would find that Sampras convincingly does better in the tournaments they played in together.

Interesting that this post from you above is after you said this:

truffin wrote:Both are all time greats. Frankly- no one should care if Fed is 1 or 2, or Nadal is 1 or 2 because it means nothing and either way is incredibly impressive.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Truffin wrote:In tournaments where both Federer and Nadal have entered together.   So this excludes tournaments where only 1 was in the field, all the tournaments where Nadal has missed due to injury.    Both in the field together.

Something like this will always be flawed as there is an age gap of 5 years. The only exception is if you can show at a certain point that it is symmetrical- and as different players go through peaks and troughs at different times it's almost impossible for you to do so.
For example if we take Federer and Sampras (who ofc have an even larger age gap), we would find that Sampras convincingly does better in the tournaments they played in together.

Interesting that this post from you above is after you said this:

truffin wrote:Both are all time greats. Frankly- no one should care  if  Fed is 1 or 2, or Nadal is 1 or 2 because it means nothing and either way is incredibly impressive.

- it's much more fair than using the authors self created window of a few years when he deemed purely off his opinion when they converged as both being in prime. Looking at the whole carrer or time spent together is all we can do. yes, there is a time in the beginning when Federer was more in prime and experienced than Nadal, and now for the past several years Nadal has been in prime and Federer has been in decline years-- so it's basically evened out. IF I wanted to follow what the writer did and use my opinion... I'd say there has actually been more time where Nadal is in his prime and Federer aging than the opposite when Federer was at his height and Nadal not. Yet, Federer has won more.

In terms of your usual attempt to point out contradictions where there is none- my post has nothing to do nor does it counter your quoted statement where I said 1 or 2 doesn't matter and the both are impressive. I do believe that and nowhere by me pointing out that Federer is the greater does that contradict that both are great. If Nadal is #2- that a freakin amazing accomplishment. I said no one should care and they shouldn't, but since Hawkeye replied that people do care and it's worth talking about- I'm happy and have a right to present arguments for one side or the other.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Truffin wrote:In tournaments where both Federer and Nadal have entered together.   So this excludes tournaments where only 1 was in the field, all the tournaments where Nadal has missed due to injury.    Both in the field together.

Something like this will always be flawed as there is an age gap of 5 years. The only exception is if you can show at a certain point that it is symmetrical- and as different players go through peaks and troughs at different times it's almost impossible for you to do so.
For example if we take Federer and Sampras (who ofc have an even larger age gap), we would find that Sampras convincingly does better in the tournaments they played in together.

Interesting that this post from you above is after you said this:

truffin wrote:Both are all time greats. Frankly- no one should care  if  Fed is 1 or 2, or Nadal is 1 or 2 because it means nothing and either way is incredibly impressive.

Federer and Sampras never played together in tournaments where both were even close to their peak and only for a few year. Nadal and Federer has for nearly 10 years... one might have been at peak and the other emerging, and then one at peak and the other declining, but they have spent most of their carreer both in the top 3 together. During those tournaments over a long period of time that certainly tells the tell of a player over all surfaces, Federer has been superior on all surfaces except for Clay.

truffin wrote:so it's basically evened out.

It's even more complex actually than what you presented to be the case- as you'd have to deduce to what extent Nadal improved as he got older and how that compares to the extent Federer declined.
I've done a pretty detailed study on the Win/Loss ratio, and Nadal is ahead on that at every step of the way.

truffin wrote:I do believe that and nowhere by me pointing out that Federer is the greater does that contradict that both are great. If Nadal is #2- that a freakin amazing accomplishment.

Indeed it would be, and I never said there was a direct contradiction between what you said; however it is slightly strange you write 'frankly no one should care' before then writing and researching a post which presented one side of the argument.

It Must Be Love wrote:

truffin wrote:so it's basically evened out.

It's even more complex actually than what you presented to be the case- as you'd have to deduce to what extent Nadal improved as he got older and how that compares to the extent Federer declined.
I've done a pretty detailed study on the Win/Loss ratio, and Nadal is ahead on that at every step of the way.

truffin wrote:I do believe that and nowhere by me pointing out that Federer is the greater does that contradict that both are great. If Nadal is #2- that a freakin amazing accomplishment.

Indeed it would be, and I never said there was a direct contradiction between what you said; however it is slightly strange you write 'frankly no one should care' before then writing and researching a post which presented one side of the argument.

I don't think it's slightly strange I did when you read what the replies to my post by the original poster was....

What's your thoughts at the immediate major flaw in the writer of this article headline and argument that Federer is the 2nd Best player of HIS generation and then compares him to Nadal. As you say, there is a large gap in tennis age between the two and there is no one that could argue that Federer and Nadal are from the "same" tennis generation.
Any writer who starts with that loses credibility imo. Federer is by far the best player of HIS generation.

TRuffin wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Judging by the comments here I doubt many even read the article Maybe it's because they don't have internet access and rely on a newsagent for information?

It would have been interesting to see a counter argument to Gibsons. One that didn't just throw numbers from either side ie "17-14, 10-23, 7-9".... the list could go on. IMO he's made some valid points coming to his conclusion. I particularly liked the way he addressed the way public perception about how good a player is can be influenced by the media. But maybe some here just looked at the conclusion and didn't like it? Although in his conclusion Gibson did refer to one important stat that is seldom mentioned "Quite simply, over time, the greater tennis player will win more often than everyone else." Nadal's win loss ratio is not just better than Federer it is the best in history.

My thoughts have always been the same. I think both are great but if asked to judge I would give the edge to Nadal

In tournaments where both Federer and Nadal have entered together.   So this excludes tournaments where only 1 was in the field, all the tournaments where Nadal has missed due to injury.    Both in the field together.

On Grass-   Federer won the title in more of those tournaments than Nadal.  In a tournament where neither won the title, Federer made it to a further round or deeper in the tournament more times than Nadal.

On outdoor hard courts-  Federer won the title in more of those tournaments than Nadal. In a tournament where neither won the title, Federer made it to a further round more times than Nadal.

On indoor hard courts- Federer won the title in more than Nadal. Where neither won, Federer made it to a further round more times than Nadal.

On clay- Nadal won the title more times than Federer. Where neither won, Nadal made it to a further round more times than Nadal.

Look at this year- at an age where most said Federer should be retired while Nadal is smack in the middle of what was supposed to be his dominating period across all surfaces, not just clay-- in the touraments off of clay.  Nadal made it farther at the AO,  at Miami.      Federer made it farther at Indian Wells, Halle, Wimbledon.   Only clay does Nadal perform better against the field...

The facts are clear-  Nadal is greater on clay than Federer, but Federer is greater all around across all surfaces than Nadal. The time at #1 tells us that, the titles tell us that, the fact that Nadal can't hold #1 even once every week of one continuous season start to finish, the inability to defend off clay, on and on..

The greats who played the game tell us that-   Laver, Sampras, Becker, Borg, Conners, Wilander, Edberg, Courier, etc,etc all say Federer is the greatest player..  Every great current player including Nadal himself tell us that.  The only hold outs or guys who have changed their mind are McEnroe who wavers month to month, and Agassi who was promoting a tennis league he and Nadal are both a part of and have ownership interest in and Agassi was being bombarded and aggravated with questions about why Federer had chosen to not take part in.     McEnroe changes his mind constantly- if any of you watched his USA broadcast of the US Open, you would know he has now said during each match that Federer has regained the edge in his mind over Nadal.

H2H does not trump all that.  A look at a small window of time some writer deems relevant does not trump all that.

When Federer and Nadal are both in a tournament- across a whole season, across a whole career (so far) Federer is more successful.

Great post Truffin.

However Nadalities can never be made happy, so arguing with them is a real waste of time.

@ It Must be Love

Before you place a question you need to valuate yourself first,

you can compile 5 of Nadal's best years and 5 of Fed's best years and then 5 of Nadal's worst years [since winning a slam] to 5 of Federer's worst year [since winning a slam] and you will get the answer who the greatest is, but something you won't do the research but blame Truf saying the comparison now is invalid.

Greatest Clay courter - Nadal followed by Borg
Greatest Grass Courter - Fed and Sampras
Greatst Hard courter - Federer followed by Sampras , then Agassi , Djoko, Ivan, Connors etc,...

Just cause Nadal wins every clay court slams and meetings does not mean he is greater that other players in other surfaces.

Nadal is a part of 2 different generation , The Federer and then Djokovic era, Nadal never had an era on his name sadly

To get an era [decade] name behind you, one should be the most successful weeks at no.1 in that era.

In naughties it was Federer and in tens its Djokovic, Nadal has come second on both counts.