GOAT Debate

First topic message reminder :

For all GOAT debate posts, good or bad, better or worse, sickness and health.
We'll move stuff in here from other future threads, to keep it all together.

LF & JHM

Edit - I guess if this is to be for people who really want to have a GOAT debate, we'll have to remove posts from people who think the GOAT debate is worthless. So no opportunity for satire, humour or dismissiveness at the expense of the debate. Let's leave it to those who take it seriously and post accordingly. I think any poster's absence from this thread can be interpreted as having no interest in it. JHM.

OK I disagree with Hawkeye's sentiment that this debate is fundamentally linked to 'what ifs'. I said earlier that hypotheticals were not my main point, and I will expand further now, hopefully this also addresses the points of HM & SB as well as Hawkeye:

-If we compare any two players, even ones of equal quality will probably have different statistics due to their varying circumstances.
-Let's say I started with a hypothesis where I picked out a particular stat, and said 'due to this, Federer/Nadal etc. is a better player'
-The two main reasons for this not being true is: varying external factors, and confounding factors (and these overlap frequently)
-Let me take an example of what HM said on the W/L ratio thread debate last month. I can't remember the exact quote, but the point HM Murdoch made was that he doesn't see the fact that Nadal's percentage was higher than Federer's by a few percent as significant enough to ensure in his mind that Nadal was a better player than Federer.
-This wasn't because he disagreed with the statistics themselves, he acknowledged that the research from the ATP website which showed Nadal's percentage as slightly higher as accurate. But logically thinking, what HM was implying was this: that the reason for the difference in percentage would not directly translate into a reason as to why Nadal was GOAT while Federer wasn't.
-Exploring that particular stat, a reason could be that Federer's lower percentage could be due factors which are not very important in GOAT debates such as: his poor record when he was very young and not winning titles etc.
-That would be the same critical thinking I am applying to the Slam count, except it is the other way round. The difference in slam count between Federer and Nadal is not statistically significant if you acknowledge two important external factors: difference in injury and difference in competition
-Hypotehticals themselves aren't important, they just demonstrate a way of interpreting the factors
-Summerblues, I feel these two factors are the most significant. There may be other factors benefitting both Federer and Nadal, but these two are the most significant for me, they dwarf the other factors put together, and my opinion is both factors benefit Federer over Nadal

IMBL, I was talking about complaints from users to Mods. What Mods see and delete/edit, it's their judgment, and they do it fine.

Address now some points

Sure no worries Jahu.
Also I edited my post above and just addressed it all there

Ah December. The silly season!

Anyone ever heard of the Butterfly Effect?? And it's implications on this discussion?

Cause and effect. Change one event on a timeline and there will be a different reaction. To say Nadal would have won x amount of slams he missed is folly (not just because it didn't actually happen) but because if he had have won any of these slams, what would have been the reaction either physically or mentally (of Nadal or his opponents).

His amazing 2010 season was preceded by an injury plagued second half of the season in 2009. The cure was rest. His excellent 2013 season was preceded by...an injury plagued 2012. As far as I know the treatment wasn't surgery in either case - but rest.

He has won more than one grand slam in "only" three years of his playing career. The last two of these seasons were preceded by periods of rest. He undoubtedly benefits from these periods of rest, especially as he got older.

So to suggest that he would have won x amount of slams he missed is entirely guesswork. It does not take into account that if he had of won (or even turned up at these), would he have still won the ones he did? Basically, we have absolutely no idea.

Also - some of the slams he missed, he had won the previous year. Is the fact that Nadal has never defended a non-clay event factored in? We can say for example that even though he was injured in 2009 at Wimbledon and 2014 US Open he would have to do something he has never managed in his entire career in order to win these two events. Therefore we can say with some confidence it was (very) unlikely he would have won these. We have, after all, his entire career to base that judgement on.

I’m sure I read somewhere that idle speculation doesn’t help anyone. Or something along those lines. I thought these kind of discussions would therefore become a thing of the past.

Should actual player achievements be discussed? Or made-up ones as well.

Plus, and I can't believe this needs to be pointed out again, a players career w/l ratio is not even in the top 10 of things to be considered when looking to annoit a GOAT. Especially in active players.

Is Steve Davis considered a worse snooker player because of his career w/l ratio? Should he just stop playing even though doesn't want to.

I think this will be a slow burner. Federer has what 5 years on Nadal? Let's just see where both players finish at the end of their careers.

Federer has averaged 71.35 matches per season. Nadal has averaged 65.07 matches per season. Sampras averaged 65.6 matches a season.

Take other greats. Lendl averaged 77.05 matches a season! McEnroe averaged 67.06 matches a season, not including his doubles! Connors with his great longevity averaged only 56.74 matches per season.

JohnyJeep, I just wrote a whole post at the top of this page as to why my argument is NOT based around hypotheticals, and you write a long rebuttal against hypotheticals...

As for your point on Nadal needing rest after injuries; I've already said before that is obvious. It is clear Nadal, for a combination of reasons including genetic and playing style, has suffered from frequent injury problems and his treatment has consisted of rest and medical techniques.

But just to clarify, again, my main point is not based around hypotheticals.

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal has 3 more Grand Slams

And has played 12 more Grand Slams in accumulating that total.

At the same number of slams entered (27), it was Borg 11, Nadal 9.

This is why "best" is subjective.

Good post, and as for your last line I think you know that I fully agree with you.

Another observation I make:
From 2009, there are 5 Slams where I feel Nadal has played but not been able to compete to the best of his ability in the match he lost due to injury (Note: this doesn't mean I necessarily think he would have won those slams without the injury, that is speculation).
Furthermore from 2009 he's had to miss 4 Slams due to injury, i.e. not play them at all.
Now first things first, I thing that shows Nadal has not been able to do well in the 'ability to not get injured' department of the game. If someone replies to my observation that this shows Nadal can't play for years sustained without injuries and negative effects on his body, I agree with you. However as I have said before, I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as a particularly important factor when judging a tennis player; things such as serve, forehand, movement, reflexes etc. are all far more important for me.

Second point is that I think from 2009, with the exclusion of these 9 slams where he has been affected by injury, he has won 9/15 of them, so 60%. If we apply the same statistical ratio to these 9 slams, it comes to 5.4 slams (again, this would be the best way I think of calculating an estimate, obviously I'm not actually suggesting Nadal would literally add 5.4 slams to his slam count if he was healthy for those slams).

So overall I think the two conclusions one can reach is firstly Nadal is not very good at avoiding injuries (for a combination of factors: congenital feet problem which means he has to wear special shoes which put more pressure on his knee, as well as playing style). And secondly these injuries have really been a huge obstruction to his career; it's no surprise he has the best W/L ratio out of any player in history. If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count.

Apologies. I read this from another thread. I took a leap. From this you extrapolate that Nadal would be comfortably ahead of Federer in the slam count. I was pointing out why this thought process is flawed.

So what is this non-hypothetical argument you have that Nadal is the GOAT then? Based on actual achievements?  Your last post at 12.34pm makes zero sense.

Try and dumb it down for us please.

Saying that the difference in slam count doesn’t count because you say so, isn’t an argument.

Also, saying it is not “statistically significant” doesn’t add any credibility to your statement either. When individuals state it is not statistically significant, they have actual statistics and numbers (along with working out) to back that up with. Got any P-values? What is your null-hypothesis?

That hypothetical was my opinion on what I felt was likely to happen, however people can disagree, and I recognise this cannot be either proven or disproved.

However for the purposes of this debate, I think that hypotheticals by itself don't have much value, and they were not my main point.
My post at 12:34 at the top of the page clarified what my opinion on this topic as per the GOAT debate was.
You said it didn't make sense, which bit of that post did you have difficulty in understanding ?

How can you determine any two players are of equal quality when statistics can’t be used? Therefore how have you come to the judgement they are of equal quality in the first place? If you've used the statistics? Great - so you can use them?

If you can't, you are just interpreting their quality (and/or statistics) using subjective criteria. The two you've used to discount the 3 extra slams Federer has won are quality of opposition or injury record. One (quality of opposition) has been discounted so many times, I can't be bothered to point out where and why this fails.

The injury record is a new one though. Almost as new as the career w/l record or H2H when determining who is the better player. You are not using that in a hypothetical fashion though? So you are not saying he would have won more had he not been injured. Therefore not sure what “injury record” is or how it is used? I’ve yet to read anywhere that Rafael Nadal is the GOAT because in the last 9 years he has missed 5 grand slams. I’ve already highlighted how his two best seasons since 2008 have followed periods of absence. So not sure how that’s a negative thing.

It reads very much to me like you’re just redressing the same old arguments. Which is: Nadal is best because I think so. Which is fine. Just not sure why you feel the need to convince us.

JJ- I will state my opinion again, I don't think it should go in the direction of a mathematical discussion (which it isn't), but more of statistic/ causation. It's not strictly the best way I'd want to put it, but it does demonstrate what I'm trying to say:

Theory:
Statistic: Federer has more Slams than Nadal (3 more to be precise)
Causation: This is because Federer is a better tennis player

However just like correlation doesn't always equal causation, this statistics may also be explained by other things which are not 'Federer is a better tennis player'.

External Factors:
-Different Levels of Competition they both have to face. I will write more on this later; but I think most people know my opinion on this- Nadal had to beat Federer/Djokovic for 12 out of his 14 Grand Slams- while Federer was beating Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Roddick, 35yo Agassi, Phillipousis etc. in finals
-Injury. I think Federer's ability at being able to avoid injury is a better explanation for the gap in slam count than how good he is at tennis compared to Nadal. Ability to avoid injury itself is a skill, but I rank it below many other factors in GOAT debates (i.e. forehand, serve etc.)

So as a conclusion I believe those two external factors explain why Federer has 3 more Slams than Nadal, rather than him being better at tennis itself.

So can I discount Nadals French Open 2010 and Wimbledon 2010 on the basis of quality of opposition?

legendkillarV2 wrote:So can I discount Nadals French Open 2010 and Wimbledon 2010 on the basis of quality of opposition?

Is that what I said ? Don't argue against a straw man.

No slams should be discounted, but I believe on the whole the competition Nadal had to deal with during his peak years was considerably harder than what Federer had to deal with.
The fact that those two you mention are the only two times he's won a slam without having to face either Federer or Djokovic speaks volumes. Compare that with:

Between the period 2004-2008, Murray (while he was still young) amassed more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, and Safin did put together. This list includes every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic (around and above his age), as well as some other players from Federer's generation.

It isn't even a case of 'eras'- I really don't believe that we can divide it up into black and white time periods, but the competition and difficult of competition is always fluctuating; and it is clear as I said Federer's competition to win his slams was easier than Nadal's.

It Must Be Love wrote:
-Injury. I think Federer's ability at being able to avoid injury is a better explanation for the gap in slam count than how good he is at tennis compared to Nadal. Ability to avoid injury itself is a skill, but I rank it below many other factors in GOAT debates (i.e. forehand, serve etc.)

I just don't know where to begin with this?!

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:So can I discount Nadals French Open 2010 and Wimbledon 2010 on the basis of quality of opposition?

Is that what I said ? Don't argue against a straw man.

No slams should be discounted, but I believe on the whole the competition Nadal had to deal with during his peak years was considerably harder than what Federer had to deal with.
The fact that those two you mention are the only two times he's won a slam without having to face either Federer or Djokovic speaks volumes. Compare that with:

Between the period 2004-2008, Murray (while he was still young) amassed more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, and Safin did put together. This list includes every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic (around and above his age), as well as some other players from Federer's generation.

It isn't even a case of 'eras'- I really don't believe that we can divide it up into black and white time periods, but the competition and difficult of competition is always fluctuating; and it is clear as I said Federer's competition to win his slams was easier than Nadal's.

Granted discount is a strong term.

Let's just say that a Slam win is a Slam win regardless of competition. Who you beat doesn't grant it special status.

Johnyjeep wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
-Injury. I think Federer's ability at being able to avoid injury is a better explanation for the gap in slam count than how good he is at tennis compared to Nadal. Ability to avoid injury itself is a skill, but I rank it below many other factors in GOAT debates (i.e. forehand, serve etc.)

I just don't know where to begin with this?!

Where do you disagree JJ ?

Do you think the ability to avoid injuries is more important than factors such as forehand, reflexes etc. when considering who is a better player ?
I don't personally think so, and I also see what is obvious- that Nadal's career has been negatively impacted by injuries and needing to rest after them while Federer's hasn't been even close to that extent.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Granted discount is a strong term.

Let's just say that a Slam win is a Slam win regardless of competition. Who you beat doesn't grant it special status.

I don't think we should see things in binary code. Slams aren't either 'special' or 'not special'. And of course a slam win is a slam win regardless of competition, who is claiming differently ?

However it is obvious that there will be fluctuations in difficulty of winning Slams. And on the whole I believe Nadal's slams were on average against considerably harder competition than Federer's slams.
The fact that Nadal had to beat one of the GOATs in Federer himself to win so many of his slams itself is evidence of this; while Federer only had to beat Nadal in 2 of his slams and both of those when Nadal was below prime age of 23.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Granted discount is a strong term.

Let's just say that a Slam win is a Slam win regardless of competition. Who you beat doesn't grant it special status.

I don't think we should see things in binary code. Slams aren't either 'special' or 'not special'. And of course a slam win is a slam win regardless of competition, who is claiming differently ?

However it is obvious that there will be fluctuations in difficulty of winning Slams. And on the whole I believe Nadal's slams were on average against considerably harder competition than Federer's slams.
The fact that Nadal had to beat one of the GOATs in Federer himself to win so many of his slams itself is evidence of this; while Federer only had to beat Nadal in 2 of his slams and both of those when Nadal was below prime age of 23.

Beating the same player again and again is not evidence of quality is it?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Beating the same player again and again is not evidence of quality is it?

Is it not ?
Surely it's much harder to beat an all time great like Federer many times in big matches, rather than just once (like Robredo has) ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
-Injury. I think Federer's ability at being able to avoid injury is a better explanation for the gap in slam count than how good he is at tennis compared to Nadal. Ability to avoid injury itself is a skill, but I rank it below many other factors in GOAT debates (i.e. forehand, serve etc.)

I just don't know where to begin with this?!

Where do you disagree JJ ?

Do you think the ability to avoid injuries is more important than factors such as forehand, reflexes etc. when considering who is a better player ?
I don't personally think so, and I also see what is obvious- that Nadal's career has been negatively impacted by injuries and needing to rest after them while Federer's hasn't been even close to that extent.

But Federer's extensive achievements show his tennis skills to be "pretty good" do they not?  You don't break down tennis factors (such as forehand and reflexes) into a singularity. Which is what you are suggesting. Which is all anyone ever does when trying to elevate Nadal for some unknown reason.

Are you suggesting the bloke who has the most weeks at No.1 ever, the most slams etc (look on Wikipedia if you want to view all his records - can't be bothered to list them all) doesn't have pretty good tennis skills? They don't need justifying individually.

Yet you are dismissing them in favour of Nadal because he has the ability to remain "injury free"

It is lunacy.

People win things because they are good at tennis. Not because they are good at not being injured. I'm great at not being injured. Haven't won Wimbledon yet though. So you don't get upset at the extremity of that example. Feliciano Lopez - very good at not being injured. Made 3 QF in 49 appearances at majors. And he's quite good tbf.

Johnyjeep wrote:But Federer's extensive achievements show his tennis skills to be "pretty good" do they not?

Of course, he is an unbelievable player and one of the best players in the history of the game; at no point have I said he isn't.

Johnyjeep wrote:People win things because they are good at tennis. Not because they are good at not being injured. I'm great at not being injured. Haven't won Wimbledon yet though. So you don't get upset at the extremity of that example. Feliciano Lopez - very good at not being injured. Made 3 QF in 49 appearances at majors. And he's quite good tbf.

This is another straw man which doesn't even come close to addressing what I'm saying.
Obviously to win tournaments you have to not only be healthy enough to enter, as well as be good enough to compete with the best players.
But it is simply obvious that Nadal has had worse injury problems than Federer, which has meant he has had to miss many slams and many slams losses have been affected by injury.
The difference between how the two have been able to look after their body for me is one of the key explanations as to why Federer has more Slams than Nadal.

Edit: And for the umpteenth time, I am not saying the ability to avoid injury shouldn't be commended, it's just not particularly important compared to actual tennis factors when considering how good someone is at tennis.

Is straw man "word of the day" in your office? I can only think that's why it's being used here.  Actually, it is precisley the point. Tennis skills win tennis matches. Not "the ability to not be injured".

Being able to avoid injury is probably not even in the top 100 of determining who is the better tennis player. You want to factor in? Fine.

You are assuming that without injuries Nadal would have won more? Which is your hypothetical scenario again I'm afraid.

Oh, and i've shown how periods of absence have benefited Nadal.

Johnyjeep wrote:
Being able to avoid injury is probably not even in the top 100 of determining who is the better tennis player. You want to factor in? Fine.

Let's have a close look at this line: You don't think being able to avoid injury is in the top 100 of determining who is the better player.
But slam stats will almost inevitably be affected by a player's ability to avoid injury. If a player is so injured he can't enter an event, then he can't win it. That's not a big hypothetical, it's simply a fact (unless you were corrupt and paid the tournament director to let you win the tournament even if you didn't enter, but we'll ignore that possibility for the purposes of reasonable debate).

So if you feel that the ability to avoid injury is not even in the top 100 things of determining who is a better player, and it's obvious that players who can't enter a slam due to injury can't win it, you therefore logically must acknowledge that statistics of Grand Slams will be influenced by something you consider unimportant in the debate as to who is the better player.
Which is what has happened here, the gap between Nadal and Federer has been largely influenced by the fact Federer's looking after his body better and getting injured less.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:
Being able to avoid injury is probably not even in the top 100 of determining who is the better tennis player. You want to factor in? Fine.

Let's have a close look at this line: You don't think being able to avoid injury is in the top 100 of determining who is the better player.
But slam stats will almost inevitably be affected by a player's ability to avoid injury. If a player is so injured he can't enter an event, then he can't win it. That's not a big hypothetical, it's simply a fact (unless you were corrupt and paid the tournament director to let you win the tournament even if you didn't enter, but we'll ignore that possibility for the purposes of reasonable debate).

So if you feel that the ability to avoid injury is not even in the top 100 things of determining who is a better player, and it's obvious that players who can't enter a slam due to injury can't win it, you therefore logically must acknowledge that statistics of Grand Slams will be influenced by something you consider unimportant in the debate as to who is the better player.
Which is what has happened here, the gap between Nadal and Federer has been largely influenced by the fact Federer's looking after his body better and getting injured less.  

Lets take an even closer look at this shall we? So is it the ability to "not be injured" or "be injured" you want to factor in?

If it's "not be injured" surely Federer deserves the recognition for having more slams then? Not Nadal for having fewer? You say so yourself that Federer is better at looking after his body after all.

If it's be injured...well that's completely hypothetical as you know, as there is no way of knowing if he would have won more things. Evidence of something not happening (not entering a tournament), does not prove something else would have happened (he would have won).

I've already posted above how Nadal has benefited from periods of rest. So his lay-offs have not necessarily hindered him.

The ability to not get injured lies hand in hand with the way you look after your body.

For me it is this, with the combination of Federer having easier competition, which explains why Federer has more Slams than Nadal; not because Federer's level of tennis is better than Nadal's.

It Must Be Love wrote:The ability to not get injured lies hand in hand with the way you look after your body.

For me it is this, with the combination of Federer having easier competition, which explains why Federer has more Slams than Nadal; not because Federer's level of tennis is better than Nadal's.

So Federer is better at that then Nadal? But Nadal gets the credit. Fair enough. That makes sense. If only Federer had not played in some more tournaments or been injured a little bit more. We could have then rated him higher (even if he had won the same or even less).

And that is true. Federer has had the easier competition (despite playing against the same players - Nadal was in the draw for Federer's first major win). Demonstrated by the fact that he was better than than the rest of tour (weeks at No.1) for the longest period.

Johnyjeep wrote:
So Federer is better at that then Nadal? But Nadal gets the credit. Fair enough. That makes sense. If only Federer had not played in some more tournaments or been injured a little bit more. We could have then rated him higher (even if he had won the same or even less).

Once again, it seems you miss the point of what I'm saying.
I am not saying Nadal should get credit for not being able to look after his body compared to Federer. On that aspect, it is Federer who should get the credit.
I will have to say it again, because for some reason you don't seem to comprehend it: I see Federer's ability to look after his body and avoid injury better than Nadal as one of the two main factors which explains why he has more Slams than Nadal.

Johnyjeep wrote:
And that is true. Federer has had the easier competition (despite playing against the same players - Nadal was in the draw for Federer's first major win). Demonstrated by the fact that he was better than than the rest of tour (weeks at No.1) for the longest period.

And this is the second factor which explains why Federer has more Slams.
Nadal may have been in the draw since 2003, but during the time of weaker competition Nadal was very young and far off his prime. When Nadal was young he was a mainly a clay courter, it was only after the age of 22/23 that he started to adjust better to other surfaces; meanwhile during this time Federer was at his prime and thus was in a much better position to take advantage of the weaker competition.
Of course you won't admit it publicly, but considering Nadal has to beat either Federer or Djokovic 12 out of 14 times for his Grand Slam wins; while Federer's Grand Slam finalists were the likes of Baghdatis, Gonzalez, 35yo Agassi, Phillipousis, Roddick surely it is clear that Nadal had significantly harder competition to win his slams.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:
So Federer is better at that then Nadal? But Nadal gets the credit. Fair enough. That makes sense. If only Federer had not played in some more tournaments or been injured a little bit more. We could have then rated him higher (even if he had won the same or even less).

Once again, it seems you miss the point of what I'm saying.
I am not saying Nadal should get credit for not being able to look after his body compared to Federer. On that aspect, it is Federer who should get the credit.
I will have to say it again, because for some reason you don't seem to comprehend it: I see Federer's ability to look after his body and avoid injury better than Nadal as one of the two main factors which explain why he has more Slams than Nadal.

Johnyjeep wrote:
And that is true. Federer has had the easier competition (despite playing against the same players - Nadal was in the draw for Federer's first major win). Demonstrated by the fact that he was better than than the rest of tour (weeks at No.1) for the longest period.

And this is the second factor which explains why Federer has more Slams.
Nadal may have been in the draw since 2003, but during the time of weaker competition Nadal was very young and far off his prime. When Nadal was young he was a mainly a clay courter, it was only after the age of 22/23 that he started to adjust better to other surfaces; meanwhile during this time Federer was at his prime and thus was in a much better position to take advantage of the weaker competition.
Of course you won't admit it publicly, but considering Nadal has to beat either Federer or Djokovic 12 out of 14 times for his Grand Slam wins; while Federer's Grand Slam finalists were the likes of Baghdatis, Gonzalez, 35yo Agassi, Phillipousis, Roddick surely it is clear that Nadal had significantly harder competition to win his slams.

You have, as usual, completely failed to answer (or even acknowledge) the counter points presented. And you are giving Nadal credit because you are saying the 3 slam gap between the two doesn't matter. It is accounted for by injuries or easier competition. So you have narrowed the gap some how.

I comprehend it. But it has no bearing on either's standing in the game. Players are judged by their achievements. Their honours. I have yet to hear of any player who has been honoured or acclaimed in tennis for their ability to not be injured. As I said, if only Federer had been injured a few more times (whilst winning the same amount). I guess we wouldn't be having this debate at all then would we!!

And admit what publicly? That only majors won in Nadal's "peak across all surfaces" should be counted or at least held in the same regard? It's complete nonsense. There is a finite amount of majors than can be won. If Roddick had beaten him in 3 of their finals would you have viewed Federer as a better player because he would have won less? (just because his opposition has won more).

Did you know that Gonzalez beat Nadal on the way to losing to Federer in the AO final? How does that sit with you? Nadal was a multiple slam winner at that point and ranked 2 in the world. But hang on - Federer didn't play Nadal. Therefore we shouldn't hold that in the same regard - because he played Gonzalez. And I'm not even going to mention Agassi. Because at any age - that guy was phenomenal.

It Must Be Love wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:
If only I would have played Tennis I would have beaten Nadal to shambles 6-0 6-0 6-0 on slow clay court FO, sorry to say but the "if" and "if only" is used by the people who already lost the argument.

This sort of sarcastic response spectacularly misses my point; but as you're the fourth person to make this 'clever' sort of comeback, I'll dignify it with a response.

Your point is more of a speculated bias and mine wasn't a sarcastic comment but counter speculated reply.

In my direct view if you used "if and if only" then you already lost the argument.

One of my excellent analysis was never countered by any of the Rafa die-hardies, IMBL, hope you can come with more brilliant excuse I am mean speculation like always for this as well, now don't disappoint me

hawkeye wrote:

DirectView2 wrote:

Yes Nadal on 14 slams and record holder in masters titles, but he severly lags behind Sampras ,Fed in many other departments like no. of WTF wins, year end No.1's No. of Weeks at No.1, No. of Wimbledon titles, defending year end No.1, defending GS title outside clay  etc,... and his fans to think him as GOAT is way too over rating at the moment.

Ha ha! Well Federer and Samprass "severely" lag behind Nadal in RG titles. So what? Who cares about the WTF

If you say who cares about WTF, why not add the similar saying who cares about FO and all of a sudden Rafa's legacy goes 70% down.

If one of the most successful tournament is taken out of legends or GOAT candidates they still hold a big enough CV, for instance Sampras would still have 7 Slams and 5 WTF and 286 weeks as no.1, Fed will still have  10 Slams and 6 WTFs and 302 weeks as no.1, in contrast Rafa would just have 5 slams ,0 WTFs and 141 weeks at no.1.

If you bring in Djoko to discussion now [taking AO the most successful open out] he still has 3 slams ,4 WTFs and 123 * weeks at number 1 and would easily pass Rafa's week at no.1 by the upcoming year itself.

Outside 1 tournament Djoko's CV looks more or less similar to Rafa and might even get better in the upcoming year itself.

So my direct view regarding this topic was answered in the previous comment itself.

GOAT shouldn't be based on 1 successful tournament but the greatest successful player in general.

LF, can you further my argument by bringing other GOAT candidates into picture by eliminating their most successful tournament? and lets see where Rafa stands in that list at the moment.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Beating the same player again and again is not evidence of quality is it?

Is it not ?
Surely it's much harder to beat an all time great like Federer many times in big matches, rather than just once (like Robredo has) ?

Playing the same player in big matches doesn't really give an real indication how that player performs against "all" comers.

McEnroe didn't dine out beating Borg in his pomp.

Federer beat Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Murray in their pomps in Slam finals.

Johnyjeep wrote:And you are giving Nadal credit because you are saying the 3 slam gap between the two doesn't matter. It is accounted for by injuries or easier competition. So you have narrowed the gap some how.

Yes correct, I believe the slam gap is accounted for by injuries and easier competition.

Agassi was 35 years old when he played the US Open 2005. Gonzalez beating Nadal before his prime on a surface he wasn't yet adjusted to is hardly a sign of a great. Roddick got beaten by Murray in his prime in 2006, it wasn't before 2009 when Stefanki improved his baseline game that he was even a threat to Federer. Ljubicic was number 3 in this period, and only ever reached one Grand Slam semi-final.

I'm going to have to wheel this stat again, because it demonstrates my point so well:

Between the period 2004-2008, Murray (while he was still young) amassed more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, and Safin did put together. This list includes every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic (around and above his age), as well as some other players from Federer's generation.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Playing the same player in big matches doesn't really give an real indication how that player performs against "all" comers.

True, but it's not like any player finds it easy against Nadal. Even the player who gives Nadal the biggest problems has won less than 33% of slam matches against him, Djokovic that is.
And the Head2Head against everyone added up is basically the W/L ratio, which I've spoken about before.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Federer beat Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Murray in their pomps in Slam finals.

Nadal is the only GOAT contender on that list and when did Federer ever beat him in his "pomp" in a slam final?

The last time Federer beat Nadal in a slam final was way back in 2007 when a baby Rafa who had just turned 21 took him to 5 sets at Wimbledon. A Wimbledon where the rain had played havoc with Nadal's schedule forcing him to play one match over 5 days with constant stops and starts. At the same time Federer got a walkover and as Nadal said at the time "went on his holidays" for 5 days.

Some stats:

After playing 39 slams, Nadal has won 36% of slams entered.

After playing 62 slams Federer has won 27% of slams entered.

After 39 slams, Federer had won 33% of slams entered.

So on average, Nadal for the same number of Slams entered actually won more Slams on average. More backing to my conclusion that the difference in Slam count can be accounted for by Nadal's injuries rather than actual level of tennis while playing.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:And you are giving Nadal credit because you are saying the 3 slam gap between the two doesn't matter. It is accounted for by injuries or easier competition. So you have narrowed the gap some how.

Yes correct, I believe the slam gap is accounted for by injuries and easier competition.

Agassi was 35 years old when he played the US Open 2005. Gonzalez beating Nadal before his prime on a surface he wasn't yet adjusted to is hardly a sign of a great. Roddick got beaten by Murray in his prime in 2006, it wasn't before 2009 when Stefanki improved his baseline game that he was even a threat to Federer. Ljubicic was number 3 in this period, and only ever reached one Grand Slam semi-final.

I'm going to have to wheel this stat again, because it demonstrates my point so well:

Between the period 2004-2008, Murray (while he was still young) amassed more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, and Safin did put together. This list includes every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic (around and above his age), as well as some other players from Federer's generation.

So you are closing the gap because Nadal gets injured? Brilliant. You can't even make up your mind. I've pointed out the folly of this. And how periods of absence and rest have helped Nadal have the most successful individual years of his career. I won't wheel that "stat" out again.

So what does that "stat" tell you? That Andy Murray registered 4 wins vs RF? Great. Nadal won 5 majors during this period to. What should we do with these? Scrub them because they are against easier opposition as well?

So Ljubicic is your marker of easier opposition is he? Good job there is not a chap who was recently at Number 3 in 2014 who has a 16-0 record vs Federer. I think Rafa beat him for one of his majors as well.  Talk about easy pickings.  

You view everything as snapshot. To try and show that Rafa is the best - you don't apply your thinking equally across the board. It's actually funny.

Johnyjeep wrote:So you are closing the gap because Nadal gets injured? Brilliant. You can't even make up your mind.

Changed my mind ? Where ?

I have said from the start, the slam gap is accounted for by two factors: the fact Federer avoided injury better than Nadal, and the fact Federer had easier competition.

Johnyjeep wrote:So what does that "stat" tell you? That Andy Murray registered 4 wins vs RF? Great.

No, that is not what struck out to me as interesting about the stat. It's the fact that Murray, even when he was a teenager had more wins against Federer than all of Federer's rivals who were around his age combined.

Johnyjeep wrote:Nadal won 5 majors during this period to. What should we do with these? Scrub them because they are against easier opposition as well?

He won 3 majors between 2004-2007 actually. And in all 3 of them he had to beat Roger Federer, and he was not even at his prime and under the age of 23 for all 3 too.

To not admit Nadal had harder competition than Federer to win his slams is just being in denial; 12/14 vs Fed/Djo or Baghdatis, Gonzalez, 35yo Agassi, Roddick... it's clear.

And what is remarkable is despite all of this, despite the fact that Federer had much easier competition during his prime compared to Nadal; as a percentage per slam entered Nadal has actually won more slams on average. You saw the figures; Nadal has played 39 slams and won 36% of slams entered, Federer is currently on 27%, and was on 33% when he had played 39 slams.

EDIT: Luvsports corrected me

1 slam in 05, 1 slam in 06, 1 in 07. Come on Rafa sort it out!

It Must Be Love wrote:Some stats:

After playing 39 slams, Nadal has won 36% of slams entered.

After playing 62 slams Federer has won 27% of slams entered.

After 39 slams, Federer had won 33% of slams entered.

So on average, Nadal for the same number of Slams entered actually won more Slams on average. More backing to my conclusion that the difference in Slam count can be accounted for by Nadal's injuries rather than actual level of tennis while playing.

hahaha unequivocal backing I would say (that's sarcasm by the way!). It's far to late to be pointing out the holes in this.

I would wager if we going to arbitrarily pick a snap shot in time that Borg wins the award for most slams won in a given period of time. He won 40% of the first 27 majors.

LuvSports! wrote:1 slam in 05, 1 slam in 06, 1 in 07. Come on Rafa sort it out!

Yes sorry, brain freeze alert, he won 3 slams between 2004-2007, what a bad mistake from someone who's supposed to be a Nadal fan.

It does help my point even more though, only 3 of Nadal's slams came in that period.

Johnyjeep wrote:
I would wager if we going to arbitrarily pick a snap shot in time that Borg wins the award for most slams won in a given period of time. He won 40% of the first 27 majors.

Yep... I consider Borg a tier one GOAT (like Nadal, Federer, Sampras) despite the fact he has 3 less slams than Nadal and 6 less than Federer.
Borg's statically against Nadal loses out on aggregate (Nadal has more titles and Slams), and also loses on average match (Nadal has a better W/L ratio despite playing longer).

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Federer beat Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Murray in their pomps in Slam finals.

Nadal is the only GOAT contender on that list and when did Federer ever beat him in his "pomp" in a slam final?

The last time Federer beat Nadal in a slam final was way back in 2007 when a baby Rafa who had just turned 21 took him to 5 sets at Wimbledon. A Wimbledon where the rain had played havoc with Nadal's schedule forcing him to play one match over 5 days with constant stops and starts. At the same time Federer got a walkover and as Nadal said at the time "went on his holidays" for 5 days.

Let me guess Nadals pomp. 2010?

Cor what a GOAT indeed.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Cor what a GOAT indeed.

I think Nadal's peak was from 2008-2013.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:So you are closing the gap because Nadal gets injured? Brilliant. You can't even make up your mind.

Changed my mind ? Where ?

I have said from the start, the slam gap is accounted for by two factors: the fact Federer avoided injury better than Nadal, and the fact Federer had easier competition.

Johnyjeep wrote:So what does that "stat" tell you? That Andy Murray registered 4 wins vs RF? Great.

No, that is not what struck out to me as interesting about the stat. It's the fact that Murray, even when he was a teenager had more wins against Federer than all of Federer's rivals who were around his age combined.

Johnyjeep wrote:Nadal won 5 majors during this period to. What should we do with these? Scrub them because they are against easier opposition as well?

He won 4 majors between 2004-2007 actually. And in all 4 of them he had to beat Roger Federer, and he was not even at his prime and under the age of 23 for all 4 too.

To not admit Nadal had harder competition than Federer to win his slams is just being in denial; 12/14 vs Fed/Djo or Baghdatis, Gonzalez, 35yo Agassi, Roddick... it's clear.

And what is remarkable is despite all of this, despite the fact that Federer had much easier competition during his prime compared to Nadal; as a percentage per slam entered Nadal has actually won more slams on average. You saw the figures; Nadal has played 39 slams and won 36% of slams entered, Federer is currently on 27%, and was on 33% when he had played 39 slams.

I asked why Nadal gets extra credit for Federer being better at avoiding injury? You have closed the gap because of this. By that rationale if Federer had more injuries he would have been seen as a better player. You haven't explained this anywhere.

Sorry when you said 2004 - 2008, I thought you meant 2004 - 2008. Not 2004 - 2007. OK so he won 4 of them. Again - should we scrub them? Yes he played Roger Federer. But Roger Federer can't rightly play himself can he.

And it's not denial, it's just common sense. If one players dominate like he did (and Rafa at RG) - no one else can pick up the majors. So he has to lose more to be viewed a better player (so his opposition can be viewed better players because they have won more). Players that Rafa was losing too. But they don't count because he wasn't in his prime.

Johnyjeep wrote:I asked why Nadal gets extra credit for Federer being better at avoiding injury? You have closed the gap because of this. By that rationale if Federer had more injuries he would have been seen as a better player. You haven't explained this anywhere.

No, I have never said Nadal should get extra credit because Federer is better at avoiding injuries.
And I've not closed the gap, the gap is still there.
I am saying one of the two factors which explains/ accounts for the 3 slam gap is the fact that Nadal has been worse than Federer at avoiding injuries.

Johnyjeep wrote:Not 2004 - 2007. OK so he won 4 of them. Again - should we scrub them? Yes he played Roger Federer. But Roger Federer can't rightly play himself can he.

3 actually, as Luvsports took pleasure in pointing out
Well Federer won the majority of his slams against easier competition, and when it comes to his only rival who is a GOAT candidate, his biggest rival, his record is 2-9 in Grand Slams.
But that is another story, my point was that Nadal had harder competition. Whether you like it or not, he had to beat Fed/Djo for 12 of his 14 Slams.
Even if Baghdatis/Gonzalez had managed an unlikely win against Federer I wouldn't see them at the level of competition Nadal had to face. What really points to this is the stat I showed- how Murray has a teenager was more successful than all Federer's rivals his age put together. It's not a case of Murray being better than Federer, but it shows the paucity in world class challenge Federer had to face.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Federer beat Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Murray in their pomps in Slam finals.

Nadal is the only GOAT contender on that list and when did Federer ever beat him in his "pomp" in a slam final?

The last time Federer beat Nadal in a slam final was way back in 2007 when a baby Rafa who had just turned 21 took him to 5 sets at Wimbledon. A Wimbledon where the rain had played havoc with Nadal's schedule forcing him to play one match over 5 days with constant stops and starts. At the same time Federer got a walkover and as Nadal said at the time "went on his holidays" for 5 days.

Let me guess Nadals pomp. 2010?

Cor what a GOAT indeed.

It is true that Federer didn't beat Nadal in a slam final in 2010 But he also didn't beat him in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 or 2014 either. In fact he has only ever beaten Nadal in a slam final twice. In 2007 as I mentioned and in 2006 when Nadal was barely 20 and arrived at the Wimbledon final having only played a handful of matches on grass. Meanwhile Nadal has beaten Federer in slams so many times I don't want to count.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:I asked why Nadal gets extra credit for Federer being better at avoiding injury? You have closed the gap because of this. By that rationale if Federer had more injuries he would have been seen as a better player. You haven't explained this anywhere.

No, I have never said Nadal should get extra credit because Federer is better at avoiding injuries.
And I've not closed the gap, the gap is still there.
I am saying one of the two factors which explains/ accounts for the 3 slam gap is the fact that Nadal has been worse than Federer at avoiding injuries.

Johnyjeep wrote:Not 2004 - 2007. OK so he won 4 of them. Again - should we scrub them? Yes he played Roger Federer. But Roger Federer can't rightly play himself can he.

3 actually, as Luvsports took pleasure in pointing out
Well Federer won the majority of his slams against easier competition, and when it comes to his only rival who is a GOAT candidate, his biggest rival, his record is 2-9 in Grand Slams.
But that is another story, my point was that Nadal had harder competition. Whether you like it or not, he had to beat Fed/Djo for 12 of his 14 Slams.
Even if Baghdatis/Gonzalez had managed an unlikely win against Federer I wouldn't see them at the level of competition Nadal had to face. What really points to this is the stat I showed- how Murray has a teenager was more successful than all Federer's rivals his age put together. It's not a case of Murray being better than Federer, but it shows the paucity in world class challenge Federer had to face.

Murray fans will disagree with me on this, but I don't set too much store by these wins because I feel that Murray's type of tennis wasn't around much. I feel there were a lot of players who were more talented than Murray but not many in terms of retrieval, defence and variety.
The younger generation usually learn how to beat those before them but for me its harder to do so now based on the current game and the strengths you need to be at the top.

Luvsports, as I said I'm not really using that stat to show what type of tennis Murray played, or whether he was talented or not. I'm certainly not trying to say he's even close to Federer; I just think it's an interesting stats because it shows how even a teenager had more wins against Federer than all the main challenger's Federer's age put together.

Edit: Silver, your post disappeared ! I will say that I think there is a GOAT tier, which both Nadal and Federer and a few others are a part of. Whether that tier itself is also ranked I'm not sure, to be honest it is so hard to make a specific decision as there as so many factors to consider. Also some Federer fans may get the impression that I don't rate Federer/ see him as one of the GOATs because of the points I make in this debate- but I can reassure that is absolutely not true, I really do rate Federer and consider myself lucky to have been able to watch him play live. He also really helped improve Nadal's game, and has provided some amazing entertaining matches for tennis fans to watch over the past half a decade.

Lets imagine in 20 years time Fed's twins become top players. One is sadly injury prone. However, he is also nigh on unbeatable. He only manages to play 10 slams in his career but wins all of them. He has a 20-0 record against his brother but never reaches number 1.

The other brother is also exceptional. He has a 15 year career and never misses a match through injury. He accumulates 25 slams out of the 60 he plays. He is WN1 FOR 400 weeks.

Brother B has the greater achievements but it would be hard to argue he was the better player than Brother A.

Obviously, that is taking hypotheticals to the extreme but it emphasises how it can be possible to be clearly the better player with lesser achievements. As mentioned above, Rosewall above Emerson would also be a no brainer despite the slam titles being heavily in favour of Emerson.

Federer/Nadal is more finely balanced but I would still say Nadal is the better player.

hawkeye wrote:If you remove all the "ifs" from the GOAT discussion then you are not only dismissing Nadal but Laver, Sampras, Borg... in fact almost everyone. It is a good attempt to win the GOAT debate but I doubt it will go unchallenged.

Huh?  Where did I say that we should remove all the "ifs"?