GOAT Debate

by Adam D Tue 07 Oct 2014, 8:48 am

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.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 7:59 pm

An average slam comparison for Nadal vs Federer:

Slam won/ per Slam entered Stats:
Nadal has won 36% of his slams entered, Federer has won 28%. When Federer had entered 39 slams like Nadal has currently, Federer had won 33%.

Slam matches won on average:
Nadal has won 88.2% of his slam matches, while Federer has won 86.1%.
After 39 Slams, which is the number of Slams Nadal has entered, Federer had won 86.6% of his Slam matches

by Johnyjeep Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:02 pm

A variable constant? Discuss.

To be fair IMBL, you have at least helped us all out. Instead of contradicting yourself over and over again on across 3 pages, you've managed to do it in two words here.

by Johnyjeep Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:04 pm

Save yourself IMBL. We can all go on their Wiki pages to see their records. You post ones for Nadal, and then we'll post ones for Federer.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:11 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:A variable constant? Discuss.

To be fair IMBL, you have at least helped us all out. Instead of contradicting yourself over and over again on across 3 pages, you've managed to do it in two words here.

Constant variable: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/constant-variable.html

I should to be technical call it a control variable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variable

From Wikipedia:

The term control variable has different meanings, depending on the area/place in which it is used. In an experiment, the control variable is something that is constant and unchanged in an experiment. Further, a control variable strongly influences values; it is held constant to test the relative impact of independent variables.

Did you think variables being kept constant is a contradiction in itself ? Laugh

by LuvSports! Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:16 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:An average slam comparison for Nadal vs Federer:

Slam won/ per Slam entered Stats:
Nadal has won 36% of his slams entered, Federer has won 28%. When Federer had entered 39 slams like Nadal has currently, Federer had won 33%.

Slam matches won on average:
Nadal has won 88.2% of his slam matches, while Federer has won 86.1%.
After 39 Slams, which is the number of Slams Nadal has entered, Federer had won 86.6% of his Slam matches

Feds:

Tournament/Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SR W–L Win %
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open A Q1 3R 3R 4R 4R W SF W W SF F W SF SF SF SF 4 / 15 73–11 87%
French Open A 1R 4R QF 1R 1R 3R SF F F F W QF F SF QF 4R 1 / 16 61–15 81%
Wimbledon A 1R 1R QF 1R W W W W W F W QF QF W 2R F 7 / 16 73–9 89%
US Open A Q2 3R 4R 4R 4R W W W W W F SF SF QF 4R SF 5 / 15 72–10 88%

Rafa:

Australian Open A A 3R 4R A QF SF W QF QF F A F 1 / 9 41–8 84%
French Open A A A W W W W 4R W W W W W 9 / 10 66–1 99%
Wimbledon A 3R A 2R F F W A W F 2R 1R 4R 2 / 10 39–8 83%
US Open A 2R 2R 3R QF 4R SF SF W F A W A 2 / 10 41–8 84%

Apart from the French Feds is higher in all of them. But of course your 2 points.

by Johnyjeep Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:18 pm

So yes its fixed. Very good. Just checking you understand.

So if Federers backhand was of equal quality to Nadals, who would be better? (regardless of single or double).

Oh and Nadal's stats are helped by periods of rest. Something I've shown before by the fact 2 out of 3 multiple slam winning years followed seasons where he missed parts of the tour. How's that factored in?

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:20 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:An average slam comparison for Nadal vs Federer:

Slam won/ per Slam entered Stats:
Nadal has won 36% of his slams entered, Federer has won 28%. When Federer had entered 39 slams like Nadal has currently, Federer had won 33%.

Slam matches won on average:
Nadal has won 88.2% of his slam matches, while Federer has won 86.1%.
After 39 Slams, which is the number of Slams Nadal has entered, Federer had won 86.6% of his Slam matches

Which goes to show Federer had better individual competition who played better against him on the day. Perhaps motivated more by wanting to beat the greatest player of all time? Or it shows that Rafa's enforced lay-offs actually benefitted him - in that he was able to peak at the slams more than the weary Federer. Or perhaps a more worthwhile surface break-down could be done. I'd bet it showed Rafa ahead on clay and Fed ahead on grass and both hard-court slams. But so what? It is one statistic amongst dozens or more. There is no value in trotting it out over and over as though you've found the Holy Grail.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:22 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:
So if Federers backhand was of equal quality to Nadals, who would be better? (regardless of single or double).

No, but this is not a variable that I think should be kept constant. I don't think the ability to avoid injury is particularly important when deciding who is better, but I do think shots such as backhand, forehand etc. are crucial to being a better player.

Johnyjeep wrote:
Oh and Nadal's stats are helped by periods of rest.

That is because if he doesn't rest he will get injured, so if he could look after his body and avoid injury like Federer could, he would not need to rest to recover from the injuries.

by DirectView2 Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:24 pm

So die hard Nadal fans like HE and IMBL safely either abiding by this argument or ducking from the question as they don't have an answer.

Why not Djoko considered in GOAT discussion when his CV is more or less similar or better to Nadal when just 1 tournament taken off from both their cvs?

Posted in Page 3
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. picard

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. thumbsup

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.

Its clear and safe to say Rafa as the greatest of Roland Garros but not in general, his accomplishments in general otherwise is not even half of Fed's , hence case dismissed. thumbsup

but if only IMBL ready to agree the facts. angel

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:28 pm

Fair enough Luvsports, from your breakdown we can see Federer had less fluctuations across the 4, while Nadal despite being good at the other 3 has a ridiculous French Open record which is much above the others.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:31 pm

Julius wrote:There is no value in trotting it out over and over as though you've found the Holy Grail.

I never claimed anything was the holy grail, I was simply stating the average Slam performance, and Nadal does better than Federer in it.
Doesn't necessarily mean he's a better player, what implications the stat has is down to people to decide.

by LuvSports! Wed 03 Dec 2014, 8:43 pm

I think Nadal's GOAT credentials would be strengthened if there was a more even spread amongst the slams.
Lose a few French for a couple of Aus, another wimby & US.
5,3,3,3.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 9:01 pm

In terms of surface and slams, I remember I did a calculation on what the slam stats would look like if adjusted so that there were equal number of Slams on the 3 main surfaces:

Of course this isn't numerically possible in reality, unless someone manages to to find a way of having 1 1/3 grass slams a year, but was simply interesting for statistical analysis.

And I found out that if you did this calculation, Nadal actually ended up on 16 2/3 along with Federer. So yes Nadal's spread is uneven, but the the distribution of slams overall is favoured towards hard courts.
Given the surfaces are homogenous now though I don't think there's particular significance between winning different slams, I see the skill set required for all of them pretty much the same.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 9:05 pm

Anyway, on that note, I think that is it for me and the GOAT debate for the while.

Fun debate, civil too, and I think there was some good discourse, people were frank about their opinions.

I could come back, but as it's pre-season I don't see much happening that would impact this debate for now Smile

by LuvSports! Wed 03 Dec 2014, 9:08 pm

Fair.
But how much have they changed since say when feds became no1 in 04 to when rafa got it in 08 to now.
Why hasn't he won more across all surfaces despite the homogenisation of the game?

by Matchpoint Wed 03 Dec 2014, 9:09 pm

Blue Moon wrote:
You admit it yourself, you have ZERO BASIS ("(I can't prove this") to support your hypothesis that nadal would win a few more and Fed stopped from winning a few and not get up to 17. And yet you're pushing this aggrandised bluff as though it's fact. What's the matter with you? you know that we are talking sports where the records rule. An athlete is only as good or bad as his records and nothing can effectively change 17>14, for now anyway. Why not just let the guy come back to prove his ultimate worth and answer unanswered questions re his legacy?
No, I'm afraid your argument here is based on a fallacy. Let me explain.

I think injuries are a factor which has affected Nadal to a much greater extent than Federer. I think injuries as well, as Federer's easier competition, is the reason Federer has more Slams than Nadal.
In any 'fair experiment' we should look to consider how things would look if the variables were constant. The question which comes next in terms of injuries is whether if Nadal and Federer had the same injury record (constant variable) who would have won more Slams. Any answer to this is a hypothetical, even if you think Federer would have won more slams, then you are still speculating and cannot prove your case.
A statistics which I thought was particularly interesting in this discussion was that on average for every slam entered Nadal has actually won a higher percentage than Federer. This is both for overall career, and if we take Federer at 39 slams (which is how many Nadal has currently entered).
So perhaps some will feel that looking at an average performance level per slam, which cannot be affected by withdrawal from tournaments due to injury, and they will see that Nadal is above Federer on that count.

My comments re setting records in sports is not an argument, just common sense. The fact that you fancy yourself a sports fan but purposefully unwilling to respect the records that don't support your own idol just goes to show how biased and artificial you are. And the fact that you work SO hard trying to explain and explain and keep pushing a laughable and unproven hypothesis also goes to show that your ideas don't really have a leg to stand on.
It's very simple. When something is true and good, it will sell itself. Words need to add up to gain credibility. But yours don't, just a lot of them. You can't sell what only exists in your imagination because it's nothing but a glorified bluff to lift your idol to where he doesn't belong, yet. You wish for nadal to be greater than Fed, then he has to to be good enough to produce the required and relevant records, period.

by Matchpoint Wed 03 Dec 2014, 9:22 pm

LuvSports! wrote:A question for all.
Who to you is the GOAT or is it there is no GOAT?

Nadal = HYPOTHETICAL GOAT clap

by Matchpoint Wed 03 Dec 2014, 10:26 pm

Calder106 wrote:
Blue Moon wrote:IMBL, the good news for Nadal is that time is on his side. What with stem cell and other medical treatments nadal is constantly pursuing, it's still possible for him to overtake Federer in slam count. But i think what is most significant at the end his career is that, even if he succeeds reaching, say, 20 GS BUT 85% of that won on clay, Nadal will always be considered the clay goat, not an all surface goat like Federer.
We all know that the criteria for the tennis goat is not just the number of GS won but the consistency with which these were won beating ALL the 7 players across the playing field from R1 to the Final and also across the various surfaces. Thus far nadal has proven his worth in that regard of consistency mostly on clay.

Not really wanting to be in this GOAT conversation but given the criteria you specify in the next paragraph would this not make Nadal more of a GOAT on grass (2 Wimbledon titles 3 runners-up) than Federer is on clay (1 FO title 4 runners-up). However although both are great players and these records are pretty impressive I don't think they would qualify either of them to be installed as goat's on these particular surfaces.

No other players has won more FO and W titles than nadal and Federer respectively. So Nadal came to be known the clay GOAT and Federer the grass GOAT. That's just a manner of speaking in recognition of their respective achievements. Can I ask why do you object?

by hawkeye Wed 03 Dec 2014, 10:41 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Biz3P9u94

Very Happy

by Calder106 Wed 03 Dec 2014, 11:06 pm

Blue Moon wrote:
Calder106 wrote:
Blue Moon wrote:IMBL, the good news for Nadal is that time is on his side. What with stem cell and other medical treatments nadal is constantly pursuing, it's still possible for him to overtake Federer in slam count. But i think what is most significant at the end his career is that, even if he succeeds reaching, say, 20 GS BUT 85% of that won on clay, Nadal will always be considered the clay goat, not an all surface goat like Federer.
We all know that the criteria for the tennis goat is not just the number of GS won but the consistency with which these were won beating ALL the 7 players across the playing field from R1 to the Final and also across the various surfaces. Thus far nadal has proven his worth in that regard of consistency mostly on clay.

Not really wanting to be in this GOAT conversation but given the criteria you specify in the next paragraph would this not make Nadal more of a GOAT on grass (2 Wimbledon titles 3 runners-up) than Federer is on clay (1 FO title 4 runners-up). However although both are great players and these records are pretty impressive I don't think they would qualify either of them to be installed as goat's on these particular surfaces.

No other players has won more FO and W titles than nadal and Federer respectively. So Nadal came to be known the clay GOAT and Federer the grass GOAT. That's just a manner of speaking in recognition of their respective achievements. Can I ask why do you object?

Think you missed my point. You stated that Nadal was onlly a GOAT on clay whereas Federer was an all surface GOAT and your measurement for this was GS success. I was pointing out that Nadal had won more slams on grass than Federer on clay. However I still would not call Nadal a GOAT on grass and therefore would not call Federer a GOAT on clay.

by summerblues Wed 03 Dec 2014, 11:41 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Summerblues- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

???

by Matchpoint Thu 04 Dec 2014, 9:21 am

Calder106 wrote:
Blue Moon wrote:
Calder106 wrote:
Blue Moon wrote:IMBL, the good news for Nadal is that time is on his side. What with stem cell and other medical treatments nadal is constantly pursuing, it's still possible for him to overtake Federer in slam count. But i think what is most significant at the end his career is that, even if he succeeds reaching, say, 20 GS BUT 85% of that won on clay, Nadal will always be considered the clay goat, not an all surface goat like Federer.
We all know that the criteria for the tennis goat is not just the number of GS won but the consistency with which these were won beating ALL the 7 players across the playing field from R1 to the Final and also across the various surfaces. Thus far nadal has proven his worth in that regard of consistency mostly on clay.

Not really wanting to be in this GOAT conversation but given the criteria you specify in the next paragraph would this not make Nadal more of a GOAT on grass (2 Wimbledon titles 3 runners-up) than Federer is on clay (1 FO title 4 runners-up). However although both are great players and these records are pretty impressive I don't think they would qualify either of them to be installed as goat's on these particular surfaces.

No other players has won more FO and W titles than nadal and Federer respectively. So Nadal came to be known the clay GOAT and Federer the grass GOAT. That's just a manner of speaking in recognition of their respective achievements. Can I ask why do you object?

Think you missed my point. You stated that Nadal was onlly a GOAT on clay whereas Federer was an all surface GOAT and your measurement for this was GS success. I was pointing out that Nadal had won more slams on grass than Federer on clay. However I still would not call Nadal a GOAT on grass and therefore would not call Federer a GOAT on clay.

I never called Nadal a GOAT on grass. He obviously doesn't even come close, as Sampras, Federer and Borg won way more and consecutively, while nadal failed to defend both his W titles.
I never called Fed a GOAT on clay either. He obviously isn't.

However, it's not a secret that clay is/was not considered as prestigious as grass historically. That's why Sampras with 7 W titles is still way up there with Fed, Laver, Borg as the "4 untouchables" even when he never won RG. And Federer is still regarded the all surface GOAT with his 7 Ws supported further and evenly by his USO and AO titles + 1 RG. But many would not consider nadal greater than Borg because the Spaniard's grass record doesn't measure up.
There is a reason why the Williams sisters made winning W their priority in their prime. I think I understand your objection now.

by Born Slippy Thu 04 Dec 2014, 4:24 pm

I'm slightly bemused by the suggestion that winning Wimbledon is more valuable than the French Open. Sampras is part of the GOAT debate primarily because he won 14 slams not 7 wimbledons. If Sampras had won 7 French Opens instead he would still be in the same category (albeit either way he would probably be at number 5 on my list of Open era GOATs).

by DirectView2 Thu 04 Dec 2014, 5:59 pm

All I can see people have ducked my questions safely Very Happy

by Born Slippy Thu 04 Dec 2014, 6:12 pm

Isn't the answer that Djokovic having losing records to the two other all-time greats he has faced kind of makes it tricky to include him in a GOAT discussion?

A better question would surely be whether he should rank above Agassi?

by DirectView2 Thu 04 Dec 2014, 7:25 pm

Born Slippy wrote:Isn't the answer that Djokovic having losing records to the two other all-time greats he has faced kind of makes it tricky to include him in a GOAT discussion?

A better question would surely be whether he should rank above Agassi?

Sorry if I sound rude BS, but I don't buy h2h nonsense either, Nadal might end his career with a negative h2h vs coric or Nick, so why compare his h2h just with Fed? and similarly Djoko's with the 2.

Djoko's stats are staggering and lot of stats are very close to Rafa or better than Rafa, so if Rafa is included in GOAT debate Djoko should be included in it as well.

Lets look Djoko and Rafa's best stats

.GS - 7/14*
.World No.1 - 123/141* [ but in this stats Djoko surely will tie in 2015 start, as he will remain No.1 till march and thats 17/18 weeks at the minimum].
.Year END No.1 - 3/3 [Tied]
.Consecutive Weeks at No.1 - 53/56* [Again Djoko will take a lead sooner by the start of 2015]
.WTF - *4/0
Masters - 20/27*

Exactly 5 years back Rafa was trailing Fed in almost every stat like this yet he was added in the GOAT debate for that long, so it would be unfair to leave out Djoko now.

At the moment , Rafa leads 4/6 categories and 1 tied,

by Matchpoint Thu 04 Dec 2014, 9:49 pm

Born Slippy wrote:I'm slightly bemused by the suggestion that winning Wimbledon is more valuable than the French Open. Sampras is part of the GOAT debate primarily because he won 14 slams not 7 wimbledons. If Sampras had won 7 French Opens instead he would still be in the same category (albeit either way he would probably be at number 5 on my list of Open era GOATs).

I'm a little bemused myself for ignoring the obvious, not just Sampras' 14 slams but also his other key GOAT-worthy records that put him in the first tier.

So allow me to add to and clarify your second point: If Sampras had won 7 FOs instead (with no W title) he would have a strong case to be considered in the same ("untouchable") category ONLY if he STILL holds his 2 other outstanding records of 286 weeks at #1 (2nd longest ever) and 6 consecutive year-end #1 (stand alone). Otherwise, hypothetically speaking, if it's "only" the 14 slams we're looking at with half of which on clay, it looks to me like he would be in a similar position as nadal today, both not in the same league as Federer and Laver, records-wise.

by Born Slippy Thu 04 Dec 2014, 10:18 pm

Would he need those other achievements with 7 Wimbledons though?

by kwinigolfer Thu 04 Dec 2014, 10:23 pm

What do you guys think of Tony Nadal's comment that Federer and Laver have to be considered the greatest, regretfully so he says, Rafa not quite there. Presumably the word "yet" is deliberately unspoken.

There are some interesting comments above, but any assertion that Laver didn't play in the open era is utterly moronic - he won the Grand Slam in both eras, with a six-year gap while he was filling his boots on the pro circuit.

Meanwhile, records are misleading. Emerson was never in the same class as Laver - or Rosewall for that matter. "Consistency" in a diluted field perhaps, but what did the competition look like?

I'd say Tony Nadal is spot on, perhaps Sampras also a shade behind the top two.

by temporary21 Fri 05 Dec 2014, 1:39 am

To establish why some h2h's might be more useful to compare than others you need to know in quite a bit if detail sample sizes and controlling for variables. It's hard to explain why a fed Nadal h2h may hold more weight than say a Murray Nadal one

by summerblues Fri 05 Dec 2014, 3:47 am

temporary21 wrote:To establish why some h2h's might be more useful to compare than others you need to know in quite a bit if detail sample sizes and controlling for variables. It's hard to explain why a fed Nadal h2h may hold more weight than say a Murray Nadal one

Yes, one such variable that needs to be controlled for is the match-up - with H2H you need to find a way to decide how much of it is coming from the pure quality difference and how much may be a match-up impact. I am inclined to think that a bulk - in fact more than a bulk - of the Fed Rafa H2H is due to the match-up. Now I am a Fed fan, so maybe I am biased, but at least conceptually the match-up needs to be taken into account.

by temporary21 Fri 05 Dec 2014, 3:46 pm

True, another variable is the stage of the tourny they play. Match up or no match up, Feds record in slams against Rafa is just not very good by any standard. Theyve also played soo many times, and on all the surfaces that it cant be called an anomalous result. Its also telling that the same tactical disadvantage Fed has against him has always worked on him. Frankly, he shouldnt be losing this much to a guy whos serving tactic spins it to his bh 80% of the time.

Feds biggest regret, if he has any, may well be not trying to adapt nearly enough to what Nadal uses to beat him.

He does have a match up disadvantage, but Nadals been able to show an ability to overcome Feds strengths on almost every surface, something Federer really hasnt done. I suppose I hold the match up as less significant, mostly because the tactic is obvious, and despite that Rogers never tried hard enough to change it, run round more, try heavy slice to the bh etc.

by temporary21 Fri 05 Dec 2014, 4:04 pm

Nadals tactical advantage is often viewed negatively towards him. However he is basically sing the same tactic against very arguably the most complete player of them all, every time, and beating him with it most of the time. A tactic that, noone else seems to be able to use on Fed. That should really suggest that Nadal is a heck of a player to be able to do that. Enough to say hes "better"? Dunno about that... it does enough to put some doubt in my mind about it though.

One big factor is the surface as well. They play more on clay, where Nadal has the edge of course. Problem for me is Feds record on clay is really bad agaisnt Nadal. Feds no mug on the red stuff, like Pete was, but his record borders on terrible. One could make an argument (not necessarily me) that that shows more than just a surface disadvantage.

In any case thats my thoughts on why maybe the GOAT isnt as clear cut in Rogers lap as others see it. Theyve both done enough damage against each other to cast, for me reasonable doubt on both their chances.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 05 Dec 2014, 4:09 pm

Clay 13 - 2
Grass 1 - 2
Indoor Hard 1 - 4
Outdoor Hard 8 -2

It seems as though on 2 surfaces out of 4 Federer has done quite well. Those are the 2 surfaces they meet on least often.

Does anyone want to go into the 'what ifs'? That's rhetorical by the way.

by temporary21 Fri 05 Dec 2014, 4:13 pm

Well this IS the sticky to discuss what ifs after all...

Yeah the 8-2 outdoor hardcourt disadvantage record is very poor to me. Thats the surface people said Rafa couldnt play on, and a surface that favours Roger in theory

by temporary21 Fri 05 Dec 2014, 4:26 pm

Ok then question for everyone. Heres a what if for Roger this time.

What If Roger had started with a 2 handed backhand? Would that have helped beat Nadal and subsequently pick up more slams with Rafa in the Final. Or would it detract too much from the advantages that the single hander gives him?

by Matchpoint Fri 05 Dec 2014, 4:31 pm

Born Slippy wrote:Would he need those other achievements with 7 Wimbledons though?

Yes, absolutely, not to mention his 5 WTFs. Wink

by Silver Fri 05 Dec 2014, 8:59 pm

temporary21 wrote:Nadals tactical advantage is often viewed negatively towards him. However he is basically sing the same tactic against very arguably the most complete player of them all, every time, and beating him with it most of the time. A tactic that, noone else seems to be able to use on Fed. That should really suggest that Nadal is a heck of a player to be able to do that. Enough to say hes "better"? Dunno about that... it does enough to put some doubt in my mind about it though.

One big factor is the surface as well. They play more on clay, where Nadal has the edge of course. Problem for me is Feds record on clay is really bad agaisnt Nadal. Feds no mug on the red stuff, like Pete was, but his record borders on terrible. One could make an argument (not necessarily me) that that shows more than just a surface disadvantage.

In any case thats my thoughts on why maybe the GOAT isnt as clear cut in Rogers lap as others see it. Theyve both done enough damage against each other to cast, for me reasonable doubt on both their chances.

His record against Nadal is atrocious on clay. But despite that, he's probably a top ten ATG on the surface when looking purely at the stats. Interesting, isn't it?

And nobody else can use that tactic on Federer because nobody else can generate the kind of topspin that Nadal can, obviously. His record against SHBH players is outrageous (Fed accounts for ~50% of his losses).

Edit: Here ya go Falzy! I made this topic at the beginning of the year, so the stats will be slightly off but still interesting reading.

Cliffnotes version:

Combined record vs SHBH: 122 - 19 (64 - 2 on clay)
Combined record sans Federer: 100 - 9 (51 - 0)

Federer's record against his main rival is poor regardless of any window dressing. But this helps soften the glare slightly, I think.

by hawkeye Fri 05 Dec 2014, 11:22 pm

This is interesting

Federer has 17 slams. This is who he beat in the finals and their ranking at the time

W 2003 bt Philippousis (48)

AO 2004 bt Safin (86)

W 2004 bt Roddick (2)

US 2004 bt Hewitt (5)

W 2005 bt Roddick (4)

US 2005 bt Agassi (7)

AO 2005 bt Bagdahtis (54)

W 2006 bt Nadal (2)

US 2006 bt Roddick (10)

AO 2007 bt Gonzaliz (9)

W 2007 bt Nadal (2)

US 2007 bt Djokovic (3)

US 2008 bt Murray (6)

FO 2009 bt Soderling (25)

W 2009 bt Roddick (6)

AO 2010 bt Murray (4)

W 2012 bt Murray (4)

Nadal has 14 slams. This is who he beat in the finals and their ranking at the time.

FO 2005 bt Pueta (37)

FO 2006 bt Federer (1)

FO 2007 bt Federer (1)

FO 2008 bt Federer (1)

W 2008 bt Federer (1)

AO 2009 bt Federer (2)

FO 2010 bt Soderling (7)

W 2010 bt Berdych (10)

US 2010 bt Djokovic (3)

FO 2011 bt Federer (3)

FO 2012 bt Djokovic (1)

FO 2013 bt Djokovic (1)

US 2013 bt Djokovic (2)

FO 2014 bt Djokovic (2)

by Guest Fri 05 Dec 2014, 11:45 pm

What's interesting is that Federer has beaten 5 different Slam winners at the time and Nadal only 2. chin

by summerblues Sat 06 Dec 2014, 1:09 am

temporary21 wrote:What If Roger had started with a 2 handed backhand? Would that have helped beat Nadal and subsequently pick up more slams with Rafa in the Final. Or would it detract too much from the advantages that the single hander gives him?

I think everything else being equal, it would definitely help against Nadal, and under current conditions it would - on its own - not have necessarily detracted much from success against other players, could have even helped there. However, it might have had other implications - with a DHBH Fed might have developed his overall game differently and who knows where that would have led.

by summerblues Sat 06 Dec 2014, 1:32 am

temporary21 wrote:Match up or no match up, Feds record in slams against Rafa is just not very good by any standard. Theyve also played soo many times, and on all the surfaces that it cant be called an anomalous result.

Certainly agree it is not an anomalous result. But I see the implications very differently from most. To me, the lopsided H2H is an argument against Rafa and not against Roger - and the more lopsided the more so.

The way I see it, Rafa has a match-up advantage. If two players are about equally good but one has a match-up advantage, then that player would be expected to win more slams than the other one.

Or, in other words, the problem with the argument "Fed has more slams but Rafa has better H2H" is that Rafa's better H2H is already built into his slam record - and in fact the match-up advantage is also built into it, and to that extent their slam counts are already biased in Rafa's favor.

Now, I understand that this is not the kind of argument that everyone finds appealing and if you were a normal person rather than someone with stats background I don't think I would bother bringing it up. I think for most people it is mostly the straight-up records that count, and favorable H2Hs are desirable, and that is fair enough.

by hawkeye Sat 06 Dec 2014, 8:10 am

summerblues wrote:
Certainly agree it is not an anomalous result. But I see the implications very differently from most. To me, the lopsided H2H is an argument against Rafa and not against Roger - and the more lopsided the more so.

The way I see it, Rafa has a match-up advantage. If two players are about equally good but one has a match-up advantage, then that player would be expected to win more slams than the other one.

Or, in other words, the problem with the argument "Fed has more slams but Rafa has better H2H" is that Rafa's better H2H is already built into his slam record - and in fact the match-up advantage is also built into it, and to that extent their slam counts are already biased in Rafa's favor.

Now, I understand that this is not the kind of argument that everyone finds appealing and if you were a normal person rather than someone with stats background I don't think I would bother bringing it up. I think for most people it is mostly the straight-up records that count, and favorable H2Hs are desirable, and that is fair enough.

Federer is a great player

by greengoblin Sun 07 Dec 2014, 5:58 am

How can Nadal be considered the goat when he can only win on slow surfaces? It is obvious that speeding up of courts would make it easier for fed to beat nadull but instead the whole tour is played on slow surfaces for the last 15 years. Its like if all slams had been played on grass in the 90's and then declaring Sampras the irrefutable goat. Federer is way more talented and if the whole tour was not played on slow courts the h2h would be different

by hawkeye Sun 07 Dec 2014, 9:03 am

^ Why does Rafa always get his own way GOAT Debate - Page 6 3181402168

I wouldn't be surprised if next year they dug up the grass at Wimbledon and replaced it with clay GOAT Debate - Page 6 3513163098

by Guest Sun 07 Dec 2014, 9:27 am

Newsflash.......Federer won his Slams on slow surfaces!!

That's the white elephant out of the room!

by LuvSports! Sun 07 Dec 2014, 9:43 am

There has been a slow down though LK.
There was a clip that showed how much faster wimby 03 was compared to wimby 08 and I think Aus got slower after 07 with the change to plexicushion.
Medium paced maybe, not sure it was all slow.

by Guest Sun 07 Dec 2014, 9:56 am

LS Wimbledon was slown down massively in 2002.

Medium is being over generous IMO.

This whole belief that Federer would spank Nadal on 90's grass is grossly overstated.

Federer by and large was the best baseliner until 2008 when the field caught up hence the move to an all court game.

by hawkeye Sun 07 Dec 2014, 10:06 am

Tennis was dying a death in the 90's because the speed of the courts allowed one trick serve bots to reduce the game to a single shot. I only took notice when Federer came along because he could do more than serve. Same with Nadal. I've always thought the differences in their games are exaggerated. Federer has the second best topspin dictating forehand in the game. And that's the most important shot isn't it.

If the courts had been made super fast maybe Karlovic would be GOAT?

by Guest Sun 07 Dec 2014, 10:11 am

Sampras was a one trick bot?

picard

I guess ignorance is bliss.

by Sponsored content