Federer's blessed curse

Nadal now leads Federer 17-8, the question being asked is 'how can Federer be the greatest of all time when he can't even dominate his closest rival in his own time?" This is a subject that has got me thinking for some time.

McEnroe vs Borg was regarded the greatest rivalry of all time. Their head to head stood at 7-7 with McEnroe leading 3-1 in majors. However who is considered the greater player? Borg. Of Nadal's 17 wins a staggering 12 have come on clay, McEnroe and Borg never played on clay. What would their head to head look like had that been case? It wouldn't be 7-7 that is for sure. Borg like Federer was almost punished for being a complete player. McEnroe was not as adept on clay to reach consistant French Open finals just like Nadal was not good enough to reach consistant US Open and Australian Open finals during Federers 2003-07 dominance. Borg consistantly reached US Open finals before falling to a great hard court player in McEnroe, however the 'favour' was never returned at Roland Garros.

I think it could be argued similarly in the Sampras Agassi rivalry. Sampras lead Agassi 6-3 in Majors 20-14 overall. However if you break it down, Sampras wins were at the US Open (4) and Wimbledon (2) where Sampras won 12 of his 14 slams. Agassi the Aus Open (2) and at the French Open (1) where he won 5 of his 8 slams. What would the head to head in majors look like if Agassi and Sampras only met once at the US Open and 4 times at the French Open? However it was Agassi's capability on all surfaces demonstrated in his career grand slam that actually benefited Sampras. Sampras was peerless on grass no question and in my mind is the greatest grass court player of all time. But Sampras benefited from Agassi's all court game like Nadal and McEnroe, when their rivals skills spilled over onto their patch. The irony is Federer, Borg and Agassi could have been weaker players and come off better in the head to head with their rivals.

People mention Andy Murray's winning record over Federer 8-6. All 14 matches have been on a hard court, if Federer and Nadal just played on hard 14 times what would the head to head be? Nadal has now become capable on all surfaces, but I think we were teased slightly with their rivalry. Having two fantastic players half an era apart. We will never see the Federer of 03-07 take on the Nadal of now at Flushing Meadows or Wimbledon. Federer's era was Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Safin and Ferrero, where are they now? Either seriously on the decline or gone all together. Federer on the other hand is still going toe to toe with the next generation and holding his own. His brilliance is keeping him around at the top a lot longer than most. This incredible talent is allowing him to contend in more than one era but ironically this talent could affect his head to head with all these future greats as the younger men begin to chip away at him and affect his argument in the all time stakes.

Well, I agree that Roger is the most complete player we have seen and probably the greatest player of the modern era depending on how Nadal's career finishes out. Plus, Borg left in his youth when to a certain extent Mac surpassed him. He dominated his head to head with connors and his contemporaries. We have to take into consideration Roger's success rate against other players. Against Nadal, Murray, and Djoko Roger had the benefit of being in his peak when these players were teenagers. He beat Andy the first few times they played, the same thing with Novak. So if Roger gets the benefit of playing these players as teenagers and racking up wins, then should we not count or take into consideration the wins of these players now that Roger is a year past his best. For example, take Novak, Federer beat Novak the first 5 times they played, long before Novak was the player he was today. But Nadal is whole other ball of wax, he had a successful head to head against Roger from day one. And Nadal's record against Fed in non-CLAY grandslams is 2-2. So it isn't just that he is racking up wins on a clay court against Fed.

It's an interesting area to consider, although I would note that none of the GOAT contenders are without flaws in their records (e.g. Sampras's poor record at RG, Borg's failure in New York).

In defence of Federer's record, over the 5 years from 2005 to 2010, Fed won 10 slam titles to Nadal's 8, and Federer was #1 ranked for the majority of the time. Federer's record against the rest (excluding Nadal) was exceptional for all that time. There is a bit of truth in the argument that the H2H is skewed by the fact that many of the meetings have been on clay - Federer being good enough to reach a lot of finals on his least effective surface, while Nadal was not until recently all that effective on hard courts and so would lose to lower ranked players before the final in which he would have met with Federer. However, you also have to take into account the styles of play and the was Federer's (relatively) weaker high backhand plays to the strength of Nadal's heavy topspin and high bouncing forehand, and the effect this has on the h2h.

As someone wrote the other day, if you wanted to develop a style to negate Federer, you'd create Nadal or something very similar. It's a conundrum that Federer, for all his talent, has rarely been able to unlock.

dummy half, i agree Nadal's style is a tough matchup for Federer. But in my mind lets say Roger stays at 16 slams and Nadal gets to 14 or 15 slams, at that point in my mind you could make a very cogent argument that Nadal based on other factors like h2h record, and master's level records could be a better goat candidate than Fed. Plus the first time Nadal beat fed he beat him at 17 years old in miami on a hardcourt. Its not like Nadal struggles against Federer on other surfaces.

Federer's ultimate blessed curse, IMO, is Peter Carter.
He lost Carter (his one true confidante and coach) at a crucial time in his pro-career development (not early early development). When I say lost, I mean not only in Peter's tragic death in 2002 but also when Carter decided he couldnt travel anymore with Federer. This had a profound effect on him and I do believe it led to Roger not winning slams between 2001-early 2003 when given his talent you might have expected him win 2-3. Had Carter been around (ie. he was a blessing), I think Federer might have got to near 20 slams already. He never really gelled with Lundgren on a coaching level, they just mainly played computer games and were more friends than anything else, so I think that set him back also. Only when he moved beyond Lundgren did his career really take off - so you can argue he lost 3-5 years slam-potential in the early years (i.e. after 2001) of his pro-career due to the coaching situation. I think this went on to make him wary of coaches and to trust his own instincts more. Its all supposition of course, but his early playing years (18-22yo) are quite interesting.

Re: Nadal, Federer, surely we just have to see where they are at the end of their careers. Federer may yet add to his tally given the form he showed at FO. And Nadal's form may continue to dip. Plus the stregnth of the tour is rapidly increasing year on year - Murray, Nole and Delpo are all genuine slam contenders, and we have many other dangerous players who can win against the top players, plus players for the future such as Raonic who will only get better IMO and be a top 5 player within 18 months - expecting him to surge in 2012.

Excellent post lydian, can't say I disagree with much in there. We have to see how federer and Nadal finish up there careers because with 10 grandslams at this stage of his career, Nadal is in the conversation. Only Pete, Emerson, Laver, Borg, and Federer have more slams and that is very elite company. But I do feel like things are going to get more difficult for Nadal. As you mentioned other young guns have stepped up and have gotten stronger and more well rounded. Plus with his history of leg problems I don't see him as being around till his early 30s and still be playing great. If Nadal wants to get to the Fed range in terms of slams I think he pretty much has to average 2 slams a year for the next three years and hope that Fed doesn't add to his tally.

Thanks, agree socal...I think Nadal has until the end of 2013/early 2014 (when he'll be turning 28) to have done most of his 'business'.

I do suspect that Nadal will be happy with his lot whatever though...he's pretty grounded and his place in the legends is already assured, and that's all he ever wanted really. I dont think he's ever generally thought about being the 'best' of all time, and I he doesnt see himself in that conversation. I susepct if he can win another French will undoubtedly makes him clay GOAT then he'll be a very happy man. And who wouldnt be happy with 10-12 slams anyway...? Ask Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Lendl, Mac, Connors.....

It depends how spread out Rafa's titles are at the end of his career for him to come into GOAT contention. Many people overlook at the fact that 6 of his 10 GS are on clay and likewise 15 (I think or 14) out of his 19 Masters series are on clay too. If at the end of his career, say he has 17 GS titles with 10 or so on clay then I think he'll definately be in the GOAT conversations but not the clear cut GOAT. However I think he'll not win another GS on hardcourt so he really needs to take his chances at Wimbledone and the French each year. It's amazing how he's got 6 FO titles already at 25!

To be honest I AM AWESOME I dont think ANY player has a clear cut case for GOAT. Not when Laver couldnt compete for slams between 63-68 and yet won Grand Slams in 62 and 69 when he could - imagine the damage he would have continued to wreak therefore between 63-68. Probably would have had 20+ slams.
Also, Borg never went to AO due to its timing and the fact he never won USO and yet look how many Wimbledons he won. And then times change too. I've said before on 606, IMO until a guy comes along and creates real clear water between himself and all those behind by winning say 20+ slams, Grand Slams in same season, and 3-4 wins on each surface we'll never have a truly clear GOAT. Just a collection of true legends of the game we should sit back and admire. This isnt anti-Federer, its anti-GOAT with what we currently and looking back...plus how the game has changed making comparisons too difficult.

lydian wrote:To be honest I AM AWESOME I dont think ANY player has a clear cut case for GOAT. Not when Laver couldnt compete for slams between 63-68 and yet won Grand Slams in 62 and 69 when he could - imagine the damage he would have continued to wreak therefore between 63-68. Probably would have had 20+ slams.
Also, Borg never went to AO due to its timing and the fact he never won USO and yet look how many Wimbledons he won. And then times change too. I've said before on 606, IMO until a guy comes along and creates real clear water between himself and all those behind by winning say 20+ slams, Grand Slams in same season, and 3-4 wins on each surface we'll never have a truly clear GOAT. Just a collection of true legends of the game we should sit back and admire. This isnt anti-Federer, its anti-GOAT with what we currently and looking back...plus how the game has changed making comparisons too difficult.

Yep I absolutely agree with you here. Times have changed since the Borgs and the Mcenroes. Who knows how much more the older guys could have won or won less with the new technology and vice vera with the current crop. I think no matter what we should as spectators just sit back and enjoy the tennis.

Agreed

This actually is a great thread which gets to the heart of why the head to head can be misleading, especially in the case of not just Federer but also others like Borg. If you strip out the clay, I think Federer has a slight advantage of 1, correct me if I'm wrong but is it 4 - 4 on harcourts and 2 - 1 on grass?

You're quite right lydian, if Borg has gone to the Aussie Open and Laver had been allowed to compete during his peak years, they both would have won more grand slams, in Laver's case, far more.

As other posters have pointed out, we won't be able to make a fair assessment of Federer & Nadal until they retire. I think for Federer, if he wants to be the leading contender for GOAT, he would need another 4 grand slams and finish with 20, an extra Aussie Open and three more @ Wimbledon and the US Open would look pretty convincing.

Although it is hard to say, I think even Nadal would find it hard to secure 20 grand slams without most of them coming @ RG. Do other posters think that Nadal would reach 4/5 slams a piece at the Aussie & US Opens? He could, but I still think that as the season goes on, Nadal typically struggles more than Federer does, hence his poorer performances post Wimbledon and this would affect how many US Opens he could potentially win, thus meaning he'd need to win even more slams at the other 3.

Fed held 3 slams in 2004, 06 and 07. Rafa has done it once so far.

Fed held 2 slams in 2005, 09.

Someone will have to get close to such records as well. Having said that, statistics in isolation will lead to anomalies which will skew the 'greatness' factor.

As pointed out, Laver's case across the Am/Pro divide is another factor to consider.

I don't buy Laver as goat, not saying he isn't amazing, probably the most dominant guy we have seen ever. But his first grandslam as an amateur occurred when all the best guys were pro. The following year when he turned pro the likes of Rosewall beat up on him a bit till he got his legs under him. The fact is this back then you didn't need to win 7 matches to take home a grandslam. There was hardly any money in the game, it was still a country club affair. The game has so much more money involved, is so much more physically demanding and there is so much more depth of competition. Laver was like five foot 8 I can hardly imagine him dominating today's tour. That being said as we have mentioned many times before you can only win with the technology, conditions, and competition you are faced with. In that regards laver was possibly the most successful or most dominant champion the sport has had. But does anyone actually think Laver even with modern technology could beat Pete Sampras or Roger Federer on a consistent basis. I think we really have to measure modern champions vs. other modern champions (mid 80s till the present)

I would put Laver up there. His head to head record with Rosewall is 76-61!
Staggering!

SoCal... just watch this video and see what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCsIEx7ykDY

And this is Pancho Gonzales...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTR8z5kjWc

That is some great footage laverfan

Laver's record is remarkable, but it is almost impossible to put into the context of the modern game - the slam in 62 was definitely an easier proposition than in the Open era, because so many of the best players were in the pro ranks. I don't know much about the transition to the Open era in 69 - did all the top pros suddenly restart entering the Slams, or was there a bit of lag because of other playing commitments at the same time?

If both retired tomorrow, I would put Federer's legacy in the game as more than Nadal's. However, as Socal and Lydian mention, if we get to the position where Rafa has another 3 or 4 slams (especially away from the clay) and is only one or two behind Fed's record, then the h2h and the performance in Masters etc will come into play in determining who was THE great of this era.

Sorry, Laver fan internet connection is cruddy where I am right now, very hard if not impossible to download this stuff. I don't doubt he was amazing, but you have to admit money brings competition and there is a lot more money in the game today.

What I love about those old footages is the sublime volleying skills...some parts of the game move forward, some backward...

The GOAT argument is impossible as we know because we cant compare. Laver didnt need to be 6'3 back then but needed different skills such as speed, soft hands, volleying skills, etc. However, 3 of the slams were played on grass and the speed of the game back then didnt create such as great a speed gap between winning at SW19 and RG. I think what Agassi did is amazing, he was the last guy to win SW19 as it was and RG and it was during the 90s when the speed of the game was still very high, and of course he had to face guys like Goran on lightening quick grass. If anyone saw him play Mark Woodforde at the Vienna Indoors Champs in 1995 where he won 6-0, 6-0 you knew you witnessed unbelieveable god given talent at returning and striking the ball. Woodforde was a fast lefty server and it was a quick indoor court and Andre annihilated him, Woodforde was just laughing towards the end. So many great players down the years guys, we always think the latest are the greatest....

But lydian doesn't the game pretty much move forwards all the time, I mean are we so wrong to thing that the latest is the greatest. I don't know as great as laver and the old timers were, I remember cliff drysdale tell a story on an Espn broadcast in the states. I think it was 1972, he reached the semis of wimbeldon and his prize money, (after the open era) was a gift certificate for a pair of tennis shorts. Big money hasn't come into the sport until the late 70s. And isn't logical to assume that more great athletes will be drawn into competing as the financial stakes get bigger. In the past great players may simply have left the sport before reaching their potential because they could do better financially by going to college or working in the family business.

We also didn't have the spaceage academies turning out finely tuned juniors by large numbers, we didn't have the globalization of talent as great tennis stars came from a handful of tennis clubs in 4 or 5 countries. For me the modern era starts in about 83 and 84, and I feel like you can compare players from back then to today's players but can you compare laver to federer or nadal. I don't think you can, and if we moved a 23 year old laver in time machine and let him practice with modern racquets and modern coaching and strings I still think he would get bombed by the modern professional.

Yes it does socal. But not always for the better. Dont get me wrong I love watching and following tennis and todays sport is illuminated by some great rivalries but I fear the sport itself is moving backwards. Why? Becasue the game is being allowed to change too much as they keep slowing courts down to encourage ralleys. Having some slow courts on tour is fine, but we need variety - courts that reward different styles of attack and defense. We dont want tennis players all with the same style of play in 10 years time.

I'm not trying to compare Laver todays players...that would be ridiculous. Laver is smaller even than Ferrer. He wouldnt stand a chance, we all know that. But relative to their time, I feel the current brand of tennis is not as entertaining as a whole except for the Nadal-Federer rivalry which has been a boon for the sport.

Anyway, this is off topic now...maybe another one of Federer's curses is that they slowed the game down from 2001 onewards by changing a succession of surfaces. As Federer is generally a better faster court player, he would have perhaps benefitted even from courts being generally faster than they now are. That said he hasnt done badly of course!

I agree money in the sport attracts athletes but there is also huge money in the other 'big' sports, and as many of them are team based its arguably easier to make a good living at them than at tennis where only a very small number of people make good money and have a good living - perhaps the top 100? The top 100 footballers in the UK wouldnt fill 7-8 teams from the top league. Players even in the "3rd" division earn good money. So, its arguable where good athletes go - plus access to tennis is probably more difficult than other sports due to club structures, pricing, coaching needs, etc.

You are right about the team sports earning better money. The 100 best tennis player is struggling to pay his bills while the 100th best footballer is driving a ferrari. I don't know about slowing down the courts across the board. Wimbeldon yes, i know they slowed down and thank god for it. In the 90s wimbeldon was damn near unwatchable with the one and two shot rallies. Look at the AO, at one time it was on grass, then on clay for a couple of years and it then it went from rebound ace a slow hardcourt to plexicushion also a slow hard court. The french open this year due to the new balls was playing very quick. And everyone talks about how miami is so slow but didn't Andy Roddick win the tournament last year? Most of the tournaments I think for the most part stay pretty consistent. I think what makes the game appear slower is that players are faster and are playing a little further back behind the baseline than in the past. Plus the new strings and racquets seem to help the passing shots and the returning ability more than the serve and the volley.

dummy_half wrote:Laver's record is remarkable, but it is almost impossible to put into the context of the modern game - the slam in 62 was definitely an easier proposition than in the Open era, because so many of the best players were in the pro ranks. I don't know much about the transition to the Open era in 69 - did all the top pros suddenly restart entering the Slams, or was there a bit of lag because of other playing commitments at the same time?

Laver, although played a smaller group of players in the Pro championships Round of 16, did have players who were very good to have become pros in the first place. In the link below, he did win the Pro series 8 times and was in the finals 6 times, and just a single QF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Performance_Timeline

The details of each Pro draw are available by clicking on the 'W' in the table.

Edit: The draw of 1969 Wimbledon had a very good list of players, including 41-yr old Pancho Gonzales (the famous Charlie Pasarell match), Roche, Emerson, Stolle, Ashe - some real good players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men%27s_Singles

Lverfan, Why no one mentions Rosewall's name?

Brilliant post by CAS.

wow wrote:Lverfan, Why no one mentions Rosewall's name?

I should have. Sorry. . Amazing longevity.

I sometimes wonder could Rosewall be the GOAT that gets overlooked?

If It's based on slams, when the pro's were barred from Grand Slam events they played Pro Slam events. If you include them them Ken has an unmatchable total of 26:-

http://grandslamtennis.freeukisp.co.uk/

Federer has played 12 opponents in 19 Major finals.

Nadal has played against 5 opponents in in 12 Major finals.

Didiving number of Major finals, by the number of opponents, one gets a "factor" of 0.52 for Federer, and 2.20 for Nadal. Meaning that Federer played an opponent on average of half per Major final, where Nadal played an oppoent more than two times per Major final.

Federer faced:
Phillipoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Bagdahtis
Gonzalez
Djokovic
Murray
Soderling
Dela Potro

Nadal faced:
Puerta
Federer
Soderling
Berdych
Djokovic

One of the interesting points of Federer's skills and game, is that, traditionally, when he has faced an opppoent, and that opponent had found a place where he could challenge Federer, Federer had been able to then find a place to "neutralise" that opponent's weapons, to then change his game, and effect the win.

Playing Nadal, Federer has not been able as yet to neutralise Nada'ls game plan against him, and consequently had lost 17 of 25 career matches.
That's 25 times that Federer has had the experience of playing Nadal in a match, where he could try out strategies to counter Nadal's weapons, and learn to win against him.

Agassi pointed out several years ago that this ability that Federer has to find that "next gear,'" or ability to "move past" an opponent's strength to find a win, was one of his greatest strengths, something that no player had been able to do, so well, in the history of the game. Agassi felt that although Sampras was a tremendous opponent, he felt he could get to a place, where he could make Sampras play the game where he could challange.

What's interesting is that Federer has never found that place with Nadal, and whatever the surface, Federer has not 'reigned supreme" against Nadal.

Their Wimbledon matches stand at 2-1 Federer, the 2007 final where Federer was at the height of his powers, was very close. Nadal had 15-40 on Federer's 3rd and 4th service games, could easily have been a 6-2 win for Nadal in the 5th, whilst instead it was 6-2 for Federer. This at a time when Federer was the supreme player on grass, and Nadal by far the weaker on that surface.

Nadal's first meeting on hard courts with Federer was the Miami tournament in 20004 - Federer has been solid on hard courts, he was both the Wimbledon and Australian champion, Nadal had yet to win a Major, this was when Nadal was a "clay court" player, and still it was two short sets for Nadal.

The Australian Open in 2009, was a decisive moment for the rivalry - Nadal has played a more than 5 hour semifinal against Verdasco; Federer had played the earlier match and won in straight sets, therby giving him a significantly longer "recovery time" for the final. Few people expected Nadal to be able to recover in time to challenge Federer. Yet challenge, and beat him, he did. We all saw the result of that match and the mental state that Federer was in, post match.

There's no question that at this pont Nadal was"in Federer's head."

Federer with 16 Majors is far enough ahead of Nadal's 10 Majors that he is unquestionably the most successful Major player of all time - numbers don't lie. Each of the Major titles that Nadal wins, makes him claim for "greatness" more legitimate.

Prior to the US Open final of 2010, Djokvoci had won 7 of the past 9 meetings with Nadal, and yet, when it counted most, i.e, a Major final, Nadal held aloft the trophy. Nadal wouldn't trade all of those 7 wins instead of the win at the US Open.

The head to head matches don't count as much, as wins in a Major tournament, as far as I think and most people would judge, the wins in a Major are more important than regular ATP tounament wins.

Nadal has shown that he is a "big match "player. The fact that he has lost more matches in "regular" play doesn't factor in as much as wins in the "biggest" matches, the Majors.

I also don't think that once/if, the numbers get closer that the "clay court majority" arguement, will hold much weight, as the sheer numbers of both Masters Series events and Majors, mount up.

One can spend alot of time, and energy on categorising wins, per surface but the fact is, of 25 matches, Nadal has won 17 - this is not a slight edge but a very favourable head to head count. To say that one player reached more on this surface vs another surface, is academic - they mey, where they met.

We'll see how the figures play out but were Nadal to win more Majors that Federer, then it's not going to come down to, "well this many were played and won on clay" so, it's not really "worth as much." Nadal has won all four majors, the Olympic gold, and more TMS titles in history - the breadth of his "body of work" in the sport, is more than enough to counter any arguement that say he is a "clay courter." He's beaten Federer in finals in Australian and Wimbeldon and France, and he's won the US Open plus Olympic gold in Singles, plus the Davis Cup, so his range of quality titles is broad.

Sampras never lost to Agassi at Wimbledon or US Open, nor did he ever beat him in Paris or Australia; they faced off in many other tournaments with several wins a piece in those "other" titles.

Whilst Federer stands at 16, and Nadal stands at 10 Majors, Federer has the "nod," but if Nadal gets to that same number, then he's in their with a strong shout for Greatest of all Time. He has done things at such a young age, and whislt Federer's "rate" of winning Majors is amazing, comparisons if the numbers get to similar levels, don't rest on that.

We'll see in another 5 years where those numbers lie, and perhaps it's a better idea to enjoy that process and dispute things when they are over and "neck and neck," rather than try to make case when things are not "over."

Nadal is one of the greatest to play the game at this point: similarly Federer is the most successful Major player at this point - but it's the final numbers when all is said and done, that will show where the two players "lie" in the history of the game.

As things stand now, Open Era forward, it's

1) Federer 16
2) Sampras 14
3) Borg 11
4) Nadal 10

Wimbledon is only days away, and we'll see what the next chapter brings....

Agassi did beat Sampras in grand slam final in Australia, so please know the facts before stating them.

Good post Ylop, I think I would give Nadal the nod over fed if he can get to 15 assuming Fed stays at 16. At that point other factors like their head to head record, Rafa's success in masters events, davis cups, olympic gold and the tougher competition Rafa faced would give Rafa the nod. Roy Emerson holds more grandslams than Borg or Laver does anyone rate him as the goat? Or higher than those two other players.

yloponom68, I agree with the points you make in your post but your numbers have gone a bit wrong!:
Fed - 19 finals divided by 12 opponents = 1.58 not 0.52
Also, Federer has played 23 major finals (5 AO, 5 RG, 6 US, 7 Wim)

An interesting side note, is that of Roger's 23 finals, 34% (eight) have been against Rafa.
Of Rafa's 12 finals, 67% have been against Roger.
So although Roger's head-to-head with Rafa is pretty poor (he's lost 6 of the 8 final meetings), it also shows there have been a lot of occasions where Roger is getting to a final when Rafa hasn't been able to get that far.
The great irony is that the year where Rafa made the most finals - 2010, 3 finals - Roger only made 1 final... and it was the one Rafa didn't make, so they missed each other completely!

Murdoch, that is true the 23 grandslam finals is a truely remarkable record. I think that is one of those records that will stand the test of time and be around for a very long time. That and the consecutive semi final streak is also pretty astounding features of how consistently Fed dominated for as long as he has. It will be interesting to see how Nadal finishes up. I think for Nadal the slams he wins off of clay are going to be more defining of his career. He needs at least 2 or 3 more slams off the clay courts to be considered for Goatship.

In a strange way, I think the semi final record may be the most impressive of Roger's records. Certainly I think it is the one that will be hardest to break. It doesn't have the prestige of the number of grand slams but 23 semi finals in a row is almost 6 years of not having a single bad tournament, not one serious injury, not one weak surface. It would only have taken one blip and the run would come to an end but it went on for 6 YEARS!
Nadal, for all his brilliance, has never strung together more than 5 semi finals in a row.

HM Murdoch, I think that record will stand for years and years. I can't see anyone in today's game or on the near horizon that could possibly make 6 years straight of grandslam semis without ever getting knocked out. To be one of the last 4 at a grandslam 23 straight times is unbelievable. Roger is so far ahead of anyone else in this department that I don't even know who is #2, probably Lendl. In fact, nobody even knew about this record until Roger made it such an amazing testament to consistency and dominance that all of sudden people started talking about.

socal1976 wrote:To be one of the last 4 at a grandslam 23 straight times is unbelievable. Roger is so far ahead of anyone else in this department that I don't even know who is #2, probably Lendl.

Lendl at 19.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Le/I/Ivan-Lendl.aspx?t=tf

socal1976 wrote:In fact, nobody even knew about this record until Roger made it such an amazing testament to consistency and dominance that all of sudden people started talking about.

Comparing McEnroe's 82-3 W/L 1984 season, Federer is 78-17 (2003), 74-6 (2004), 81-4 (2005), 92-5 (2006), 68-9 (2007), 66-15 (2008), 61-12 (2009), 65-13 (2010) and 34-8 (2011 - so far). Federer has a 41-0 season similar to Novak's 41-0.


Edit: Looking for Rafa's W/L or will have to it the hard way.

The way Fed is playing, it will not be a surprise that he will add up one more slam provided he gets an easy draw. On the other hand it will become tougher for Rafa to notch more slams as he has been caught up by other players.

Rafa has also shown that he is injury prone too but so far 2010-2011 he has maintained high levels of fitness. We would have to wait for the final numbers but at the moment rafa overtaking fed is very much a possibility, conisdering that FO belongs to Rafa if he plays in it.

I am a bit sceptical, yloponom68: if Nadal ends up with 15 titles or let's say a few more, 17 grand slams, 9 or 10 of them could well be at RG (if the proportion remains as it is now), that surely underlines that he is a clay courter. Simply put, Borg won most of his slams @ RG, but that's only one more than @ Wimbledon and he also made the US Open final consistently. Nadal has only consistently reached one final @ the US Open and one @ the Aussie Open.

One thing which is also worth mentioning is that Federer is the only player who's won 3 grand slams per year in 3 separate years and successfully defended all three of them (in 2007, Aussie, Wimbledon & US), something no other player has thus far ever achieved (Nadal has won 3 in 2010 but has defended one so far, still needs to defend the other 2!) Winning a grand slam title is great but successfully defending it is much harder. If you look at those who have defended their titles successfully, it's for the most part, an illustrious list.

I agree that Nadal could be a very strong contender for GOAT, we need to wait until both Federer & Nadal retire, as you say. However, the head to head is not a fair criteria alone, as the post suggests and also, something worth considering is consistency, as other posters have mentioned. It's not unreasonable that Nadal needs to win a bit more than a few slams @ Aussie & US Open or at least make the finals a bit more than he has. I also, personally doubt that Nadal will win many US Opens, as I've mentioned before, his post Wimbledon record is dreadful (just 3 ATP 1000 or grand slam titles) in his entire career, and this stretches back to 2003 when he started, Federer's is 9 at the same age). It is fair to say if Nadal ends his career with 60% + of his grand slam titles at RG, he is mostly a clay court player. That's a big if at the moment, by the end of the US Open this year we'll have some idea, as Nadal is in his peak years now.

Great posts above guys - always good to read them with some stats too! Fed's and Nadal's achievements are both amazing in many different ways, I'm not going to competitively assess them though at this point. Both men have unique records where they stand alone - e.g. Roger's semi run, consequetive weeks #1, 3 slams per year, etc.....Nadal's clay slam (3 Masters & RG), 7 consequetive titles at one event, 19 Masters titles, highest %wins at Masters 05-11, simultaneous holder of Olympic singles gold medal and grand slams on clay, grass, and hard court (with grass, hard and clay slams all held in same calendar year) and career Golden Slam.

I think Rafa is going to have to seriously look at his scheduling if he's to mount significant challenges to winning slams and breaking records in the future. His body cant take the barage he throws at it during the clay season - he has to drop Barcelona for a start. Plus he knows he's always likely to reach the French final so why does he then enter singles AND doubles at Queens with 1 days's rest with then only a week to Wimbledon. Beggars belief to me considering the injuries problems he's had before. I cant see him having much in the tank for USO after Wimbledon (as is often the case), especially when he chooses to play DC as well. He has to look at his first half of the year.

So, I think reaching 16 is a doubt when he keeps sticking to these scheduling strategies. Federer plays the schedule more smartly and its about time Rafa did (or maybe he doesnt actually want to lose #1 so is driven to do Queens this year rather than drop out like Nole has done, and Rog at Halle). Rafa doesnt need more and more Masters, 500s, 250s, its all about the slams now because he doesnt have much else to prove outside the slams.

Either way...the next 3-4 years will be a very interesting passage of tennis history...enjoy the ride guys because these ultra-competitive phases where you feel there are alot of potential multi-slam winners like these dont come too often across the years.

lydian wrote:
I think Rafa is going to have to seriously look at his scheduling if he's to mount significant challenges to winning slams and breaking records in the future. His body cant take the barage he throws at it during the clay season - he has to drop Barcelona for a start. Plus he knows he's always likely to reach the French final so why does he then enter singles AND doubles at Queens with 1 days's rest with then only a week to Wimbledon. Beggars belief to me considering the injuries problems he's had before. I cant see him having much in the tank for USO after Wimbledon (as is often the case), especially when he chooses to play DC as well. He has to look at his first half of the year.

He should learn from Fed and focus on records, if that is what he wants.

There should be a longer gap between FO and W. Otherwise players who get to the business end of slams (Murray and Nadal are exceptions)
pay a long-term price with injuries/withdrawals.

Agree LF, the scheduling between FO and SW19 is, and always has been, daft.
Plus the concept of back to back Masters on clay and hard is daft too. We need a grass Masters before Wimbledon surely,,,move SW19 to later in July as there's a fair gap after it anyway.

laverfan wrote:
Edit: Looking for Rafa's W/L or will have to it the hard way.

Found it.

46-6 (2011), 71-10 (2010), 68-14 (2009), 82-11 (2008), 71-15 (2007), 57-12 (2006), 77-10 (2005)

http://www.the-sports.org/tennis-nadal-rafael-results-identity-s4-c2-b4-o3-w4560.html

lydian wrote:Agree LF, the scheduling between FO and SW19 is, and always has been, daft.
Plus the concept of back to back Masters on clay and hard is daft too. We need a grass Masters before Wimbledon surely,,,move SW19 to later in July as there's a fair gap after it anyway.

Absolutely.

I agree, I can't really understand how there's not even one masters on grass (yet 3 for clay), if it's timing, surely they could, as you say, put Wimbledon in Mid July or late July, the weather might even be better then!

Adding in a week's break after the French and then one week for a masters and then one week's break, you would only need to move Wimbledon by a week, so it makes even less sense (not to have a masters).

laverfan, between what points did Lendl notch up 19 consecutive semi finals? I know you've provided a link but I can't spot the appropriate section! The best I can see him achieving is 9 in a row - US 85 - AO 88? Thanks.

I don't think Lendl ever got to 19 consecutive slam semi-finals, I think 9 too. Wikipedia seems to think 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#Other_Selected_Achievements).

He did get to 19 finals overall, though obviously those weren't consecutive.

This is a good thread, with a balanced and fair discussion. Agree with the notion that until someone comes along and pretty much holds every record and leads all their head-to-heads then debate will ensue - and I like it that way. Comparing eras is tricky, but worthwhile provided that we are aware of the inherent flaws. It would be interesting to see what the totals would look like had some of the slams stayed with their previous surfaces, I'm sure Nadal would have liked 2 clay slams and would prefer 2 grass slams to just the one if it was instead of a hard court. Less clear with Federer. Of course, playing styles would then probably be different in keeping with the calendar.

Is it possible anyone would ever hold all the records? Highly unlikely for now, besides the current contenders, Fed/Nadal (and they wouldn't hold all of them anyway).

I still think that if Fed gets to 20 slams, 7 Wimbledons, 6 Aussie Opens, 6 US Opens & 1 French, he would be by far the strongest contender, I think Nadal would find getting 20 quite a challenge. With that many titles, he would hold the the Open era record for the most titles at 3 of the 4 slams (equal @ Wimbledon with Sampras), quite a feat and it would be a clear illustration of his dominance but the big if is if he get's to 20. We'll have some idea by the end of Wimbledon or more likely by the end of the US Open.

HM Murdoch wrote:laverfan, between what points did Lendl notch up 19 consecutive semi finals? I know you've provided a link but I can't spot the appropriate section! The best I can see him achieving is 9 in a row - US 85 - AO 88? Thanks.

HMM, you are correct.

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/Federer-s-semifinal-streak-is-one-of-the-greates?urn=ten-244965

My apologies. I had the context incorrect. Fed's 23 SFs is better than Lendl's, which is at 10 (USO 85, AO 85, FO 86, W 86, USO 86, AO 87, FO 87, W 87, USO 87, AO 88 - broken by Jonas Svensson @ FO 88)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Le/I/Ivan-Lendl.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=gs#

The big difficulty with any debate like this too (besides the fact that neither has finished their career) is that I think style is legitimate consideration and that is entirely subjective.
On a personal level, even if Nadal were to beat Federer's tally by 2 or 3 slams, I think I would still consider Federer the better player, simply because of the way they play the game.
Nadal is undoubtedly amazing. His ability to play his best at key points under serious pressure is astonishing. But, for all of his achievements, he still strikes me more as a remarkable athlete who happened to turn his hand to tennis than a great tennis player. His victories, to me, often seem more a demonstration of athleticism, a well executed game plan and mental fortitude than a demonstation of tennis artistry. Artistry alone does not win titles (ask Gasquet!) but I find Nadal too near the other end of the spectrum to ever fully enjoy watching him. Federer, whilst by no means perfect, seems to be a more complete package, a more balanced set of qualities.
And yet I have no doubt there are others who love watching Nadal. Which of us is 'right'? Neither. Or both! Hence the difficulty in making a judgement!