Federer's blessed curse

First topic message reminder :

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.

HM Murdoch wrote:
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!

I love watching both, the ballet artist - pure grace and the gladiator - pure heart.

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:
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!

I love watching both, the ballet artist - pure grace and the gladiator - pure heart.

Then you have the best of both worlds!
Do you not have a preference who wins when they play each other?

A very good a civil goat debate. Personally, I feel that Nadal does need to win more grandslams off the clay. If he can get another wimbeldon or two and another hardcourt slam or two and lets say tie federer at 16 (assuming Roger doesn't add to his tally.) If nadal lets say wins 9 RGs and 7 slams off of the clay, then he will have the same number of slams off of his favored surface as Pete Sampras. Sampras had 14 slams 7 of them on his favorite grass. But certainly, Rafa needs more slams and more non-clay slams in general. In my mind based on his dominance of the head to head matchup, his record in the 1000 pointers if he can (a big if) tie Fed's grandslam haul he would be as legitimate a goat if not more so than Fed. They all have records that if you look at them in isolation are amazing as lydian has pointed out. And has murdoch says it still comes down to subjectivity and which style of player you prefere. But I caution those that think that Nadal lacks ball striking talent, he is a great striker of the tennis ball he just uses that talent in a different way.

HM Murdoch wrote:

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:
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!

I love watching both, the ballet artist - pure grace and the gladiator - pure heart.

Then you have the best of both worlds!
Do you not have a preference who wins when they play each other?

No preference, but just a good match of tennis and excellent shot making and the better of the two on that specific day.

Imagine if both of them were born in the same country, would that country even have a second sport? Not sure.

Indeed my hand typed faster than my brain - my point re: Agassi and Sampras should have read, Sampras never lost to Agassi at Wimbledon or US Open, and never BEAT him at French or Australian. Typo - mea culpa!

The divisor for the opponents vs finals is the FINALS divided by opponents so Federer's is 12 divided by 19, not the other way round!! It's showing what the average number of Major finals he played against each of his opponents (so not the 19 divided by 12, that you mistakenly corrected me on!).

Point was that Federer has had a plethora of opponents beecause no ONE player was able to meet him consistently in Major finals. Not saying anything about weak Era or not, just pointing out that particular statistic - think of it what you will.

Math was definitely wrong re: number of Major finals Federer has reached, thank you for correcting that.

Re: Semifinals reached consecutively - Navratilova has the record. Evert reached a larger number in a "row," but they were not in consecutive Majors.

I think with GOAT, the greatest number of Major Singles titles, is the key factor. Many of the "other comments," don't come into play with the numbers at 10 v 16. If there is a smaller difference down the road, then they may become relevant.

That Nadal won both the Australian and US Opens, means he is not just a clay courter - he has shown that he can make the adjustments to win all Majors, not just those that fall into his natural rhythym.

Borg never won US Open or a Major on a hard surface; he only played Aussie Open once I think, maybe twice, but it just wasn't a priority - had he won a US Open title, he would for sure have made the trip.

Nadal winning most of his titles on clay is a fact, but he's won hard court TMS title, hard court Majors, Olympics on hard court - fairly "large" matches; it's too much to rightly place the moniker on him that he's a clay courter only. He excels there more that on the other surfaces, but in their droves, people said he would never win a hard court Major, or on grass.

He's proved them wrong, making all the little adjustments, coming out of his habitual safe zone in the mid 00's and done what many believed he'd never do. So many players have won 3 of the 4 Majors, that it's an amazing accomplishment to have done that.

Anyway, another 6 days, we'll see the draw, who's in who's half re: top four seeds. Where are placed the other big servers, dangerous floaters, etc.,.

On another subject, Rafa lost at Queens to Tsonga.