True although Federer is even older. Winning a slam at his age was particularly remarkable; Nadal's a good half decade younger. I don't think Nadal will last to anywhere near 35 since he started out younger and has had lots of injury problems but he's arguably got a year or two in him left on good form...whereas I'd struggle to see Federer winning much more beyond this year.
Greatest mens tennis player of all time
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
True although Federer is even older. Winning a slam at his age was particularly remarkable; Nadal's a good half decade younger. I don't think Nadal will last to anywhere near 35 since he started out younger and has had lots of injury problems but he's arguably got a year or two in him left on good form...whereas I'd struggle to see Federer winning much more beyond this year.
This slam he came back from long absence but otherwise he never went away. Of course he has kept fighting for 18th and deserves credit but he has been around, making latter stages of slams and then failing. He made it to 3 finals since 2012 before this one and 4 or so SF exits I think. His biggest block in last few years has been Djokovic. On rare occasions when he went deep and there was no Djokovic, he chocked (when Cilic won). He never went away or was totally written off except maybe recent injury. The only question was, will he able to beat a big name guy at last hurdle. In the end, he did it hard way.
So has the racket debate been done?
It is not snobbery. No one is discrediting Nadal, and I guess that everyone accepts that he is the best tennis player of all time in clay surfaces, and very likely the most dominant tennis player in a grand slam.
But, I think that context matters and in GOAT debates, it is good to see how well players did outside of their comfort zone. Taking Nadal outside of his preferred GS, he has won 5 grand slams which is still quite good. Taking Federer outside of Wimbledon, he has won 11 grand slams which would make him joint fifth most successful (male) tennis player. Nadal would be just joint 28th. In addition, outside of his preferred grand slam, Federer has won 5 grand slams in each of US Open and Australian Open. In each of them, he has won as much as Nadal did in three GS that aren't French Open.
Essentially, Federer is the greatest ever, with Nadal being the greatest in clay surfaces. Also, he has been a more dominant player in clay than Federer in grass, which would make him the most dominant player in a unique surface. But to be the greatest ever, you need to do great in more than one type of surface.
The vast majority of people put Nadal in second or third place. Which is hardly diminishing his results or a snobbery.
Considering how good Federer just always has been on hard courts and grass, I'm not quite sure what his favorite surfaces are!
Heh. It's usually the A1 issue in debating tennis, so I am surprised not to see pages of it here on what Borg would do with modern tech and these players with wooden rackets.Clearly Connors would've won 5 more slams if he didn't use that crappy old T-2000.
'Pure talent' then usually enters the equation, at which point Borg generally comes through as #1.
Seems like a different track on here.
Nadal reached the highest level of a player i have seen when he beat prime Fed in 08 at Wimbledon.
However Federers longetivity and consistency make him an over all better player than Nadal.
If you compare their careers I think Fed is comfortably ahead because he has won slams against all the top players. After peaking he still kept winning and going far in tournaments and winning in his 30's against much younger opponents.
However Federers longetivity and consistency make him an over all better player than Nadal.
If you compare their careers I think Fed is comfortably ahead because he has won slams against all the top players. After peaking he still kept winning and going far in tournaments and winning in his 30's against much younger opponents.
Fed at his best beats Djokovic every time at Wimbledon IMO. And if Fed was at his peak during the same time as Djokovic, I doubt that Djokovic would have won Australian Open 6 times.
It is quite possible that Nadal would have had more GS than the others though. Without injuries, he wins French Open always. Federer wins Wimbledon most of the time, he wins US Open half the times, he splits Australian with Djoker. But Nadal was good enough to get a few Wimbledons, US Open and Australian Open.
However, it is a quite pointless exercise and Nadal was always going to get injured with his style of play. You cannot be that physical (unless you are Djokovic who is a physical freak) and not get injured in such an intensive sport. Federer's style of play meant that he don't get injured often and has this longevity that Nadal and Djoker likely won't have.
Fed and Nadal have been better, but it is underrating Djokovic to say that he is a tier below them. He is a top 5 player of all time IMO, and at his best, he was fantastic.
He also is the best defensive player ever.
On paper people would have said the same about Nadal instead of Djokovic there, when the reality begs to differ.
You can only compare the ability on paper and ability alone isn't enough in deciding a game in real life. Djokovic and Nadal are two of the mentally strongest players and two of the greatest competitors any sport has seen. Dominate them, yes, but winning every time is going too far as far as predictions go.
What's great for Tennis is that this year we seem to have resurgent a resurgent Federer and Nadal, Djokovic still playing well and Murray as number 1. All good signs for competition this year.
It is a bit shame though that the young ones are not stepping in. I mean, those four and Wawrinka are the top 5 players in the world and the youngest of them are Murray and Djokovic who are almost 30, which is an age past peak. But you can expect all three of the remaining GS this year to be won from those 5 players (my bet would be Nadal to get French Open and becomes the first ever male player to win a single GS 10 times, Federer having a very good chance for Wimbledon, and free for all in US).
Dimitrov, Raonic and even Nishikori needs to step up. All of them are at their peaks and this is the time for them to win things. Otherwise, the next generation of players will leapfrog them the moment the oldies slow down (which likely will happen within 2 years).
I just think that Fed was really a God there. It took Nadal at his prime playing the best match he ever did - with probably darkness playing some part - to break his spell at Wimbledon. And even there, he needed 5 sets, despite that he lead 2-0 on sets.
Djokovic played never as well as Nadal that match. Of course, everything could happen, but it is difficult to see Fed at his prime losing from Djokovic at Wimbledon. Even a Fed past it was very competitive against Djoker at his prime there.
Probably not mentioned much but out of the 3 Rafa easily have the least elegant play style (including his taking a long time b/w serves and loudly exhaling/screaming). To the more casual observers, it's got to count against him in the GOAT debate. Those who considered best in any sport are always the ones with the most captivating style (with records to beat, obviously). Maybe similar to Mayweather.
The argument that Federer had it easy, however, was a bit rubbish. He went against guys like Sampras and Agassi earlier in his career who are always included in the all time great list and have guys like Roddick and Hewitt at his prime who I think are the equivalence of Murray plus Safin who was probably the best game-raising cnut in the last 15 years or so, despite his questionable efforts most of the time. It isn't as if Djokovic beat a peak Fed for his Slams (the only time that nearly happened was probably 09 when he beat Fed in that insane semi final with the latter 3 match points up but choked to Del Potro in the end). A 31 year old Fed still beat him in Wimbledon so I find it laughable that someone would say if the three of them start at around the same time Fed would have the least Slams.
The argument that Federer had it easy, however, was a bit rubbish. He went against guys like Sampras and Agassi earlier in his career who are always included in the all time great list and have guys like Roddick and Hewitt at his prime who I think are the equivalence of Murray plus Safin who was probably the best game-raising cnut in the last 15 years or so, despite his questionable efforts most of the time. It isn't as if Djokovic beat a peak Fed for his Slams (the only time that nearly happened was probably 09 when he beat Fed in that insane semi final with the latter 3 match points up but choked to Del Potro in the end). A 31 year old Fed still beat him in Wimbledon so I find it laughable that someone would say if the three of them start at around the same time Fed would have the least Slams.
I think Nadal had almost never played on grass before his 06 Wimbledon and he took Fed to 4 sets there. He took Fed to 5 sets in 07 and finally beat him in 08 and this was despite Fed being at his very peak. From what I've read, Federer has played a lot on clay courts in his childhood whereas Nadal has never played on grass so for Nadal to have 3 tight finals against Federer on grass was phenomenal. Not unfair to say that Djokovic might have had a couple of Wimbledons himsefl.
Yeah he wasn't going to beat a peak Federer in straight sets on grass.
Djokovic at his prime isn't far from Nadal at his prime. He is definitely capable of pulling off that sort of a historical performance that would give him at least ONE win if both played Wimbledon at their peaks. His record and playing style is enough of an evidence to say that.
Nadal and Djokovic are two of the toughest people to defeat, whatever the surface/situation/whatever. Absolute nightmare playing against such players, and they wear you down mentally to a point where you can lose despite being the better player. Nadal did it and Djokovic would have as well, at least once. Obviously Federer would have a massive dominance if you look at a bigger series.
I mentioned Djokovic's stats above when it comes to Titles, Final appearances, Semi final appearances, quarter final appearances and he's around the top in all of them. In the all time rankings he's joint 3rd in GS wins, joint 2nd in finals appearances (tied with Nadal and behind Federer), joint second in SF appearances (tied with Connors and way ahead of Nadal), joint third in QF appearances (again way ahead of Nadal). He just doesn't lost often, and is among the absolute top in that regard, and ahead of a player like Nadal who is considered an incredible opponent and rightly so. When talking of producing a match like the Wimbledon final, if he's not considered to be a contender for that then I don't know who would be. Obviously it would be a mammoth effort but one can certainly see that happening once, with good reason and not simply as an upset. London in 2008 wasn't an upset.
On comfort zone, though Grass is preferred surface for Federer, it was never a big difference for him to play at hard courts. He started winning and dominating at Australian open and US open around same time as Wimbledon. So, outside the 'preferred surface slams' don't mean much at least in way you have put up. Federer was never thought to be one surface player. His win % at Wimbledon is 88% and it is 87% at AO and US open. Not much difference. About Nadal it was different. People had doubts about his ability on other surfaces initially.
About the argument people put about 'peak Federer', again it is something I don't agree with it. It is just a qualitative aspect introduced by Fed fans to show that the reason Federer started losing to Nadal and Djokovic is because he was past his peak. I am hearing it since 2008-09 when he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon and then in 2009 at AO. He was just 27-28 then! 27-28 is not past peak especially when player is around still, at age of 36. His playing style is not Djokovic-Nadal like and he didn't have injury problems of Nadal. The Federer beating Baghdatis and Gonzalez and Roddick million times is not necessarily a 'peak Federer' who was at even higher level. He looked at higher level due to such average opposition. Djokovic and Nadal have a very good counter for Fed style and he took long to adjust to it. If those 3 had played at same time and if Nadal didn't have so many injuries, I will put Nadal as favourite to win most, followed by Djokovic and then Federer. Including Nadal's injury situation, the position of Nadal-Djokovic changes for me, Federer still 3rd. Mind you, I am not discrediting or downplaying Federer. Probably the count will remain too close, differentiated by slam or two. I am basing it on the fact that Federer had to adjust his game to counter these two and still had limited success at biggest stage so it depends in hypothetical scenario of peaking at same time, how soon he adjusts.
It is all ifs and buts though and Federer could only beat what was in front of him before these 2 and few other quality players came through. Yes he was on slightly downward curve when these guys were approaching peak but he wasn't totally past it and it wasn't as if his peak was something so different where these guys won't have stood chance.
Most of Djokovic-Nadal slams have been against either each other or Federer or Murray in finals and en route some more quality players. Federer had quite a few freebies earlier and there was gulf in class between him and others. Only player who could stand to him was Safin but he had too many other issues to be consistent.
Still all said and done, for now, I can put Federer at top, slightly, just because 18 is 18 and that his 18th is his greatest of all. Just want to make clear to Federer fans though that it is not as clearcut 'GOAT' as they like to make it out and Nadal and even Djokovic are not done yet. If somehow the count becomes 18-16 with Nadal, it won't seem that straightforward. I won't put it past Djokovic of winning 3 more too. He is bit burnt out, maybe has some other issues, but he will come back. He can play 2-3 more years I feel.
It's insanely unfair taking Nadal's RG wins out of the equation, he has one preferred slam, the others practically all have 3 with a minor edge towards one(Fed and Sampras Wimbledon, Novak Aussie etc). I think you should look more towards the fact that he's the only truly top class clay specialist of his generation, a generation where practically everyone became all-court players, so essentially the others have to contend with just him as an elite clay specialist....he's just had to mostly contend with players better elsewhere adapting to clay.
80% of the tour is played on hard courts and you have hard court tournament during the whole year. This combined with the gradual slowing down of the surfaces created those all court players.
Guys who do well on grass tend to do well on hard court slams.. adjustment isn't as difficult.
Yes, usually that's true. The other way around however is not. Since the early 00's is easier to make the adjustment as the courts are very close in terms of bounce, speed etc.
That wasn't true in the 90's of course, prime example is Ivanisevic - he was excellent player on grass, but average one on HC's(not carpet)
This is true, and an argument I've had many times with Fed fanatics despite being a Fed fan myself. He was actually 26 in 2008 so right at or close to peak form and lets face it - he gets utterly demolished by Nadal on clay this period and also loses two five setters against Nadal at Wimbledon and again in 09 at the Australian Open. The slams he managed to win 08 and beyond with the exception of 2017 were against Murray, Roddick and Soderling so does benefit from his main rivals losing earlier. However, you could argue Federer's level made Nadal the player he became and then he made Djokovic the player he is and nobody can predict what would have happened if you switched Fed and Nadal's era around. However we can't discredit Fed's achievements with 'if' statements. 'If' 23 year old Fed entered this era right now, he'd sweep every slam. 'If' Murray was born 10 years earlier, he'd have 5 more slams. 'If' Nadal played Baghdatis and Roddick he'd have 5 more slams etc etc etc. You can go on all day and say it just about anyone in any era. Fact is Fed has 18 slams and can only beat what's put in-front of him. Regardless, the perceived 'weakness' of his era is overstated. The only terrible player he beat was Baghdatis. Soderling was very, very good at his peak and Gonzalez regularly upset many top seeds in events so you may as well take away half of everyone's slams if we are only counting the ones against rivals.
I think Federer might be the greatest player but Nadal the best. And by best I mean ability to beat anyone else, nothing to do with style. If my life was on the line Id pick peak Nadal to play for it.
Re: Grass/Hard Courts - Its just easier for big servers to excel on grass because of the speed and bounce that you can get from both a hard flat first serve, and the kick you get from sliced second serve. Hard isn't too different, the ball bounces a bit flatter and more predictably. Clay doesn't afford that since the court is so slow, which allows for more baseline rallies
If you see his win percentage over the season, there is a difference between 2004-07 and other seasons.
2003 82%
2004 93%
2005 95%
2006 95%
2007 88%
2008 81%
2006 is statistically probably the GOAT season (apart from a Calendar Slam). He won 3 Slams + ATP Final + 4 Masters events. His only losses came to Nadal in the finals of French and 2 other clay tournaments, and to fecking Murray at Cincinnati.
Maybe it's not that Federer peaked then but Nadal simply got better and Federer lost more?
Also had to do with the competition he faced during those years.
Great minds think alike.
@Moby
The fact is, in 2006, he had one loss outside clay, the others were all on clay to Nadal in finals. That is an unimaginable peak, nothing acheived by Djoko or Nadal.
In 2008, his loss %age went up significantly, not just to Nadal but others too.
Lost to Djokovic at the AO semis, to Roddick (against whom he had a 21-2 record), to Murray at Dubai, dropped a set to Sampras in an exhibition match, to Stepanek on clay(!!!), thrashed by Nadal at French, then that Wimbledon final, lost to James Blake at the Olympics, to Gilles Simon at Toronto, and someone called Ginepri at Cincinnati. He only won the US Open.
Names of people he won against?
All 92 of them? You win this debate, I'm not going to bother with that.
I was genuinely asking as I thought you had a source when you listed the names in your earlier post.
What's the debate here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Roger_Federer_tennis_season#Singles
I can see: (multiple times for most of these)
Haas, Monfils, Davydenko, Baghdatis, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Ljubicic, Blake, Djokovic (*2), Ferrer, Stepanek, Nalbandian, Berdych, Roddick, Nadal (*2)
Edit: also Istomin, Soderling, and that Ginepri guy, just for fun.
Didn't know wiki had all the results. Cheers.
I don't understand the arguments about Feds peak. We never saw it imo. He got mono when he was supposed to peak and was still the 2nd best player at the time.
His peak was 04-07. He was the most dominant player ever during those 4 years.
-11 slams, 2 finals, 2 SF's and one 3rd round exit to none other than Guga in Paris.
- 25 total losses for those 4 years(averaging 6-7 losses per year)
- 42 titles
- 3 YET
- 208 weeks at #1(from 208 possible)
- 41 straight wins in 2007
- 35 straight wins in 2005
- 54 straight wins on grass during those 4 years(from 54 matches)
- 56 straight wins on HC's in 05/06
Those stats are ridiculous so is his peak at the time. I think 05/06 is pretty much his peak level if we're to define it in two years time.
No one comes close to such dominance in such span of 4 years.
One side note which is interesting - Federer became the first player since Wilander to win 4 matches against top 10 opponents in a Slam run. Considering he's 35 that's even more impressive.
Never touched McEnroe's 3 losses in an year though.
Literally three points away from it.Never touched McEnroe's 3 losses in an year though.
Served for the match to equal it only to be broken in the last possible game.