To be fair Federer has avoided playing Nadal on clay in the past two season. The head to head could have been more in Nadals favour.
With only Thiem and Zverev seen as the main threats to Nadal on clay. I’m sure Federer would have met Nadal a few times on clay in the past 2 seasons due to the lack of competition Nadal has on the surface.
I’m not sure what age has to do with it though. When both were at their peak the rivalry was massively in Nadals favour and even the most hardest of Fed fans would admit that.
You could argue with Djokovics head to head against Federer. Djokovic beat Federer a lot of times when Djokovic was at his peak and Fed was past his best. Whilst Federer was beating Djokovic early on in the rivalry when Djokovic was still clearly raw. So that rivalry head to head you can say isn’t really accurate as there was never really a time consistently when both met at their peaks.
Where as Nadal and Fed both met each other a lot of times at their best. The matches most of the time went in Nadals favour.
When one of the two happens to just win a slam a day or two ago, the GOAT sentiment rises and then dissipates just as quickly.
Federer is widely regarded as the best Tennis player of all time based not just on having won more grand slams but also having won Wimbledon - which is the crown jewel of men's Tennis - more than anyone. Here are a few more items that will be evaluated when comparing them.
So the big elephant in the room then is the head to head matchups where Nadal is ahead. But it has to be said that Federer has won the last five against Nadal, which has closed the gap significantly to 15-23. All of these wins have come as Federer has been in his mid 30s which isn't particularly flattering towards Rafa's perceived dominance of Roger, since the latter is nearly 5 years younger.
- Most weeks at the number one player in the world - 309 (Nadal is 6th at 177)
- Most consecutive weeks at #1 - 237 (Nadal is 11th at 56)
- Most ATP singles titles ever: Here Federer is 2nd behind Connors. (Nadal is 4th)
- Most ATP singles finals: Roger is 2nd behind Connors, Rafa is 4th
- Most Slams 20 (Nadal 17)
- Most Slam Finals 30 (Nadal 24)
- Most Slam match wins 332 (Nadal is 3rd behind Djokovic at 237)
- All time match winning % on hard courts (Roger #1 - Rafa#11)
- All time match winning % on clay (Rafa #1 - Roger not in the top 10)
- All time match winning % on grass (Roger #2 - Rafa not in the top 10)
- Career match wins v top 10 opponents - Roger #1 at 214, Rafa #4 at 159
So all things said, in order to be widely considered the GOAT (as opposed to narrowly by his fan boys), Nadal will have to not only catch Federer on slams, but also catch him on at least two or more of the above stats where Roger is currently ahead quite comfortably. Even under the best of conditions, the likelihood that this will happen is extremely implausible.
Nope.
Federer is rightly regarded as the greatest tennis player of all time because of all the accomplishments you've listed. FWIW I don't think even if the other two win more slams they can be regarded as greater than Federer.
Nadal and Djokovic have a better claim to be the best of all time.
Not sure if serious. Neither Nadal or Djokovic are remotely close to Federer in a majority of the markers listed above.
Greatest and best are generally synonymous to most people. I don't know anyone who says player x is the greatest but player y was the best.
To be fair Federer has avoided playing Nadal on clay in the past two season. The head to head could have been more in Nadals favour.
Personally I think ATP 1000s plus WTFs is a lot more meaningful than "ATP Singles Titles" but that's another story.
Think with that the top 3 would be Djokovic, Federer and then Nadal, but with it being fairly tight.
I'd have Federer over Nadal even if the latter overtakes him by the end of his career. 8-6-5-1 is more impressive than 11-3-2-1 and I don't see Rafa winning more than one, maybe two Grand Slams anymore which are not Roland Garros. Yeah Rafa has a better H2H and beat Federer at Wimbledon, but that just shows for me how superior Rafa is on clay compared to the rest of the field, rather than a weakness for Federer.
I mean...15 of their total 38 meetings (40%) have been on clay (13-2), and Fed now has the edge on every other surface (with much smaller margins of course). That's a bit of a statistical quirk given that the clay court season is definitely less than 40% of the total season.
Agreed, its an odd quirk given Rafa's dominance on Clay which tends to skew perceptions of their head to heads
I don't know anyone who says player x is the greatest but player y was the best.
Well then maybe Federer should have improved and beat Nadal at the French. The French open games were never really a contest. Where as Djokovic provided Nadal a more stern test at the French.
Federer dominated Wimbledon yet Nadal still beat him there. All their Wimbledon matches were closer than anything Federer managed at the French.
I actually hear it often when it comes to football, most obvious example being Messi vs Ronaldo debate. Nadal's peak is/was certainly higher and was high enough to do the impossible - to beat Federer in his court, while Federer was never good enough to do the same on RG.
btw, they played more matches on hard courts than on clay, where Fed doesn't even want to play him anymore. Nadal is significantly better hard court player than Fed is on clay, no contest here. Federer beat him like 4 or 5 times in row and still has only 2 wins more, which means Nadal was leading even in that untill last year.
you said the h2h would b worse if there were more clay meetings. i pointed out that there were already disproportionately many clay meetings.
I don't think ATP 250s are tournaments that define greatness and just looking at the stats, Nadal and Djokovic have 9 ATP 250s compared to Federer's 24.I think we have to combine all of it. Simply looking at slams alone (imo) isn't entirely satisfying and would be comparable to evaluating a footballer exclusively on how he fared at World Cups and CLs, which would of course only be a small (but noteworthy) percentage of his career. When looking at tennis - how many career titles is a perfectly legitimate marker to evaluate alongside slams.
Well then maybe Federer should have improved and beat Nadal at the French. The French open games were never really a contest. Where as Djokovic provided Nadal a more stern test at the French.
Federer dominated Wimbledon yet Nadal still beat him there. All their Wimbledon matches were closer than anything Federer managed at the French.
I actually hear it often when it comes to football, most obvious example being Messi vs Ronaldo debate. Nadal's peak is/was certainly higher and was high enough to do the impossible - to beat Federer in his court, while Federer was never good enough to do the same on RG.
btw, they played more matches on hard courts than on clay, where Fed doesn't even want to play him anymore. Nadal is significantly better hard court player than Fed is on clay, no contest here. Federer beat him like 4 or 5 times in row and still has only 2 wins more, which means Nadal was leading even in that untill last year.
Yeah Roddick has something like 30 titles out of which around 21 are ATP 250 tournaments. Why do we even count those?!I don't think ATP 250s are tournaments that define greatness and just looking at the stats, Nadal and Djokovic have 9 ATP 250s compared to Federer's 24.
You also forgetting Nadal lost quite a few finals to Djokovic. He lost like 3 slam finals in a row at one stage. That’s how good Djokovic was.
I’m sure he’d rather have faced big hitters like Hewitt, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, and Phillapousous in those finals rather than Djokovic.
Well maybe Federer should have figured out how to face Rafa. If not for Soderling, Federer would have probably never even won a French Open. Nadal, who's woeful on grass, did what it took and went toe to toe with Fed and actually beat him on the so called biggest stage in tennis and in Federer's court. Federer has been routinely embarrassed at RG by Nadal on the other hand. Given Federer is the GOAT, it shouldn't have been that hard for him to figure out a way to beat Rafa right? He's done it on other clay tournaments so why not at RG?Agreed, its an odd quirk given Rafa's dominance on Clay which tends to skew perceptions of their head to heads
15 matches on clay, 20 on hard courts.
Well maybe Federer should have figured out how to face Rafa. If not for Soderling, Federer would have probably never even won a French Open. Nadal, who's woeful on grass, did what it took and went toe to toe with Fed and actually beat him on the so called biggest stage in tennis and in Federer's court. Federer has been routinely embarrassed at RG by Nadal on the other hand. Given Federer is the GOAT, it shouldn't have been that hard for him to figure out a way to beat Rafa right? He's done it on other clay tournaments so why not at RG?
you said the h2h would b worse if there were more clay meetings. i pointed out that there were already disproportionately many clay meetings.
Federer still should have a found a way to make those French Opens competitive considering he is the so called GOAT.
He never took Nadal to 5 sets at the French. All of them were one sided something you can’t say about the 2007 or 2008 Wimbledon Final.
Djokovic is also playing Queens. Strong field for Queens.
It speaks to how good Rafa was on clay. He's the best player in the history of tennis on one particular surface.
He was embarrassed at RG by Rafa.Federer still should have a found a way to make those French Opens competitive considering he is the so called GOAT.
He never took Nadal to 5 sets at the French. All of them were one sided something you can’t say about the 2007 or 2008 Wimbledon Final.
Djokovic is also playing Queens. Strong field for Queens.
I don't think Federer will dispute that he can't match Rafa on clay.
Again, this all started because of the honestly ridiculous post that Roger hasn't faced Rafa on clay enough. My only point is that he has disproportionately faced him on clay.
Federer is pretty smart tbh. He knew he'd get smashed on the clay and didn't bother turning up yet again. It also helps because it keeps the momentum and confidence in his favor when they do meet again. I'm sure he'd have played if Rafa just pulled out of the entire clay season with injury.What are you going on about? Read what was said.
Rauol said Fed had won their last 5 meetings. I was pointing out the fact that might have different if Federer had not decided to skip the past two clay seasons. They most likely would have met and the most likely scenario is the result would have ended in Nadals favour.
What are you going on about? Read what was said.
To be fair Federer has avoided playing Nadal on clay in the past two season. The head to head could have been more in Nadals favour.
However good Rafa is, Fed is GOAT right? Surely the GOAT should manage more than one measly set against Nadal? He's beaten Nadal on clay outside of Paris so he really ought to have the mentality and game to beat Rafa at RG. I think Nadal going outside his comfort zone and beating Federer on grass was far far more difficult than Federer beating Nadal on clay.
Federer is pretty smart tbh. He knew he'd get smashed on the clay and didn't bother turning up yet again. It also helps because it keeps the momentum and confidence in his favor when they do meet again. I'm sure he'd have played if Rafa just pulled out of the entire clay season with injury.
So the big elephant in the room then is the head to head matchups where Nadal is ahead. But it has to be said that Federer has won the last five against Nadal
When one of the two happens to just win a slam a day or two ago, the GOAT sentiment rises and then dissipates just as quickly.
Federer is widely regarded as the best Tennis player of all time based not just on having won more grand slams but also having won Wimbledon - which is the crown jewel of men's Tennis - more than anyone. Here are a few more items that will be evaluated when comparing them.
So the big elephant in the room then is the head to head matchups where Nadal is ahead. But it has to be said that Federer has won the last five against Nadal, which has closed the gap significantly to 15-23. All of these wins have come as Federer has been in his mid 30s which isn't particularly flattering towards Rafa's perceived dominance of Roger, since the latter is nearly 5 years younger.
- Most weeks at the number one player in the world - 309 (Nadal is 6th at 177)
- Most consecutive weeks at #1 - 237 (Nadal is 11th at 56)
- Most ATP singles titles ever: Here Federer is 2nd behind Connors. (Nadal is 4th)
- Most ATP singles finals: Roger is 2nd behind Connors, Rafa is 4th
- Most Slams 20 (Nadal 17)
- Most Slam Finals 30 (Nadal 24)
- Most Slam match wins 332 (Nadal is 3rd behind Djokovic at 237)
- All time match winning % on hard courts (Roger #1 - Rafa#11)
- All time match winning % on clay (Rafa #1 - Roger not in the top 10)
- All time match winning % on grass (Roger #2 - Rafa not in the top 10)
- Career match wins v top 10 opponents - Roger #1 at 214, Rafa #4 at 159
So all things said, in order to be widely considered the GOAT (as opposed to narrowly by his fan boys), Nadal will have to not only catch Federer on slams, but also catch him on at least two or more of the above stats where Roger is currently ahead quite comfortably. Even under the best of conditions, the likelihood that this will happen is extremely implausible.
He's smart because he knows his body can't keep up with an entire season at 36/37. The mere fact that he is still playing is already pretty rare, the fact that he is still routinely winning slams is completely unheard of. At 37, Rafa will be sporting a combover whilst teaching tennis to kids with his uncle Tony back in Majorca.
All of Federer stats come from playing in an easier era.
I was looking for the white text.All of Federer stats come from playing in an easier era.
Agreed. Fed had it much easier when he was racking up slams in the 80s against the likes of Lendl and Becker.
I was looking for the white text.
Whether it's true or not is not all that relevant anyway as it's not his fault.
One player had to contend with two arguably Goat contenders while the other won against playefs not even in top twenty in grnnis history. I know which one is the harder achievement.
That would mean completely changing up the tour. There aren't any grass Masters 1000s, so Wimbledon is the only place they're likely to play. I can't think of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer or Murray matches on grass against each other outside of Wimbledon.Maybe the Federer vs Nadal head to head would look a little better if they'd met more on grass? You'd think Federer would comfortably have beaten Nadal on grass in the last few years if they'd faced each other.
How often has Nadal made it to the 2nd week of Wimbledon since winning it in 2010?
