Remove this Banner Ad

GOAT: Rafa vs Roger

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

This French Open was the biggest match of Federer's career in terms of his legacy. If he was somehow able to beat the greatest clay courter of all time off on his favourite court then he could realistically make claims for the greatest ever. It would have meant that he had won each slam at least twice.

As it stands now though there is no way he can claim to be the greatest ever considering he has been so clearly dominated by Nadal, and has never beat Nadal on his own turf (remember Nadal was able to beat Federer at Wimbledon).

As for Nadal being the greatest of all time, these calls are too premature. I would want him to win both the Australian and US Open's again before making such calls.
 
Surkin said:
This French Open was the biggest match of Federer's career in terms of his legacy. If he was somehow able to beat the greatest clay courter of all time off on his favourite court then he could realistically make claims for the greatest ever. It would have meant that he had won each slam at least twice.

As it stands now though there is no way he can claim to be the greatest ever considering he has been so clearly dominated by Nadal, and has never beat Nadal on his own turf (remember Nadal was able to beat Federer at Wimbledon).
.
Click to expand...

exactly my point..he might have been the greatest from 2004-2007 but he got shown up in the face of real competition.How can one man completely dominate the so called "GOAT" throughout his career? he is 0-5 against Nadal at RG.. complete ownage.. only took 4 sets in those 5 meetings while Rafa met roger 3 times at wimbledon at 1-2 and took 6 sets in 3 meetings. Clearly he is not the GOAT..he had his time in a weaker era, had Nadal been the same age as him, he would have 16 slams and federer 10.
 
Total Power said:
exactly my point..he might have been the greatest from 2004-2007 but he got shown up in the face of real competition.How can one man completely dominate the so called "GOAT" throughout his career? he is 0-5 against Nadal at RG.. complete ownage.. only took 4 sets in those 5 meetings while Rafa met roger 3 times at wimbledon at 1-2 and took 6 sets in 3 meetings. Clearly he is not the GOAT..he had his time in a weaker era, had Nadal been the same age as him, he would have 16 slams and federer 10.
Click to expand...

This.

You can't lay claim to being the greatest ever when you aren't even the best of your era.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Rafa has 60% of his slams on clay, so he's more a all-time great clay courter than anything else at the moment.

Has to win more hardcourt and grass court slams.
 
Rod Laver.

If it just these 2, i will say Fed, but there is a good chance that Nadal will catch up with him if he continues. Nadal career only just peaked(i say last year, as more competition for Novak and the fact he kills his body each game he plays), where Fed is well on in the downhill slope. only after both players retire will we get a clear picture of how good both players were.
 
fed should just let the history be the judge and at least wait until his career is over.

nadal gives the best answer. he says only when the reporters keep pressing him over and over and over again. he says he is "among the best" and that is enough for him.

fed, on the other hand, as if he was pedaling his wares, will tell anybody and has actually done it a few times that he would like to be known as "the greatest ever to play the game".

that is not a sound position: how can you be the greatest of ALL TIME when you are not even the greatest of RIGHT NOW?

it also disrespects immensely the true greats of the game. they all dominated the field before them and carved out their immortality.

fed did the same thing. he dominated the field that he was presented with and then came along a stronger field. and now the stronger field wants a piece of that tennis immortality also.

let the history be the judge when their careers are over.

the most agreed upon position: both nadal and fed have become all time greats of the sport.

if you try to compare the two too hard, fed comes out on the losing end. he is just not good enough to beat a guy with 1/2 the tools he has.

and quite honestly all the tools in the world dont matter at the highest level of sports. mental discipline, testicular fortitude, relentless will, and the like count for a lot.
 
Hodgepodge said:
Rafa has 60% of his slams on clay, so he's more a all-time great clay courter than anything else at the moment.

Has to win more hardcourt and grass court slams.
Click to expand...


So you're saying clay is markedly different to hard courts and grass, and yes I agree, but somehow you make out it is lesser.


Try this for a stat:

Federer has won 56.25% of his Grand Slams on hard courts.

Not far off 60% is it.


And these days the grass at Wimbledon plays pretty much like hard courts, there's very little serve and volley.

So really Wimbledon and USO/AO suit a certain type of game which is Federer's game and so try this stat:

Federer has won 93.75% of his slams on grass/hardcourts (and the only year he won the French was when Nadal was buggered with his knee).


See there's flip side to this selective stuff, your trouble is that you somehow try to make clay a less meaningful surface than the others to suit your views.


The reality is that Nadal started as a clay court specialist and got himself to a level where he could beat the 'GOAT' on his own favourite courts at his peak.

The GOAT as well as losing to this younger player on his own favoured surfaces has never managed to be anything but demolished on clay.


So from this which is the most rounded player with the best all court game?


The only court that Federer is better than Nadal on is the indoor and last I looked we don't play Slams on those...if we did no doubt Nadal would have made himself the best on it.

Imagine if the Grand slams were 'fairer' to a player like Nadal, imagine that say the Aussie was on clay, that would mean we have 2 clay champs, 1 grass, 1 hard court, what would the career stats be like then?

Instead we have 2 hard, 1 grass, 1 clay and still with this inbuilt disadvantage to his natural game Nadal has remorselessly hunted down Federer and systematically broken down his aura as he has turned hismelf into the man to beat on grass and the current USO champion.

So you can stick your 60% of titles on clay stat where the sun don't shine.
 
Dipper said:
So you're saying clay is markedly different to hard courts and grass, and yes I agree, but somehow you make out it is lesser.


Try this for a stat:

Federer has won 56.25% of his Grand Slams on hard courts.

Not far off 60% is it.


And these days the grass at Wimbledon plays pretty much like hard courts, there's very little serve and volley.

So really Wimbledon and USO/AO suit a certain type of game which is Federer's game and so try this stat:

Federer has won 93.75% of his slams on grass/hardcourts (and the only year he won the French was when Nadal was buggered with his knee).


See there's flip side to this selective stuff, your trouble is that you somehow try to make clay a less meaningful surface than the others to suit your views.


The reality is that Nadal started as a clay court specialist and got himself to a level where he could beat the 'GOAT' on his own favourite courts at his peak.

The GOAT as well as losing to this younger player on his own favoured surfaces has never managed to be anything but demolished on clay.


So from this which is the most rounded player with the best all court game?


The only court that Federer is better than Nadal on is the indoor and last I looked we don't play Slams on those...if we did no doubt Nadal would have made himself the best on it.

Imagine if the Grand slams were 'fairer' to a player like Nadal, imagine that say the Aussie was on clay, that would mean we have 2 clay champs, 1 grass, 1 hard court, what would the career stats be like then?

Instead we have 2 hard, 1 grass, 1 clay and still with this inbuilt disadvantage to his natural game Nadal has remorselessly hunted down Federer and systematically broken down his aura as he has turned hismelf into the man to beat on grass and the current USO champion.

So you can stick your 60% of titles on clay stat where the sun don't shine.
Click to expand...

Thats very well said Dipper..the Federer fans on this board suggest that clay doesnt count..yet hardcourts and grasscourts count.The argument is absolutely ludicrous...they deny the importance of F.O cause Federer cant win anything on clay.Selective stats to fit their agenda and argument keep fed fans going..but they forget that French Open is still a grandslam. Nadal is going to beat Borgs record next year..no matter how much they cry about it.. they cant take that away from Nadal.If that argument is indeed true, Borg is a hack then? since half of his GS titles were clay?


TIRO himself has admitted Federer cannot beat Nadal under normal circumstances.If he cannot be the greater one in the rivalry how is the the greatest ever? (and people who are going to comeback with ridiculous stuff like Davydenkos winning record against Rafa, please..federer is 2-7 against Rafa in slam semi-finals and finals, that is quite different than beating someone in Qatar open quarter finals).As i said before, Federer blew people away in the little talented field he was presented with (04 to 07), i am not gonna take it away, but in face of real competition he started declining (not a coincidence).The fact of the matter is, this F.O final he played better than ever before and still came up short.People who are arguing about Roger being old and not the same dont know what they are talking about.Roger played the best F.O out of all probably and still lost to Rafa.


Federers 5th set record proves he is mentally fragile, he is 15-13 and had to swallow some tough losses against Djokovic, several ones against Nadal and Nalbandian.I really really wished Nadal was 5 years younger,then we wouldnt be having this argument anymore.
 
Nadal is probably a better player than Federer if they're both healthy. However, part of being the greatest is longevity. If Nadal's brutal style results in his body breaking down and therefore not passing Federer's GS total than he isn't the GOAT.

Djokovic is also going to make it difficult for Rafa. Fwiw I liked from what I saw from Federer in Paris and he'll win Wimbledon, Rafa or no Rafa. Meanwhile, Djokovic deserves to start favourite at the U.S and Aussie Opens. So it's going to take quite a few years for Rafa to get near 16.
 
bombermick said:
Nadal is probably a better player than Federer if they're both healthy. However, part of being the greatest is longevity. If Nadal's brutal style results in his body breaking down and therefore not passing Federer's GS total than he isn't the GOAT.

Djokovic is also going to make it difficult for Rafa. Fwiw I liked from what I saw from Federer in Paris and he'll win Wimbledon, Rafa or no Rafa. Meanwhile, Djokovic deserves to start favourite at the U.S and Aussie Opens. So it's going to take quite a few years for Rafa to get near 16.
Click to expand...

Basically what you are saying is that besides an injury (not something like mono that disappears against every opponent in a year except for when facing nadal when all of a sudden it magically surfaces), Federer will win wimbledon 2011. No excuses?

If so, we should make a big footy bet.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

In absolute terms I think they are very close to equal, but Fed is from a slightly earlier period and thus was greater for his time than Nadal. Nadal never had a period like Fed's peak 04-07. Nadal never completely and utterly dominated his competition for an extended period.

All players get superseded eventually. Just like Nadal is now getting superseded by Djoko. Using some of the arguments in this thread then how can you say Nadal is so clearly above Djoko, when Djokovic accounted for him comfortably all of last year?

I think comparing total number of slams is one of the more accurate ways of settling this and that leaves Nadal fairly short atm. Nadal is up there in the top 5 or 6 of all time and Fed is somewhere between 1 and 3 IMO.

I also think you have to factor in how much Federer changed the game. He took it to a new level. Nadal didn't really do that, he more or less just matched the level that Federer was at.
 
Imagine how good Fed would be if he played in an earlier era. Nadal wouldn't be half the player he is without today's string technology that keeps the ball in the court.

If Fed was around at the same time as Sampras (both peaking at same time), he would have blasted him off the court, 9 times out of 10. He's just as good a volleyer as Rafter, but with world-class groundies.
 
bombermick said:
Imagine how good Fed would be if he played in an earlier era. Nadal wouldn't be half the player he is without today's string technology that keeps the ball in the court.

If Fed was around at the same time as Sampras (both peaking at same time), he would have blasted him off the court, 9 times out of 10. He's just as good a volleyer as Rafter, but with world-class groundies.
Click to expand...

Blasted him off the court both at their peak. I disagree. I think they would have played some epic matches. One thing they both were able to do was serve their way out of trouble. I think at their peak it would have been something more like 60-40 Fed's way. Though on grass I would say 50-50.

While Fed is a great volleyer he does not come in all that often.
 
pepsi said:
Blasted him off the court both at their peak. I disagree. I think they would have played some epic matches. One thing they both were able to do was serve their way out of trouble. I think at their peak it would have been something more like 60-40 Fed's way. Though on grass I would say 50-50.

While Fed is a great volleyer he does not come in all that often.
Click to expand...

That's because of the quality of the racquets and strings. Place him in an earlier era and he would have been unstoppable.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It's makes me sad to think there are people out there who think Rafa is near Fed in GOATness.

People need to go and have a look at peak Fed in 04-07. He was so much further ahead of his competition than peak Rafa. Fed was untouchable, he totally dominated an era. Rafa has never been that far ahead of his competition. Djokovic could still go on to surpass Rafa imo.
 
Dr Awkward said:
It's makes me sad to think there are people out there who think Rafa is near Fed in GOATness.

People need to go and have a look at peak Fed in 04-07. He was so much further ahead of his competition than peak Rafa. Fed was untouchable, he totally dominated an era. Rafa has never been that far ahead of his competition. Djokovic could still go on to surpass Rafa imo.
Click to expand...

I dont think its sad that some people suggest that Rafa is near Federer, Raf has the edge in H2H match ups plus in grand slam finals Raf also leads that too. Also what players did Fed have to beat back when he was at his peak in fairness there wasnt much around
 
yeah from 2004-2007 field is lulz material compared to field from 2008-2011. The top 4 have never been stronger.Ever.How many slams would fed have won if he was at his peak from 2008-2011? yeah fair few i would assume but it will not be 16...can guarantee you that
 
I am looking forward to one of the best rivalries in world sport continue tomorrow night. I really think Fed will win it in 4, he has been in great form and I think Nadal has lost a little since his outstanding season in 2010. Of course it could go the other way, but Fed has got his confidence back when facing Rafa. Hoping for another classic, hope they both play extremely well.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

GOAT: Rafa vs Roger

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top