Roger Federer is not the GOAT

Remove this Banner Ad

Billyc said:
It's a terrible point. Federer has also won 9 of his slams on one surface, hard court.

If Nadal wins tomorrow, he will be the only player in the open era to have won 2 of each slam. His achievement cannot rationally be diminished because he's won a lot of French Opens.

Tomorrow is a battle for GOAT status. While Nadal would still be 2 slams shy if he wins, he has won all of his slams during the toughest era in tennis history with Federer and then Djokovic/Murray. Federer banked several during a very weak era where his nearest rivals were Roddick, Hewitt and Safin and played the likes of Gonzalez and Phillipoussis in finals.

The suggestion that more slams = greater doesn't wash. It's like arguing a cricketer who plays inferior opponents is better than another because he has a higher average.

Plus Nadal has that 23-11 head-to-head record.

Whoever wins tomorrow takes the GOAT title...for now.
Click to expand...

But How is Fed going to do it?

If he lets it become the usual Rafa heavy forehand to his backhand it's the same result as the last 10 years basically.

Surely his only hope is to keep the points brief as possible and just not let Rafa get any rhythm .
Once the long rally starts he's better off chopping short to rafas backhand and sweating on a running forehand that at least gives him a chance to end the point one way or another.
 
Billyc said:
It's a terrible point. Federer has also won 9 of his slams on one surface, hard court.

If Nadal wins tomorrow, he will be the only player in the open era to have won 2 of each slam. His achievement cannot rationally be diminished because he's won a lot of French Opens.

Tomorrow is a battle for GOAT status. While Nadal would still be 2 slams shy if he wins, he has won all of his slams during the toughest era in tennis history with Federer and then Djokovic/Murray. Federer banked several during a very weak era where his nearest rivals were Roddick, Hewitt and Safin and played the likes of Gonzalez and Phillipoussis in finals.

The suggestion that more slams = greater doesn't wash. It's like arguing a cricketer who plays inferior opponents is better than another because he has a higher average.

Plus Nadal has that 23-11 head-to-head record.

Whoever wins tomorrow takes the GOAT title...for now.
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn't wash either, Nadal won 2 French against Soderling, 1 against Ferrer and 1 against Puerta. We can say they are weak wins as you put it as well. Should we deduct them from his account?
Winning any Grand Slam is a very difficult thing to do, most players try to win one in their career. This crap that it was a weak field is just silly. You don't call it off because it's an apparently weak field. They do not count for less because as you say the opponent was not the greatest player ever.
Head to head also means little when the object is to win slams in your career.
Nadal and Djokovic are freak players and may one day take the title as GOAT, and when or if they do they will rightfully have that title, but until they win more slams than Fed then it rest comfortably with him.

Ps Jack Nicholas is the GOAT in golf, yet one could easily argue the modern era has deeper fields. That still does not mean Tiger is GOAT. Most Majors holds the title. Why you want to mess with a very sound simple formula is beyond me.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

greatwhiteshark said:
Of course he can and he is!
He has 17 slams and Rafa has 14. Who won in the Phoenix open is not relevant.
Click to expand...

He might be the male who has the most slams. But he doesn't have the highest total and that belongs to a woman. Until he beats Court or Serenas record... he will never be the greatest tennis player of all time. In fact he has a bit of catching up to do in that area.
 
What a redundant argument - the number of slams won (across both the male and female division) does not automatically make you the greatest tennis player of all time. In fact, the very significant differences between the male and female game (e.g. the number of sets required to be won for victory) automatically mean that you cannot properly group them together. Once that's accepted, then there will be open debate as to who the greatest male and female player is. Don Bradman has the best cricketing average but that, in my opinion, doesn't mean he is the greatest batsman of all time. There are a raft of variables that makes it an open debate - surface, quality of opposition, range of opponents etc. Looking at a list alone is not going to provide you with an informed basis.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RAPPA said:
What a redundant argument - the number of slams won (across both the male and female division) does not automatically make you the greatest tennis player of all time. In fact, the very significant differences between the male and female game (e.g. the number of sets required to be won for victory) automatically mean that you cannot properly group them together. Once that's accepted, then there will be open debate as to who the greatest male and female player is. Don Bradman has the best cricketing average but that, in my opinion, doesn't mean he is the greatest batsman of all time. There are a raft of variables that makes it an open debate - surface, quality of opposition, range of opponents etc. Looking at a list alone is not going to provide you with an informed basis.
Click to expand...

It's only redundant to those that cry foul of people that speak against Federror and his "achievements"
 
RAPPA said:
What a redundant argument - the number of slams won (across both the male and female division) does not automatically make you the greatest tennis playe Don Bradman has the best cricketing average but that, in my opinion, doesn't mean he is the greatest batsman of all time.
Click to expand...

Hate to derail but... are you serious? One of the worst examples you could have possibly used, Don Bradman is indisputably the best batsman of all time (well until you came along at least).
 
getthefooty said:
Hate to derail but... are you serious? One of the worst examples you could have possibly used, Don Bradman is indisputably the best batsman of all time (well until you came along at least).
Click to expand...

Disagree. What makes him the greatest? His average? In fact, many reputable commentators don't list him as the greatest - Sachin, Viv and others have all been placed in the top spot.

I never saw Bradman play but to claim someone is indisputably the best is uninformed in my opinion. The greatest bowlers all played in the post Bradman era and Bradman predominantly played against England.

My argument is looking at a number alone (a cricketer's average or the number of slams a single player - male or female - has won) is not automatically determinative as to who is the greatest.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
The only day the argument changes is when someone passes Federer record for most Grand Slams, until that day I am comfortable that he is the greatest player of all time.
Head to heads is again of no relevance to the conversation.
It will be either 17-15 tomorrow or 18-14. But no matter what Federer will still be the GOAT in my opinion.
Click to expand...

So was Emerson better than Laver?

Was Kuerten better than Safin or Hewitt?

When the gap is as (relatively - 3 grand slams is not THAT many when one player has 17 and one has 14) close as this one, and the player on the lower side of the ledger has such a superior head to head record, surely there has to be room for debate.

No golfing fanatic would just dismiss Tiger Woods from an All Time discussion because he's won less majors than Nicklaus. Why would a tennis fan instantly dismiss Nadal on the same basis?
 
greatwhiteshark said:
Your argument doesn't wash either, Nadal won 2 French against Soderling, 1 against Ferrer and 1 against Puerta. We can say they are weak wins as you put it as well. Should we deduct them from his account?
Winning any Grand Slam is a very difficult thing to do, most players try to win one in their career. This crap that it was a weak field is just silly. You don't call it off because it's an apparently weak field. They do not count for less because as you say the opponent was not the greatest player ever.
Head to head also means little when the object is to win slams in your career.
Nadal and Djokovic are freak players and may one day take the title as GOAT, and when or if they do they will rightfully have that title, but until they win more slams than Fed then it rest comfortably with him.

Ps Jack Nicholas is the GOAT in golf, yet one could easily argue the modern era has deeper fields. That still does not mean Tiger is GOAT. Most Majors holds the title. Why you want to mess with a very sound simple formula is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Garbage logic.

Such a black and white determination means that Ali can't be considered the greatest heavyweight let alone the greatest boxer.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
Your argument doesn't wash either, Nadal won 2 French against Soderling, 1 against Ferrer and 1 against Puerta. We can say they are weak wins as you put it as well. Should we deduct them from his account?
Winning any Grand Slam is a very difficult thing to do, most players try to win one in their career. This crap that it was a weak field is just silly. You don't call it off because it's an apparently weak field. They do not count for less because as you say the opponent was not the greatest player ever.
Head to head also means little when the object is to win slams in your career.
Nadal and Djokovic are freak players and may one day take the title as GOAT, and when or if they do they will rightfully have that title, but until they win more slams than Fed then it rest comfortably with him.

Ps Jack Nicholas is the GOAT in golf, yet one could easily argue the modern era has deeper fields. That still does not mean Tiger is GOAT. Most Majors holds the title. Why you want to mess with a very sound simple formula is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Sorry but he didn't win two French against soderling. He won 1 over him. Federer beat Soderling the other time he made the final, after Soderling beat Rafa in the fourth round.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
Your argument doesn't wash either, Nadal won 2 French against Soderling, 1 against Ferrer and 1 against Puerta. We can say they are weak wins as you put it as well. Should we deduct them from his account?
Winning any Grand Slam is a very difficult thing to do, most players try to win one in their career. This crap that it was a weak field is just silly. You don't call it off because it's an apparently weak field. They do not count for less because as you say the opponent was not the greatest player ever.
Head to head also means little when the object is to win slams in your career.
Nadal and Djokovic are freak players and may one day take the title as GOAT, and when or if they do they will rightfully have that title, but until they win more slams than Fed then it rest comfortably with him.

Ps Jack Nicholas is the GOAT in golf, yet one could easily argue the modern era has deeper fields. That still does not mean Tiger is GOAT. Most Majors holds the title. Why you want to mess with a very sound simple formula is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I agree it is a very simple formula and it gives a simplistic answer. Good for simple minds but doesn't stand up to scrutiny and analysis.

Emerson wasn't better than Borg for example. Borg won 11 slams in a much more competitive and professional era, never played the Australian Open and retired at 26. Wawrinka is not the equal of Andy Murray because they each have 3 slams. Thomas Johannsen, Gaston Gaudio and Petr Korda are not better than the likes of Tsonga or Berdych who have been victims of this very strong era.

I agree the aim of the game is to win slams. And fortunately the two best players of all time have had the chance to play one another in grand slams over a 10 year period (9-2 to Nadal). Their head to head in slams and best of 5 set matches isn't even close. And that counts for a lot in a one on one sport like tennis.

But yeah, Federer beating up on Gonzalez and Baghdatis when Nadal and Djokovic were about 16 years old is a better indicator of who is better than the two best guys actually playing each other 34 times including 11 times in grand slams. Ridiculous.

Anyway tonight's game is massive for the debate
 
Last edited:
Nadal has been amazing and is certainly one of the best of all time, but he is comfortably not #1 and that's not going to change. Sure his head to head record over Roger is remarkable, and I don't think we've ever seen a better player on clay, but Federer and arguably even Djokovic have had more well rounded careers when it comes to accomplishments, especially when talking Grand Slams on more than one surface.
 
Elite Master said:
Nadal has been amazing and is certainly one of the best of all time, but he is comfortably not #1 and that's not going to change. Sure his head to head record over Roger is remarkable, and I don't think we've ever seen a better player on clay, but Federer and arguably even Djokovic have had more well rounded careers when it comes to accomplishments, especially when talking Grand Slams on more than one surface.
Click to expand...

If he wins tonight he's won as many slams away from clay as Becker and Edberg.

More rounded? How much more rounded can you get than winning every slam at least twice? What, is 6 of them considered a fluke or something? F*** me.
 
Glenno23 said:
If Rafa can beat Fed so easily, why does Rafa have less Slams then?

Hint: It's not about records against certain people. You have to win 7 matches to win a slam, not 1
Click to expand...
Because he is younger and has missed more slams then roger, he has less grand slam losses then roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PonsfordMagpie
Roger Federer - retired
Replies
24
Views
930
spudmaster
spudmaster
Aristotle Pickett
'Blast from the past' thread.
Replies
12
Views
778
Hamingja
Hamingja

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top