Roger Federer Selfie with Michael Jordan at 2014 U.S Open

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

The competition is stronger at the top, but its not nearly as deep or varied because of how homogenized the surfaces and conditions are. That's why, for all this talk of stronger competition, there has never been a time in the open era with less parity. That's benefitted everybody, including Federer, but more so Nadal because he has never had all-cpurt tendencies. Here's a post I made on another forum explaining my view on that:

This isn't a hate thread, mind you. I think what Nadal has accomplished this year is phenomenal. While it has caused me a fair bit of anguish, since it has deprived Fed and Nole of a lot of success, there is no denying that Rafa has had a year for the ages, considering the circumstances. I concede, albeit with reluctance, that Nadal may very well be remembered as the best/most accomplished of his era. His achievements speak for themselves.

Regardless, I can't ever see him as being "greater" than Fed for the same reason I can't view Ted Williams as being greater than DiMaggio. It's a subjective thing, I guess, and I wouldn't fault anyone for vehemently disagreeing with me. What any reasonable person can admit, though, is that this era was tailor made for Nadal. That's not his fault, and there's a fine line between admitting that and not acknowledging his rightful status in the annals of tennis history, which is as one of the greatest ever. But let it be known: there is pretty much literally nothing that could have been done to assure Nadal had more success in this era, other than avoiding the injury bug. Same goes, unfortunately, for Novak, which is a drag to admit. The courts are slower now than they have been at any point in tennis history. The racquet technology enables players to hit shots from defensive positions and return them with interest in a way it never has before. It used to be that on indoor courts, once you took charge in a rally, the other player would have to produce something special to neutralize the point. Now, you see guys merely bunt the ball back while on their back foot,in an extremely awkward position, and the ball will land on the back of the line and the point will be on level terms once more. It's so seamless and commonplace that long rallies with seemingly "amazing" gets barely register in the minds of most tennis fans. The balance of power has shifted, some might say irrevocably, to the defensive-minded player. That's why, to me, there isn't much parity in today's game. Once you've learned how to play on one surface, you've learned how to play on all of them. There are no single-surface specialists, because the adjustments you would have to make from one surface to another have been rendered all but obsolete. That's why todays "all-surface" players are anything but.

That doesn't diminish Nadals accomplishments for me, but it does add some clarity as to how he was able to be so successful despite playing the same type of game on every surface, employing the same rudimentary game plan for years without any seismic adjustments. I hope people reading this thread can see the difference between me hating on Nadal and me attempting to explain why he hit the jackpot playing in todays game.

Sure, Nadal to date has conquered his rivals. That script might be re-written at some point. After all, it wasn't until age 29-30 that the narrative of Federer only losing to Nadal consistently was changed. But it probably won't be. Nadal has a stranglehold on nearly all of his significant rivals. Colour me extremely impressed, but not shocked; after all, in this era once you learn how to play on one surface you learn how to play on them all. In that same vain, once you learn how to master one style of play (a margin-based counter-punching game with occasional offense), you master them all. That's the main reason I can't buy into the notion that the competition tennis has gotten much much stronger in the past 5 years, approaching a level we have never seen before. The level of baseline play is indeed unprecedented, but the all-court component is gone, due in large part to the technology and gradual death of fast surfaces. What's so gaudy about that? That's like if the NBA abolished the 3 point line. It'd go from a league with a good balance between rim-attackers and shooters to a league dominated by guys driving to the hole all game long. In that league, players like Bird, Petrovic and Reggie Miller wouldn't look so hot anymore. After all, why work on a skill that simply isn't relevant anymore? Volleys, chip and charges, stealthy approaches, and to an extent slice backhands, they are all merely complementary skills to have. Nothing more, nothing less. That is just absurd to me. Right now, if you are the best baseliner in tennis, you are the best PLAYER in tennis. It's a startlingly tight correlation. In the 90s, that didn't guarantee you were the best. Oh sure, Agassi and Chang were plenty successful.


But Sampras was the undisputed player of the 90s. Borg was the greatest baseliner of his era and the greatest player, but he served and volleyed at Wimby and developed a workmanlike net game. Laver was the greatest of his era but Rosewall was his superior from the back of the court, many would argue. Laver compensated for this by improving his running forehand and developing a lethal drive BH to combat Rosewall's slice. In other words, these guys couldn't fall back on their mastery of one facet of the game. On paper, Nadal will rival all of these players. Heck, he might be better whichever way you'd wanna argue it. But to me, I'll always feel that the Nadal-breed of players got the lions share of the luck playing in today's game. Meaning, baseliners with topspin-rife shots and counterpunching tendencies.

How does this tie in with Federer? Simply put, I am of the belief that if you put him in any era, he would be immensely successful. He is a jack of all trades in the same way Laver was. He beat Sampras serving and volleying. He beat Djokovic, Agassi, Murray and to a lesser extent Nadal from the back of the court in the biggest stages of the game. His variety ensured that he would be utterly dominant on fast and medium speed courts, and tremendously successful on slow ones (and don't tell me there are still lightning fast courts in todays game). At his peak you simply could not serve the man off the court. His defensive return was almost as good as Agassi's offensive return. His passing shots were elite on all surfaces. He took your time away on fast surfaces. On slow ones, you were guaranteed a war of attrition if intended to rally with him.

I believe his net game was underrated. It wasn't as great as Pete's or Rafters or Edbergs, but (of course) in this era it didn't need to be. That's why his net game during Wimby 2001 was better than it was when he was in his prime. Why hone a skill that wasn't all that necessary anymore? All I know is, many tried defeating Sampras using his own his own game during his reign at Wimbledon. Only two succeeded. And the other one might've had the best or second best first serve of his era, and possibly one of the 10 best overall serves of all time (Krajicek). Federer didn't have that luxury, especially at 19 when his serve was still developing. That counts for something.

Anyways, I'm not gonna say that i KNOW that Fed could dominate in any era and Nadal wouldnt, because to speak with such conviction is the mark of a foolish man. I merely believe it to be the case. I believe that Nadal, to dominate from the 60s-90s to the same extent that he did in the 2000's, he would had to have dramatically altered his game. Could he have been able to? Knowing his resolve, I wouldn't put it entirely past him. But I also believe that Federer wouldn't have to undergo any significant paradigm shift to succeed anywhere, on any surface and in any conditions. His game is timeless in a way that Nadal's isn't. While I have limitless respect for Nadal's prowess as a player, Federer has already proven (to me) that he is the greater player. Just one guys opinion.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

This is another retarded argument. Before 2008, from 2004-2007, Nadal was a ****ing teenager.

What was Federer doing from the ages of 18-21? For him that was from 1999-2002. In that span, here are his monstrous slam achievements:

0 Finals
0 semifinals
2 quarterfinals
5 first round exits
2 slams that he lost in the qualifying round, meaning he wasn't good enough to play..

Meanwhile Nadal at the same age:

3 Grand slam wins
2 Finals (not on clay)
2 QFs (not on clay)

Nadal at that age hadn't fully developed as a player..he was a teenager playing against the supposed "GOAT", and somehow he's supposed to be making finals left and right on every surface when that supposed "GOAT" himself wasn't doing jack shit at the same age?

Federer dominated a wack ass scrub era where his biggest competition was a teenage Nadal who had barely developed into the player he'd become from 2008-present. Nadal has had to deal with prime Federer, prime Djokovic, and prime Murray for his entire career and the only one of the 3 who has given him a consistent fight is Djokovic...not Federer.

There was indeed a huge discrepancy in their results as teenagers -- I don't see why that is relevant, however. Nadal was even more of an early bloomer than Fed. That's why, in terms of quality of play, his best year was in 2008, at age 21 going on 22. He's never, however, been able to dominate tennis for a calendar year like Federer or even Djokovic have. That's why he's had 149 weeks at number one compared to 302 for Fed.

BTW, Federer has also had to deal with prime Djokovic; his head to head with him is 18-17, whereas Nadal's head to head with Djoker is 22-19. Considering Nadal is far closer to Djokovic's age than Federer, that's more or less a wash.


The improvement in competition is somewhat of a misconception I would say. Look, there's no doubt that Djokovic, Murray and Nadal have improved by a huge margin. But instead of Federer's competition being so crappy, maybe he just deprived them of titles by being so great in his prime? Outside of the big 4, the competition has been extremely lack-luster. Heck, the big 4 have won 38 of the past 41 slams I believe. That's ridiculous! And it's never been achieved in the history of tennis. There's something wrong with that, right?

Again, no doubt the top 5 is better now than in Fed's heyday, but not the overall quality of the tour. It's fairly moot. Heck, the average age of a top 100 player on tour is older than its ever been, by a long shot.

Look at the claycourt field that Nadal has dominated, if we wanna go that route: Federer, who is a fast-court player, Djokovic who isn't a natural mover on clay and tumbles on it like a cow on ice at times, and Ferrer, somebody who is Federers age and is 7-51 against the top 3. The claycourt competition of the 90s and early 2000s was stronger -- Kuerten, who won 3 frenches and had maybe the greatest single-handed BH of all time. Bruguera who was like a 90s Nadal in the sense that he imparted extreme topspin on the ball. Courier, who was said to have one of the most lethal forehands of all time and who beat STACKED draws to win his 2 Frenches. To go along with a bevy of other contenders, Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Gaudio, etc.

So this argument can rear its ugly head even in regards to Nadal. If most of Nadals success came against a depleted claycourt field, does that not say something about him as well? That is, if we are to go down this rabbit hole.

[FKAri]

i would say more people know jordan than federer. you always hear people say, "oh, hes the Micheal jordan of <insert sport>. everyone wants to "be like mike".

All because of Nike.

[Mr Feeny]

This is another retarded argument. Before 2008, from 2004-2007, Nadal was a ****ing teenager.

What was Federer doing from the ages of 18-21? For him that was from 1999-2002. In that span, here are his monstrous slam achievements:

0 Finals
0 semifinals
2 quarterfinals
5 first round exits
2 slams that he lost in the qualifying round, meaning he wasn't good enough to play..

Meanwhile Nadal at the same age:

3 Grand slam wins
2 Finals (not on clay)
2 QFs (not on clay)

Nadal at that age hadn't fully developed as a player..he was a teenager playing against the supposed "GOAT", and somehow he's supposed to be making finals left and right on every surface when that supposed "GOAT" himself wasn't doing jack shit at the same age?

Federer dominated a wack ass scrub era where his biggest competition was a teenage Nadal who had barely developed into the player he'd become from 2008-present. Nadal has had to deal with prime Federer, prime Djokovic, and prime Murray for his entire career and the only one of the 3 who has given him a consistent fight is Djokovic...not Federer.

Fine. Since you have no clue what you're talking about:

USO 2008: Nadal spanked by a baby Murray and doesn't face Fed
USO 2009: Nadal demolished 6-2,6-2,-62 by DelPo. Doesn't face Fed
AO 2010: "injured" after being throughly outplayed by Murray and down 2-0 sets

Federer has kids at this point and hits a huge decline.
Meanwhile, Nadal had only managed to reach a single hardcoirt final against Federer. He, however, racks up several wins in the French Open on clay to pad a meaningless head to head.


Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2014 are other exampls of Nadal being taken out by scrubs ra ked outside the top 100 and failing to reach a non-clay final agaunst Federer.

Let's discuss this when Nadal wins 17 grandslams. If he does, we'll gladly call it a wash with Fed's higher weeks at #1 and more YEC vs the head to head.
Till then, don't insult our intelligence with trite drivel. Federer is the consensus GOAT for a reason, and this is coming from a die hard Sampras fan. I LOATHED Fed when he approached Pete's grandslam mark. Objectivity takes ovet eventually and Nadal is simply not there. At the moment, this isn't even debatable imo.

[Da_Realist]

Yeah I agree, the head to head is indeed a big red herring. When Federer was in his prime he reached the final of EVERY big tourney (93% win percentage over a 4 year span, something Nadal never even did in a single year), but Nadal would rarely reciprocate, except on Nadals best surface and Federers worst. Thus a majority of their matches were on clay early on. Then when Federer started declining, Nadal took the h2h dominance to another level.

This is absurd. Federer has always had trouble with Nadal. Both hardcourts and clay, at first. Then Nadal beat him at WIMBLEDON in 2008 when Fed was not yet 29 years old. That should have shut down the argument.

When Federer was acing everyone else, he couldn't beat Nadal. Not when it mattered. I saw Nadal break Federer down to tears. I saw Federer lose sets to Nadal 6-0 and 6-1 in major finals. And I saw Federer quit. He's my favorite of all the ones playing today but Federer doesn't even believe he can beat Nadal whether it's 2004 or 2014. Nadal's strengths (being a strong lefty that uses heavy, top spin returns to relentlessly attack Federer's average one-handed backhand) would be Federer's achilles heel whenever and wherever they play.

Yet Nadal's biggest strength is his competitiveness. He's the most competitive player on the tour. He never gives up. He wears his opponents down. And unfortunately for Fed, Nadal turns their matches into brawls. Never ending, keep the ball in play, run all day until you quit brawls. Nadal's heavy topspin returns feel like body blows to Federer's weak one-handed backhand by the 3rd and 4th set. Fed can't solve that riddle.

[joeysms55]

There was indeed a huge discrepancy in their results as teenagers -- I don't see why that is relevant, however. Nadal was even more of an early bloomer than Fed. That's why, in terms of quality of play, his best year was in 2008, at age 21 going on 22. He's never, however, been able to dominate tennis for a calendar year like Federer or even Djokovic have. That's why he's had 149 weeks at number one compared to 302 for Fed.

BTW, Federer has also had to deal with prime Djokovic; his head to head with him is 18-17, whereas Nadal's head to head with Djoker is 22-19. Considering Nadal is far closer to Djokovic's age than Federer, that's more or less a wash.


The improvement in competition is somewhat of a misconception I would say. Look, there's no doubt that Djokovic, Murray and Nadal have improved by a huge margin. But instead of Federer's competition being so crappy, maybe he just deprived them of titles by being so great in his prime? Outside of the big 4, the competition has been extremely lack-luster. Heck, the big 4 have won 38 of the past 41 slams I believe. That's ridiculous! And it's never been achieved in the history of tennis. There's something wrong with that, right?

Again, no doubt the top 5 is better now than in Fed's heyday, but not the overall quality of the tour. It's fairly moot. Heck, the average age of a top 100 player on tour is older than its ever been, by a long shot.

Look at the claycourt field that Nadal has dominated, if we wanna go that route: Federer, who is a fast-court player, Djokovic who isn't a natural mover on clay, and Ferrer, somebody who is Federers age and is 7-51 against the top 3. The claycourt competition of the 90s and early 2000s was stronger -- Kuerten, who won 3 frenches and had maybe the greatest single-handed BH of all time. Bruguera who was like a 90s Nadal in the sense that he imparted extreme topspin on the ball. Courier, who was said to have one of the most lethal forehands of all time and who beat STACKED draws to win his 2 Frenches.

Federer benefited the most on his are because he started winning grand slams before the golden era of tennis. Nadal won most of his grand slams in the golden era were he faced prime Federer, Djokovic, and etc...

Lets be real, Federer started losing when Nadal rise into the sport.

Look at the head 2 head matchup between top tennis players. Nadal always have a winning head to head record.

[Milbuck]

Fine. Since you have no clue what you're talking about:

USO 2008: Nadal spanked by a baby Murray and doesn't face Fed
USO 2009: Nadal demolished 6-2,6-2,-62 by DelPo. Doesn't face Fed
AO 2010: "injured" after being throughly outplayed by Murray and down 2-0 sets

Federer has kids at this point and hits a huge decline.
Meanwhile, Nadal had only managed to reach a single hardcoirt final against Federer. He, however, racks up several wins in the French Open on clay to pad a meaningless head to head.


Wimbledon 2012, Wimbledon 2014 are other exampls of Nadal being taken out by scrubs ra ked outside the top 100 and failing to reach a non-clay final agaunst Federer.

Let's discuss this when Nadal wins 17 grandslams. If he does, we'll gladly call it a wash with Fed's higher weeks at #1 and more YEC vs the head to head.
Till then, don't insult our intelligence with trite drivel. Federer is the consensus GOAT for a reason, and this is coming from a die hard Sampras fan. I LOATHED Fed when he approached Pete's grandslam mark. Objectivity takes ovet eventually and Nadal is simply not there. At the moment, this isn't even debatable imo.

Yes, I don't know what I'm talking about despite you having to cherry pick specific matches to argue your point.

Like Federer hasn't been spanked in his prime. 2-6 3-6 against Mardy Fish in 2008. 2-6 4-6 against Fillipo Volandri in 2007 at his peak. 2-6 3-6 loss to Murray in 2010.

And just LOL at padding his H2H on clay. He leads on 2 out of the 3 surfaces...and even on grass, the H2H is only 2-1 for Federer...where Federer won both his matches at his absolute peak against a 20-21 year old Nadal, and Nadal winning his the year later when he was just barely entering his prime. Can you really say prime for prime Federer would dominate Nadal on grass? Federer has a 1 match advantage on 1 surface, whereas Nadal is up 9-6 on HC.

And for the record, I never once said Nadal is the GOAT. Me putting quotations around GOAT when talking about Federer is just me pointing out how fragile Federer's GOAThood is when considering things that matter in an individual sport such as tennis, like how they performed against their rivals. My only argument in this thread is that Federer's paper-thin reign as GOAT doesn't touch Jordan's case for being the GOAT of his sport, which is you know, the point of the thread.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Federer benefited the most on his are because he started winning grand slams before the golden era of tennis. Nadal won most of his grand slams in the golden era were he faced prime Federer, Djokovic, and etc...

Lets be real, Federer started losing when Nadal rise into the sport.

Look at the head 2 head matchup between top tennis players. Nadal always have a winning head to head record.

This is blithely untrue. No disrespect meant, but it's easy to make blanket statements when you ignore the actual points I made in my post.

If this is such a golden age, why is the average of a top 100 player higher than it's ever been? By far, mind you. Think about that for a second: the competition has improved, yet there are very few new faces. Does that make sense? The competition has improved, yet the very same faces are at the top every year.


Nadal started his onslaught on the sport in 2008, when he beat Federer at Wimbledon on his 3rd attempt against him. That year, Federer went 66-15, with losses to numerous obscure players that he didn't lose to in 2004-2007. The previous 4 years, his record was 315-24.

If your argument has merit, this would mean that Federer only dropped off against Nadal and the succeeding generation. But that's simply not the case. Federer by 27 dropped off against everybody. He lost in the Olympics to Blake, who he had a 13-0 record against, AND who was 2 years older than him. He lost to Karlovic, Simon, got taken to 5 at the US Open by Andreev, taken to 5 at the Aussie Open, and didn't win his first title until June, a year after winning 9 titles and 3 slams. It was a shocking decline. After he missed a training block with a lengthy bout of mono, he wasn't the same guy.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Yes, I don't know what I'm talking about despite you having to cherry pick specific matches to argue your point.

Like Federer hasn't been spanked in his prime. 2-6 3-6 against Mardy Fish in 2008. 2-6 4-6 against Fillipo Volandri in 2007 at his peak. 2-6 3-6 loss to Murray in 2010.

And just LOL at padding his H2H on clay. He leads on 2 out of the 3 surfaces...and even on grass, the H2H is only 2-1 for Federer...where Federer won both his matches at his absolute peak against a 20-21 year old Nadal, and Nadal winning his the year later when he was just barely entering his prime. Can you really say prime for prime Federer would dominate Nadal on grass? Federer has a 1 match advantage on 1 surface, whereas Nadal is up 9-6 on HC.

And for the record, I never once said Nadal is the GOAT. Me putting quotations around GOAT when talking about Federer is just me pointing out how fragile Federer's GOAThood is when considering things that matter in an individual sport such as tennis, like how they performed against their rivals. My only argument in this thread is that Federer's paper-thin reign as GOAT doesn't touch Jordan's case for being the GOAT of his sport, which is you know, the point of the thread.

I actually agree that Federer doesn't touch Jordan. But some of your arguments are rather short-sighted. I say this respectfully, because it's clear that you are not an ignoramus and clearly know something about the history of tennis.

Particularly the "getting spanked" thing, although in fairness that doesn't really matter either way. Nadal has been bageled (losing a set 6-0) about 8-9 times since 2004. Federer has only lost a 6-0 set 2 times in his 16 year career. No comparison there.

[joeysms55]

This is blithely untrue. No disrespect meant, but it's easy to make blanket statements when you ignore the actual points I made in my post.

If this is such a golden age, why is the average of a top 100 player higher than it's ever been? By far, mind you. Think about that for a second: the competition has improved, yet there are very few new faces. Does that make sense? The competition has improved, yet the very same faces are at the top every year.


Nadal started his onslaught on the sport in 2008, when he beat Federer at Wimbledon on his 3rd attempt against him. That year, Federer went 66-15, with losses to numerous obscure players that he didn't lose to in 2004-2007. The previous 4 years, his record was 315-24.

If your argument has merit, this would mean that Federer only dropped off against Nadal and the succeeding generation. But that's simply not the case. Federer by 27 dropped off against everybody. He lost in the Olympics to Blake, who he had a 13-0 record against, AND who was 2 years older than him. He lost to Karlovic, Simon, got taken to 5 at the US Open by Andreev, taken to 5 at the Aussie Open, and didn't win his first title until June, a year after winning 9 titles and 3 slams. It was a shocking decline. After he missed a training block with a lengthy bout of mono, he wasn't the same guy.

June 11 2006, Nadal hand in Federer his first grand slam lost ever.

June 10, 2007, Nadal hand in Federer his second grand slam lost.

All time grand slam record of Federer against Nadal. 2-6

Hasn't beaten Nadal in grand slam matches since 2007

Look at Federers competition in grand slam matches vs Nadal's and look what he has to go through and be able to have 14 grand slam titles and likely will end up more with Federer who currently have 17.

Uhmmmm u better check some facts here before u make bold statements.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

This is absurd. Federer has always had trouble with Nadal. Both hardcourts and clay, at first. Then Nadal beat him at WIMBLEDON in 2008 when Fed was not yet 29 years old. That should have shut down the argument.

When Federer was acing everyone else, he couldn't beat Nadal. Not when it mattered. I saw Nadal break Federer down to tears. I saw Federer lose sets to Nadal 6-0 and 6-1 in major finals. And I saw Federer quit. He's my favorite of all the ones playing today but Federer doesn't even believe he can beat Nadal whether it's 2004 or 2014. Nadal's strengths (being a strong lefty that uses heavy, top spin returns to relentlessly attack Federer's average one-handed backhand) would be Federer's achilles heel whenever and wherever they play.

Yet Nadal's biggest strength is his competitiveness. He's the most competitive player on the tour. He never gives up. He wears his opponents down. And unfortunately for Fed, Nadal turns their matches into brawls. Never ending, keep the ball in play, run all day until you quit brawls. Nadal's heavy topspin returns feel like body blows to Federer's weak one-handed backhand by the 3rd and 4th set. Fed can't solve that riddle.

He is clearly a terrible match-up for Fed. But, against the rest of the field? Federer is clearly superior. Clearly. One h2h doesn't negate that. And ftr, Fed's record against Nadal on non-clay surfaces (which constitute 65% of the tour), was 6-2 before 2008.

6-0 and 6-1 sets, you say? Interestingly enough, they've won an equal amount of 6-0 and 6-1 sets against each other at majors: 3. So that's an exaggeration. Heck, throughout their rivalry, Federer has bagelled Nadal 3 times, 1 on each surface, compared to Nadal once on clay. But that's just small potatoes. Federer has dominated tennis to an extent Nadal never has. 3 years having won 3 slams compared to 1. Reaching 18 out of 19 major finals, when Nadals best stretch was 6 out of 7. 23 consecutive semi's at slams reached compared to 5.

There's no cognitive dissonance in believing that Nadal has bested Fed in the h2h battle, yet is still the inferior player. He's been out-performed BIG TIME on 3 of the 4 non-clay slams, and HUGELY on the biggest tournament outside of the majors, where he is 13-11 and has won 0 times compared to 44-11 and 6 times for Fed.

I appreciate the respectful tone, though, and I hope we can continue this discussion on the same note.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

June 11 2006, Nadal hand in Federer his first grand slam lost ever.

June 10, 2007, Nadal hand in Federer his second grand slam lost.

All time grand slam record of Federer against Nadal. 2-6

Hasn't beaten Nadal in grand slam matches since 2007

Look at Federers competition in grand slam matches vs Nadal's and look what he has to go through and be able to have 14 grand slam titles and likely will end up more with Federer who currently have 17.

Uhmmmm u better check some facts here before u make bold statements.

No, I stand by what I said. I said, in 2008, Nadal started his onslaught on tennis, which is the point you highlighted. That's absolutely true. That's when he overtook Federer as number 1, a position Federer had held for 237 consecutive weeks. It certainly wasn't in 2006 and 2007, where the points difference between Nadal and Fed at the end of the year was some the highest it had ever been between a number 1 and number 2 player. Federer won 6 slams from 2006-2007 compared to 2 for Nadal. He had won 20 titles those 2 years, compared to 11 for Nadal. And he had a 160-13 record compared to 129-25 for Nadal.


So, no. Nadal hadn't started his onslaught on tennis yet. That's was in 2008, when he usurped Fed in the rankings. In 2006 and 2007, there were thousands of ranking points separating them.

[Da_Realist]

My favorite tennis player of all time is Pete Sampras but I reluctantly agree that Federer would probably win the H2H matchups if they were both in their primes.

Federer is my 2nd all time favorite tennis player. Yet I have to admit Nadal has his number. Not just by a little bit. Magic's Lakers won against Bird's Celtics 2-1 in the Finals. That's close. Close enough for other factors to come in play to decide the better player either way. Nadal hasn't just beaten Federer, he has destroyed him. It's the look of utter helplessness in Federer's eyes that make me very hesitant to declare him GOAT, despite the fact that I think he would win more majors than anyone during any era due to his insane versatility. (BUT... Nadal, the so-call clay court specialist, has 14 -- same as Pete Sampras and only 3 behind Federer).

If they both retired right now, I would rather have Nadal's career. Dominate one of the greatest ever? I'll take that! Sampras beat Agassi but he didn't dominate him. 19-14. That does a good job of showing who the better player was. But it wasn't domination. Sampras has more majors. Agassi won all four. Sampras never beat Agassi at the French or Australian. Agassi never beat Sampras at Wimbledon or US Open.

But 23-10? And Nadal beating Federer at a major he owned for 7 years? Yet Federer never came close to beating Nadal at the French. Never even pushed him to a 5th set. Nadal pushed Fed to 5 sets TWICE at Wimbledon, winning one of them. Undefeated against Federer at the Australian, undefeated at the French, snatched one of three at Wimbledon.

Federer grew so upset at his inability to beat Nadal that he cried after the 2009 Australian Open.

You can't make Fed GOAT because that would mean Nadal is a lesser player. I think Nadal has proven to be a better player and is close enough (as of now) to Federer's 17 majors for that to matter. A lot.

[joeysms55]

He is clearly a terrible match-up for Fed. But, against the rest of the field? Federer is clearly superior. Clearly. One h2h doesn't negate that. And ftr, Fed's record against Nadal on non-clay surfaces (which constitute 65% of the tour), was 6-2 before 2008.

6-0 and 6-1 sets, you say? Interestingly enough, they've won an equal amount of 6-0 and 6-1 sets against each other at majors: 3. So that's an exaggeration. Heck, throughout their rivalry, Federer has bagelled Nadal 3 times, 1 on each surface, compared to Nadal once on clay. But that's just small potatoes. Federer has dominated tennis to an extent Nadal never has. 3 years having won 3 slams compared to 1. Reaching 18 out of 19 major finals, when Nadals best stretch was 6 out of 7. 23 consecutive semi's at slams reached compared to 5.

There's no cognitive dissonance in believing that Nadal has bested Fed in the h2h battle, yet is still the inferior player. He's been out-performed BIG TIME on 3 of the 4 non-clay slams, and HUGELY on the biggest tournament outside of the majors, where he is 13-11 and has won 0 times compared to 44-11 and 6 times for Fed.

I appreciate the respectful tone, though, and I hope we can continue this discussion on the same note.

Taking away Nadal's clay record is like taking away Jordan's scoring records. Last time I check, French Open is still one of the majors in tennis....

This is like comparing Magic Johnson to Michael Jordan (minus the scoring of Jordan) lol

[joeysms55]

No, I stand by what I said. I said, in 2008, Nadal started his onslaught on tennis, which is the point you highlighted. That's absolutely true. That's when he overtook Federer as number 1, a position Federer had held for 237 consecutive weeks. It certainly wasn't in 2006 and 2007, where the points difference between Nadal and Fed at the end of the year was some the highest it had ever been between a number 1 and number 2 player. Federer won 6 slams from 2006-2007 compared to 2 for Nadal. He had won 20 titles those 2 years, compared to 11 for Nadal. And he had a 160-13 record compared to 129-25 for Nadal.


So, no. Nadal hadn't started his onslaught on tennis yet. That's was in 2008, when he usurped Fed in the rankings. In 2006 and 2007, there were thousands of ranking points separating them.

Well live on a dream buddy. Nadal didn't beat Federer in his 3rd try in Wimbledon 2008 (which shows in ur previous post). Records shows he won in 2006 in their first grand slam match so keep dreaming.

U can keep standing on what u said but it will not change the fact that he started beating Federer in 2006.