McEnroe- "Nadal the greatest player that ever lived"

[Doctor MJ]

To be fair, though, I do think that, on some level, Federer supporters are too quick to give Fed what amounts to a complete pass on it. To me, it’s not about whatever their head-to-head is at the moment it’s that Federer, knowing Nadal was pretty much the one way guy standing his way, was unable to really find a way to prevail consistently in the big matches. For example, if Federer wins Wimbledon 2008 and Australia 2009 not even the most ardent Nadal fan would mention the head-to-head. Those were two 5-setters, off of clay, in which Federer couldn’t get the job done. Ditto if Federer wins just one of their French Open finals (2006 he won the first set easily and had his ch

Great post as usual. Wanted to talk about this specifically:

As you said, what the Nadal head-to-head means really is that it's a chink in Federer's armor. When people go from there to elevating it to being the deciding factor they are not being reasonable, but there's no doubt it changes how Federer's greatness will be perceived going forward as it should.

Two me there are two main components to what it means:

1. Federer at his best could beat anyone anywhere, except Nadal on clay. And of course, Nadal is at this point both the clay GOAT, and the guy on overall GOAT lists whose greatness is more based on one surface than anyone else. At the time this was looked at largely as the GOAT generalist vs the GOAT specialist, and I didn't disagree.

2. At around age 27, Federer seemed to be clearly surpassed by the 22 year old Nadal...though we then had some serious wavering. One of the things I've long said is that I don't think people view Federer's longevity properly. In a sport where 27 year old are often a shadow of their former selves, Federer still looked fantastic, and this led people to conclude that Federer simply wasn't aging. So when Nadal (and later others) surpassed Federer, some attributed to them just getting better than peak Federer in a way they wouldn't have if Federer's drop off were more clear. But if you looked at the details, it was always clear that Federer wasn't the complete package he used to be.

So when I see mentions of the 2008/2009 matches and reference to "Federer couldn't figure Nadal out", it seems weird to me. Not because the statement is literally false - else he'd have multiple French wins - but because I can't think of any scenario where it would make sense to watch a guy fall from his physical peak and come away with a narrative relating to something mental as the primary takeaway. Federer was able to "figure out" Nadal on other surfaces just fine until his age went away from tennis prime and Nadal wen toward it.

As I say all this though, Nadal's (very) recent resurgence has the potential to signal something huge here - in many ways really, but in particular to primes: Nadal is now about the age Federer was when Federer first got surpassed and he's currently looking better than ever. If this continues and we see Nadal not only take back the top spot, but also dominate with a consistency he never did before it becomes harder to look at the 2008 change over as a natural effect of aging.

And for those a little unsure what I mean by "consistency": Nadal's never had a full season where he's lost less than 10 matches, and he's never had a season period where he's won 90% of his matches. By contrast in Federer's '04 to '07 run, he never lost 10 matches in a year, and it wasn't until the 4th year of the run he was even close (one year he only lost to 2 guys all year - granted one of those guys was Nadal on clay repeatedly). Djokovic in '11 joined the club of year clearly more dominant than Nadal had ever done (he hasn't been able to maintain it though).

Nadal is currently 53-3 in 2013. 95% winning percentage. Now, no matter what he does the rest of 2013, I'm not going to champion it as a GOAT calendar year because of the time missed, but if Nadal keeps it going all the way through a worthy run at Wimbledon (which to be fair, feels a long way away), this will totally upend thinking on not only him but his generation.

[oberyn3]

Great post as usual. Wanted to talk about this specifically:

As you said, what the Nadal head-to-head means really is that it's a chink in Federer's armor. When people go from there to elevating it to being the deciding factor they are not being reasonable, but there's no doubt it changes how Federer's greatness will be perceived going forward as it should.

Two me there are two main components to what it means:

1. Federer at his best could beat anyone anywhere, except Nadal on clay. And of course, Nadal is at this point both the clay GOAT, and the guy on overall GOAT lists whose greatness is more based on one surface than anyone else. At the time this was looked at largely as the GOAT generalist vs the GOAT specialist, and I didn't disagree.

2. At around age 27, Federer seemed to be clearly surpassed by the 22 year old Nadal...though we then had some serious wavering. One of the things I've long said is that I don't think people view Federer's longevity properly. In a sport where 27 year old are often a shadow of their former selves, Federer still looked fantastic, and this led people to conclude that Federer simply wasn't aging. So when Nadal (and later others) surpassed Federer, some attributed to them just getting better than peak Federer in a way they wouldn't have if Federer's drop off were more clear. But if you looked at the details, it was always clear that Federer wasn't the complete package he used to be.

So when I see mentions of the 2008/2009 matches and reference to "Federer couldn't figure Nadal out", it seems weird to me. Not because the statement is literally false - else he'd have multiple French wins - but because I can't think of any scenario where it would make sense to watch a guy fall from his physical peak and come away with a narrative relating to something mental as the primary takeaway. Federer was able to "figure out" Nadal on other surfaces just fine until his age went away from tennis prime and Nadal wen toward it.

Great post.

For the record, I never used the term "couldn't figure out". Quite the opposite, actually. I said that Federer couldn't find a way to prevail on the big stages. Federer's beaten Nadal,even on clay (He's the guy who ended Nadal's longest clay court streak, after all). It's just a huge difference between pulling it off in a best of 3 in Hamburg or Miami vs. a Wimbledon final or Australian Open final.

I don't think Federer was at his peak in 2008 and 2009, but I just can't agree that he was far enough past his prime for me to give him a pass. After losing that Australian Open final, he went on to regain the #1 ranking, and, if not for a letdown (that he still describes as perhaps his most disappointing loss) against del Potro in the U.S. Open final, he'd have had another 3-slam year.

As I say all this though, Nadal's (very) recent resurgence has the potential to signal something huge here - in many ways really, but in particular to primes: Nadal is now about the age Federer was when Federer first got surpassed and he's currently looking better than ever. If this continues and we see Nadal not only take back the top spot, but also dominate with a consistency he never did before it becomes harder to look at the 2008 change over as a natural effect of aging.

I agree with you. Of course, no 2 tennis players are the same, and Federer himself is the only one who might be able to answer these sorts of questions regarding just how much his level of play dropped in 2008 and 2009 vs. his 2004-07 level and the exact reasons why. Meanwhile, this display of hardcourt form for Nadal might be a fluke, blip, or last hurray. You never know.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think Federer was at his peak in 2008 and 2009, but I just can't agree that he was far enough past his prime for me to give him a pass. After losing that Australian Open final, he went on to regain the #1 ranking, and, if not for a letdown (that he still describes as perhaps his most disappointing loss) against del Potro in the U.S. Open final, he'd have had another 3-slam year.

Well certainly it would be better if he'd won those matches, and certainly it's not guarantee he would have won them if he were his 2006 self. My main feeling of frustration is just in a kind of assumption that he definitely would NOT have won.

Also, I do think it is worth expanding on the "wavering" point I touched on earlier. In 2008 Federer made only 2 Masters finals total - and of course Nadal was only his opponent in the finals. While I'll at times use short hand to talk about Federer essentially ending a prime in 2008, this wasn't just the start of the descent, it was a nadir. He rebounded again in 2009 when Nadal of course got hurt. Pretty understandable to ask whether Nadal had a lot to do with Federer's state of mind, but for whatever reason (said to be mono by some) he went into a low point in the year Nadal broke through which resulted in him losing to plenty of people who weren't Nadal.

I imagine your feeling here though may be that Federer was RIGHT there in super close matches with Nadal for all the marbles and he couldn't pull it off. That that says something about Federer & Nadal fundamentally distinct from how good they were at the time. I wouldn't disagree. If you ask me who the mentally toughest athlete I know is, I'll say Nadal. However, I'm not prone as others are to feel like "well he was there, I don't want to here excuses like 'he wasn't actually at his peak as a player'". There were times where Nadal's mental (and physical stamina) gave him the tiebreaker over Federer, but to me that don't tell some grander narrative about the two.

[UGA Hayes]

I don't know, I think the strongest case against Federer as mentioned earlier is that he played against weaker competition that really becomes apparent in retrospect. Also one can't help look at the the guys who bothered him at the bookends of his career in Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray and not think he has trouble against hard working game managers with power and benefitted greatly from a long stretch that didn't have those type of players (especially since I have read that he is not necessarily as hard working as a lot of guys). I think you have to give Federer sort of Jack Nickalaus kind of bonus for always being in the hunt, but I do wonder.

[Raps in 4]

I don't know, I think the strongest case against Federer as mentioned earlier is that he played against weaker competition that really becomes apparent in retrospect. Also one can't help look at the the guys who bothered him at the bookends of his career in Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray and not think he has trouble against hard working game managers with power and benefitted greatly from a long stretch that didn't have those type of players (especially since I have read that he is not necessarily as hard working as a lot of guys). I think you have to give Federer sort of Jack Nickalaus kind of bonus for always being in the hunt, but I do wonder.

He won 4 slams before Nadal broke out (2005) and 9 before Djokovic/Murray (counting 2007 as Novak's breakout, and 2008 as Murray's).

Nadal only had a chance at 2 slams before the top became a 3-4 horse race.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know, I think the strongest case against Federer as mentioned earlier is that he played against weaker competition that really becomes apparent in retrospect. Also one can't help look at the the guys who bothered him at the bookends of his career in Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray and not think he has trouble against hard working game managers with power and benefitted greatly from a long stretch that didn't have those type of players (especially since I have read that he is not necessarily as hard working as a lot of guys). I think you have to give Federer sort of Jack Nickalaus kind of bonus for always being in the hunt, but I do wonder.

The thing i always feel the need to emphasize though is that this isn't something that need be talked about only qualitatively. Federer in his best year lost only 1 time to someone not named Nadal and that was Murray. If we were to ask how the Big 4 of this generation have done against everyone outside of that group, none of the other guys have done anything like that. So at the very least, we can say that in terms of consistent domination over everyone else, Federer is WAY ahead of the other guys. (And if anyone is trying to say that the next tier down right now is still clearly better than the best competitors of the prior era, they need to really present their case because it's far from obvious.)

Now, that's still not enough to clinch that Federer's better than these other guys. "Most consistent" is not a synonym for "better", and there are always matchups to consider, but those are the types of things that need to be emphasized before taking anyone over Federer because in terms of apples to apples domination, it's still Federer and then everyone else.

[Gregoire]

Right now McEnroes words sound good. Rafa has the edge in all-time race with Roger.

[Ong_dynasty]

http://www1.skysports.com/tennis/news/1 ... rand-slams

now agassi is saying he is in with a shout.

I dont think he is there yet.. but if gets to around 15. Then one can argue

[tennispro]

I think its pretty impossible to know who is the best player of all time. You cant let these players play against each other in their best times. It also depends on the circumstances. There are always time when a lot of excellent players are playing and it is very difficult to win a title...