Roland Garros 2012

[raptor21_85]

Sharapova completes the 4 majors.. big accomplishment! Congrats..

[Doctor MJ]

So if Novak wins the French, and then Wimbledon, US,Aussie and then French Again over Rafa, you will say he is the best of all time?

lol, I figured people would respond like this. Think it through though:

If you're sold Nola's the peak GOAT with a win tomorrow, fine. That essentially means you're deciding Nola over Fed based on one match though because that's the only difference in success.

If you want more than that, well, you can't make it a 5, 6, or 7 in a row thing because Fed won 6 of 7 with narrow misses at the French.

What I'm saying is that if Nola does the calendar Slam twice in a row against top competition, I'll side with him even if the non-major stuff says Fed was more dominant. I'm not going to ignore the whole rest of the year though simply because he broke through once though.

I also am not going to say that it's a given that Fed will remain atop my list if Nola fails to win 8 in a row, just saying there is a clear case where I'll ignore the minor tournaments, but I don't do so lightly.

[Doctor MJ]

Sharapova completes the 4 majors.. big accomplishment! Congrats..

It's really something. Even early on when we thought that she could be one of the greats (10+ slams), I never expected her to take the French.

[raptor21_85]

Mufasa, dont underrate Roger.. he was really dominant, and even tho you say he won his slams against poor competition.. he had to work hard to be consistent.. and now he's older.. its logic that his level is declining

[cb4_89]

I am not ready to say Djokovic is the GOAT if he wins tomorrow since he is still in his peak and everything he does still counts. I just don't think he needs to go on an unheard of 8 straight GS titles to take it. If he never wins the French but keeps winning the other 3, why is that not enough?

The key is the level of competition he has to face. Also Roger is not the GOAT and never will be. He is clearly a step below Nadal. This isn't a team based sport. If OKC beats Miami, it doesn't mean Durant is better than Lebron. But if Nadal consistently beats Roger, it does mean he is better. Rafa would have 13 majors (14 tomorrow) if it wasn't for Djokovic.

[Doctor MJ]

I am not ready to say Djokovic is the GOAT if he wins tomorrow since he is still in his peak and everything he does still counts. I just don't think he needs to go on an unheard of 8 straight GS titles to take it. If he never wins the French but keeps winning the other 3, why is that not enough?

What the heck? Are you not aware that that's exactly what Fed was doing? No, Nola's not going to bypass Fed's peak simply by doing something similar to him in the slams with less overall yearly dominance.

I will say though since you said the word "keep", I'm talking about peak here, not career. Nola can certainly pass Fed on a career GOAT list if he keeps winning at these levels for long enough.

The key is the level of competition he has to face. Also Roger is not the GOAT and never will be. He is clearly a step below Nadal. This isn't a team based sport. If OKC beats Miami, it doesn't mean Durant is better than Lebron. But if Nadal consistently beats Roger, it does mean he is better. Rafa would have 13 majors (14 tomorrow) if it wasn't for Djokovic.

Okay, so a large chunk of the issue here is you not looking at your analysis from all sides.

First expand beyond the titles:
Nadal has been to 16 major finals, Federer has been to 23.
Nadal has been to 19 major semi-finals, Federer has been to 31.

Fed has huge advantages then in getting deep in these tournaments.

Then think how Fed's career would look if there was no Rafa: He'd have 22 major titles, putting him far beyond the "what if" 14 you give Rafa.

Now, you might think that that last point is irrelevant because we're in a Fed vs Rafa debate but it's really not, because when using head-to-head results you need to consider the context.

Most of the losses Rafa's dealt Fed are on clay, the one surface where Rafa's clearly superior to Fed. Why have they played so much on clay? Because Fed has so consistently gotten to the finals on clay, while Rafa was far likelier to lose before losing to Fed everywhere else.

This was especially true back in Fed's best days. As mentioned, when you look at consistent domination of the landscape, you've got to include the fact that Fed was far less likely to lose period than Rafa's ever been because Rafa is much more likely to go through periods where he isn't playing like a Top 2-4 player.

Long story short: Rafa's head to head edge is blown way out of proportion due to quirk's in that type of analysis where Rafa playing badly lets him avoid playing Fed at the times where Fed is most likely to trounce him.

When you then factor in that even to the extent Rafa has a real head-to-head edge, that's simply one matchup out of many, and if that matchup edge wasn't enough to give Rafa an edge in the accomplishments I listed above, well that's because there were bigger factors at play.

[Yoga]

So if Novak wins the French, and then Wimbledon, US,Aussie and then French Again over Rafa, you will say he is the best of all time?

Lol Roger Fed is still the best of all time....if Novak can beat his records, then we can crown him the greatest

[cb4_89]

It doesn't matter when one player is CLEARLY better than the other. Also I guarantee you Federer would not come close to any of his records if he faced Rafa and Djokovic from the beginning. If Djokovic wins 3/4 majors yearly, it is MUCH more impressive than Roger doing it previously. Djokovic has to beat Federer AND Nadal as well as players like Tsonga most tournaments. Federer used to face Tsonga level opponents in the finals before Rafa. That is impressive that he won, but Rafa is clearly a better player than him.

[Doctor MJ]

It doesn't matter when one player is CLEARLY better than the other. Also I guarantee you Federer would not come close to any of his records if he faced Rafa and Djokovic from the beginning. If Djokovic wins 3/4 majors yearly, it is MUCH more impressive than Roger doing it previously. Djokovic has to beat Federer AND Nadal as well as players like Tsonga most tournaments. Federer used to face Tsonga level opponents in the finals before Rafa. That is impressive that he won, but Rafa is clearly a better player than him.

Your theory appears to be that when the head-to-head edge is huge enough you can go by that alone. Okay, let's start there, have you even look at match histories here? Federer has the edge on hard and grass despite the fact the two player hardly played on those surfaces when Federer was in his best seasons.

For perspective, if I take the head-to-head match up on each major surface, and weight them by relative importance to Grand Slam tournaments (2-1-1), Rafa ends up with only a 52.5% edge (Fed's at 47.5%). When you then factor in the fact they've played disproportionately in Rafa's prime compared to Fed's, the edge disappears altogether.

It just seems likely to me that you're putting only a small fraction of the thought you need to to properly gauge this rivalry, and then you're using that far-from-complete analysis as an excuse to ignore the other 97% of these guys careers.

[cb4_89]

Peak Rafa vs Peak Federer start off a season ranked 1 and 2. The year is 2004. Who wins more that year? Who wins more grand slams?

Roger also had the advantage of having a young Rafa (20/21 years old) who was clearly not good enough to win anything but the French open for little while. Once Nadal improved his game, he overtook Federer and started beating him in other slam finals.

I just can't say Roger is better than Rafa if I truly believe that if you were to match them up, that Rafa would beat him (especially in slams). I just can't see Roger taking 3 sets from a prime Rafa.

The dilemma is about where to rank Djokovic though. If he continues to beat Nadal in slam finals, the same logic will have to apply to Nadal. Can't be above the guy that keeps beating you in your prime.

We will need to wait until their careers are fully over to really judge it, but to me it is more for the debate as to Rafa or Djokovic.

[Doctor MJ]

Peak Rafa vs Peak Federer start off a season ranked 1 and 2. The year is 2004. Who wins more that year? Who wins more grand slams?

Roger also had the advantage of having a young Rafa (20/21 years old) who was clearly not good enough to win anything but the French open for little while. Once Nadal improved his game, he overtook Federer and started beating him in other slam finals.

I just can't say Roger is better than Rafa if I truly believe that if you were to match them up, that Rafa would beat him (especially in slams). I just can't see Roger taking 3 sets from a prime Rafa.

The dilemma is about where to rank Djokovic though. If he continues to beat Nadal in slam finals, the same logic will have to apply to Nadal. Can't be above the guy that keeps beating you in your prime.

We will need to wait until their careers are fully over to really judge it, but to me it is more for the debate as to Rafa or Djokovic.

Okay, so basically, Fed had 4 years where he was better than Rafa - ignoring Rafa's injury year. In that time, they played half their matches on clay, which Rafa's was better at from the beginning. Do you understand how insane that is?

What that means is that even in the period where Federer was a far, far superior overall player, he wasn't able to turn that to his advantage in the head-to-head matchup becuase Rafa just kept losing before he played Federer in a place where Federer would have trounced him.

Then, from that point on, Rafa's literally been the better player....and still half the time when they meet, it's on Rafa's surface. It's just incredibly bad luck for Federer.

So what I'm telling you is that your whole notion of "Fed just can't beat Rafa" is colored by some quirks of fate that are really besides the point.

Another factor is that I'm sure you feel like Federer basically stayed about the same while Rafa got better, and this is another place where Federer's remarkable play is held against him.

As I mentioned before, in 2006, Federer only lost to 2 players. By comparison, in 2008 he lost to 9 players, in 2009 he lost to 8 players. Make no mistake, Nadal didn't pass Federer until after Federer started going downhill.

This doesn't clinch the debate for Federer by any means, but you need to understand that we never saw these guys play each other peak on peak.

[cb4_89]

But in Federer's "prime" he didn't have a prime Rafa and a prime Djoker to deal with. A slam now is much harder to win than in 2004. That is true for any player.

Anyway we should have a great match in 8 hours. The 24 hour period with the Heat game, Djoker-Nadal match and the Croatia euro cup game should be pretty sweet. Heat won. Now hopefully Croatia wins and Nole and Rafa give us a good show. I don't want to see Rafa in straight sets or anything like that.

[5DOM]

Nadal takes the first set.

[G R E Y]

BIG +1 for ^ Doctor MJ's post

But in Federer's "prime" he didn't have a prime Rafa and a prime Djoker to deal with. A slam now is much harder to win than in 2004. That is true for any player.

Anyway we should have a great match in 8 hours. The 24 hour period with the Heat game, Djoker-Nadal match and the Croatia euro cup game should be pretty sweet. Heat won. Now hopefully Croatia wins and Nole and Rafa give us a good show. I don't want to see Rafa in straight sets or anything like that.

The counter argument is that they didn't have a prime Fed to deal with...

Sharapova - never took to her affected mannerisms, but must give credit where it's due - big achievement.

Anyway, too bad Roger went out to Joker in straight sets. I don't really have a horse in the finals race, just looking forward to a great match.

[cb4_89]

Djokovic just can't put a run together here. He breaks Nadal a few times but then can't hold serve.

[5DOM]

With play suspended, it looks like Nadal will have to miss part of the football match.

[Doctor MJ]

But in Federer's "prime" he didn't have a prime Rafa and a prime Djoker to deal with. A slam now is much harder to win than in 2004. That is true for any player.

Hard for me to see how that's a specific rebuttal to my points. Just feels like I keep addressing your points in depth again and again and you aren't rebutting mine, just continuing to focus on a simplistic idea that I'm taking pains to demonstrate the flaws of.

[Doctor MJ]

With the suspension, I'll say so far Djokovic is not impressive. This is the EXACT kind of weather you need to beat Nadal at Roland Garros and Djokovic isn't even serving 50%. He may never get an opportunity this good again and he's blowing it.

[G R E Y]

While we're waiting, I just want to say that I really like Johnny Mac as a commentator. It's great he's so self-deprecating about his on court tantrums and he's got keen, honest insight. Very likeable.

[Dr Positivity]

I think the points you bring up deserve to be brought up, and indeed, I think a Nola for peak GOAT argument needs to get strong discussion if he wins here, but I also think people overrate the competition thing, or perhaps underrate other factors.

In 2006, Federer went 92-5 and only lost to 2 players all year.

Rafa's never been anywhere near that kind of dominance, and Nola only got near that in 2011 (he's not close in 2012).

I want to emphasize the losing to only 2 players thing: I agree that the competition at the top got fiercer with the arrival of Nola & co, but that doesn't mean that all competition got fiercer. Having the possibility of facing extremely tough opponents at the end of a tournament is not an excuse for losing to pedestrian players who are no different from any other era.

Simply put then: Peak Federer showed a superior ability to consistently win matches than Rafa or Nola, or anyone else.

That's true. The one thing I'll say about prime Federer is that he seemed so unbeatable on the non clay surfaces that it was a shocking news story if someone beat him, as if he was a level so above that competition that it was unthinkable they could hang with him barring a fluke victory.