French Open 2014 (25 May to 8 June)

[mrpoetryNmotion]

Nadal just too good on the clay.

[Rich Rane]

Might as well call the French Open the Rafael Nadal at this point.

[Woodsanity]

Biggest difference between Nadal and Djokovic is mental strength. Double fault to lose the Finals....

[Raps in 4]

Complete mental collapse by Nole in that match. Even at his best he'd be unlikely to win it, but at least he'd give himself a chance.

[Dr Positivity]

It felt like Novak wasn't there mentally for physical reasons

[Doctor MJ]

Biggest difference between Nadal and Djokovic is mental strength. Double fault to lose the Finals....

I don't necessarily disagree, but if you're calling Djokovic mentally weak that's wrong. All of these dude's are clutch by any mortal standards, but tennis requires mental reserves matched by few other human endeavors. Basketball is a walk in the park by comparison.

Rafa's as tough as they come, and I'd struggle to even think who his equal is. The only place my mind goes to even debate would be in combat sports.

[Woodsanity]

Biggest difference between Nadal and Djokovic is mental strength. Double fault to lose the Finals....

I don't necessarily disagree, but if you're calling Djokovic mentally weak that's wrong. All of these dude's are clutch by any mortal standards, but tennis requires mental reserves matched by few other human endeavors. Basketball is a walk in the park by comparison.

Rafa's as tough as they come, and I'd struggle to even think who his equal is. The only place my mind goes to even debate would be in combat sports.

I never said Djokovic is mentally weak but Nadal is easily the strongest mentally out of the big 3(4?) and that gives him the edge.

[Ong_dynasty]

do you think Nadal is now in the conversation for goat?

i find it hard not to..but i would like another slam or 2 to be more confident in the claim

[olive_triangurl]

we are still waiting for a man to have 2 of each slam title
federer needs another french open
nadal needs another australian open

[Doctor MJ]

do you think Nadal is now in the conversation for goat?

i find it hard not to..but i would like another slam or 2 to be more confident in the claim

To me GOAT without any prefix always is a career thing, and I've still yet to hear any argument for Nadal that to me makes sense. And to be clear, by contrast, while I have a personal choice for GOAT I can understand arguments for several different guys. People make arguments for Nadal, but to me they are just bad arguments.

Federer has won more majors than Nadal, and also has more deep success in the majors while also being far more successful in the next biggest tournament (World Tennis Finals).

Federer has a more well rounded game, which is why he's more successful on all surfaces except Rafa's speciality.
Federer has a game not as dependent on modern equipment, which would make him more easily able to keep doing his thing in other eras.
Federer actually would probably be even better in the immediately preceding era, where Rafa would be worse, before decisions were made to curtail the impact of power. On days when the grass is slick in Wimbledon, you start to see how Federer would would look in Sampras' era, and that's before you even factor in that he'd be using serve & volley.

The argument people typically use for Rafa is based on his head-to-head advantage. Taken on face value though the argument is not reasonable. A player's head-to-head is already factored in when you look at the overall results, so if overall it's not enough to make him more successful, it must be because his game is unusually suited to match up well in one circumstance but it is vulnerable to other things that overwhelm that advantage most of the time. This is before you even factor in things such when and where the two guys played and all the times they didn't play because one guy lost early - for which he certainly get extra credit for (I do think Rafa has a match up edge on Federer, but it's not anywhere near as the raw head-to-head numbers suggest.)

Now, really what people mean when they talk about head-to-head probably is that they think that that gives some kind of statement of who is better at peak. They have a tendency to think the difference in actual accomplishments comes from Federer being older, and so they think the head-to-head is a short cut way to see who would have had more majors if they were born the same year. Putting aside the literal issues with that that I've already mentioned, I certainly do understand the GOAT peak argument for Rafa - I will definitely not say it's unreasonable to think that.

However, it's important to also note that over the course of any full season, Rafa's never put up a record like peak Federer did (or peak McEnroe, who is definitely a GOAT peak candidate). While I would gladly put that aside if you could correctly say "Yeah, but he won the biggest tournaments in a more dominant fashion", you can't say that either. He's never done the 3 slams & 1 finals thing in a year, let alone the 3 slams & 1 final plus the WTF that Federer did in back to back years, and this of course despite the fact that on his weaker surfaces he's never had to face a final obstacle like "Nadal on clay". You take away that hardest ever obstacle to your weakest surface that Federer has on clay, and he's completing Calendar Grand Slams multiple times. Rafa's never shown anything more than the notion that he could conceivably do that if everything went exactly the right way once.

What that leaves Rafa with in terms of the peak GOAT, is an argument not based on who had the best year, which what we use in basketball or any other sport I can think of, but rather that Rafa at his healthy best is both the best thing we've ever seen and something he absolutely cannot ever maintain over the course of a season. Something poetic about that, and it is impressive, but probably not what Rafa supporters really crave.

All that said, I think Rafa's got a very good argument for #2 all-time now. I don't see any reason to insist Sampras or Borg should rank ahead of him. I think you can make a case for Pancho Gonazles at #1 all-time actually, but I'm not so bold as to actually do it, or champion him for the #2 spot.

[Ong_dynasty]

[quote="Doctor MJ"][/quote]

To me GOAT without any prefix always is a career thing, and I've still yet to hear any argument for Nadal that to me makes sense. And to be clear, by contrast, while I have a personal choice for GOAT I can understand arguments for several different guys. People make arguments for Nadal, but to me they are just bad arguments.

I'll try and go through your argument little by little.

Federer has won more majors than Nadal, and also has more deep success in the majors while also being far more successful in the next biggest tournament (World Tennis Finals).

What do you mean has more deep success? Nadal is a challenge in every single grand slam he plays in (outside from the beginning of his career). Do not forget if it was not for Nadal being injured Federer would be a better version of Sampras in the fact that he can't win in one surface. While Nadal actually beat Federer at his peak to claim wimbledon. If you are going to include world tennis finals, include the olympics as well.

Federer has a more well rounded game, which is why he's more successful on all surfaces except Rafa's speciality.
Federer has a game not as dependent on modern equipment, which would make him more easily able to keep doing his thing in other eras.
Federer actually would probably be even better in the immediately preceding era, where Rafa would be worse, before decisions were made to curtail the impact of power. On days when the grass is slick in Wimbledon, you start to see how Federer would would look in Sampras' era, and that's before you even factor in that he'd be using serve & volley.

That is subjective as at this present time they both use the same level of technology and its not like having babolat makes nadal that much better? i mean roddick and tsonga use it as well? or are you talking about the 3/4 length shorts . On a slicker surface federer will also struggle (maybe not as much) with big serve and volley players. So it has helped him as well.

The argument people typically use for Rafa is based on his head-to-head advantage. Taken on face value though the argument is not reasonable. A player's head-to-head is already factored in when you look at the overall results, so if overall it's not enough to make him more successful, it must be because his game is unusually suited to match up well in one circumstance but it is vulnerable to other things that overwhelm that advantage most of the time. This is before you even factor in things such when and where the two guys played and all the times they didn't play because one guy lost early - for which he certainly get extra credit for (I do think Rafa has a match up edge on Federer, but it's not anywhere near as the raw head-to-head numbers suggest.)

Yea it is. He has beaten him in all surfaces. Stop being biased. The moment he got the momentum, he never looked back. Do not forget he won a hard court and a grass court grand slam against Federer in the final. Which federer couldnt return the favour.
The reason why head-to-head is important is because its one-on-one. that is it, you cant make an argument that nadal only plays him on clay because he doesnt get far in other tourneys because he does. I have no idea where you got that from.
one thing you forget to highlight is during their peaks when it was Federer - Nadal in pretty much every final, Nadal improved and found a way to beat federer while federer did not. Its like boxing, how can you say head to head is not important. its not the be all and end all but you cant just push it to the side.

Now, really what people mean when they talk about head-to-head probably is that they think that that gives some kind of statement of who is better at peak. They have a tendency to think the difference in actual accomplishments comes from Federer being older, and so they think the head-to-head is a short cut way to see who would have had more majors if they were born the same year. Putting aside the literal issues with that that I've already mentioned, I certainly do understand the GOAT peak argument for Rafa - I will definitely not say it's unreasonable to think that.
However, it's important to also note that over the course of any full season, Rafa's never put up a record like peak Federer did (or peak McEnroe, who is definitely a GOAT peak candidate). While I would gladly put that aside if you could correctly say "Yeah, but he won the biggest tournaments in a more dominant fashion", you can't say that either. He's never done the 3 slams & 1 finals thing in a year, let alone the 3 slams & 1 final plus the WTF that Federer did in back to back years, and this of course despite the fact that on his weaker surfaces he's never had to face a final obstacle like "Nadal on clay". You take away that hardest ever obstacle to your weakest surface that Federer has on clay, and he's completing Calendar Grand Slams multiple times. Rafa's never shown anything more than the notion that he could conceivably do that if everything went exactly the right way once.

A peak is irrelevant as what you have highlighted earlier it is about carrer achievements. so fine, im more than happy for you to say federer has better peaks (even though i disagree and will explain later). If you are using the "nadal on clay" argument, that is quite weak as a. he had years before to win it and b. he played an 18 year old nadal and still could not beat him.
also if that is your argument, my argument is nadal had to go through "the best player of all time".

What that leaves Rafa with in terms of the peak GOAT, is an argument not based on who had the best year, which what we use in basketball or any other sport I can think of, but rather that Rafa at his healthy best is both the best thing we've ever seen and something he absolutely cannot ever maintain over the course of a season. Something poetic about that, and it is impressive, but probably not what Rafa supporters really crave.

I do nothing there is anything wrong with saying that. His game is grueling and that is why he even stated that and that is why he is trying to shorten the points. But I actually disagree about peaks in a game. I have always said in a portion of a game federer's peak and maybe even djokoic is better but they cant hold it for longer. What makes nadal good is how consistent he is during the game. Whenever you see nadal play them, there will be a moment where it looks like a mismatch.

All that said, I think Rafa's got a very good argument for #2 all-time now. I don't see any reason to insist Sampras or Borg should rank ahead of him. I think you can make a case for Pancho Gonazles at #1 all-time actually, but I'm not so bold as to actually do it, or champion him for the #2 spot.

You kind of contradict yourself,you said earlier you can understand arguments for other players ranked as g.o.a.t but not nadal. but you basically say he is clear cut number 2.

As I said, I think Nadal needs to win atleast 2 more to be considered by all and I understand that.
But if you dive down to details I think he has a very good case, I mean you already see Mcenroe and agassi saying it already and courier saying he has the most impressive forehand of all time (due to safety and power combined).

my arguments are
a: h-to-h (as what we have talked about)
b: era. He had to go through the best player of all time in front him and is going up against a greater era than Fed had to after him. I mean Federer (as much as his fans would hate to admit) had an easy era to start of.
Look at his firt 9 slams. Who was his biggest competition? an 18year old nadal? a one slam roddick? a 36 year old agassi?
now lets look at nadals out of his 14 grand slam wins, only say 4 (puerta,ferrer, berdych and soderling) are names you wont remember. and if you want to look at strength in the tour. lets not get started of the strength pre 06.
c:he is 3 shy of federer even though his fav. surface only has 1 slam a year (while fed who specialises in grass and hard) slams a year. he cant be that one-dimensional right?
d:the channel-slam he has done it one more time the fed. Which i put as a grand slam on its own. if he wins another I think it will be a fair argument.

As I said, i udnerstand why people won't say it as people just like looking at raw data, but if you look more into it i think he has an argument. I also understand why fed is more liked as his game is more aesthetically pleasing but that is irrelevant when it comes to who was better.

[olive_triangurl]

not sure about Federer being more liked.....
Nadal has more facebook fans, and more twitter followers too.
anyway, let's hope they finally meet at the US Open final or semi-final!
they've played 3 times at the Australian Open but never at the US Open
it will probably be the most hyped match of their entire careers!

[Doctor MJ]

To me GOAT without any prefix always is a career thing, and I've still yet to hear any argument for Nadal that to me makes sense. And to be clear, by contrast, while I have a personal choice for GOAT I can understand arguments for several different guys. People make arguments for Nadal, but to me they are just bad arguments.

I'll try and go through your argument little by little.

Guess I'll try the same thing.

Federer has won more majors than Nadal, and also has more deep success in the majors while also being far more successful in the next biggest tournament (World Tennis Finals).

What do you mean has more deep success? Nadal is a challenge in every single grand slam he plays in (outside from the beginning of his career). Do not forget if it was not for Nadal being injured Federer would be a better version of Sampras in the fact that he can't win in one surface. While Nadal actually beat Federer at his peak to claim wimbledon. If you are going to include world tennis finals, include the olympics as well.


Major wins: Federer 17, Nadal 14
Major finals: Federer 25, Nadal 20
Majors semis: Federer 35, Nadal 23

Obviously Federer has the edge on all fronts, but the semis make it particularly telling: Federer is a much better bet to go deep into the big tournaments, which means excelling and dominating every time its time to play.

With Nadal, one might be inclined to blame injuries, and there is something to that, but it's not enough to make up the gap, and beyond that it's important to remember that there's nothing weird about Nadal on this front. That's what open era men's tennis has basically always looked like. Federer is the bizarre outlier.

Re: Olympics. That's a fair point. Thing is, it's not really a tournament that traditionally has had results that look anything like a major. The 2004 Olympic results looked like this remember:

Gold: Nicolas Massu - never made it to the 2nd week of a major in his entire career
Silver: Mardy Fish - didn't get past the 2nd round in any major that year
Bronze: Fernando Gonzalez - didn't past the 3rd round of a major that year

I understand the assumption that the Olympics simply must be taken seriously, but there is no grand slam-esque history of tennis at the Olympics and the monetary rewards are not at all the same. The WTF by contrast for a long time was more important than the Australian Open, can net a player a ton of money, and none of the players in question were even good enough to get into it in the year they got their Olympic medal.

I wouldn't necessarily object to you making some totals that include the Olympics though. Thing is, it happens so rarely it just doesn't add up the same way. Nadal has 1 gold, and Federer has 1 silver. Is this seriously to be seen as a bigger deal than the fact that Federer has 6 wins and 11 semi or better performances in the WTF vs Nadal's zero wins and 4 semi or better performances? No way.

I can imagine that this looks like cherry picking to you. You might also come back with how good Nadal looks by masters results. That's fair game to bring up. but just keep in mind that the money gap between the majors and the WTF is small compared to the WTF and the masters, and the WTF occurs as the finale of the season when veterans are no longer conserving their energy for the next major. In the design of the tennis calendar year, it's always been the 5th pillar of the season.



Federer has a more well rounded game, which is why he's more successful on all surfaces except Rafa's speciality.
Federer has a game not as dependent on modern equipment, which would make him more easily able to keep doing his thing in other eras.
Federer actually would probably be even better in the immediately preceding era, where Rafa would be worse, before decisions were made to curtail the impact of power. On days when the grass is slick in Wimbledon, you start to see how Federer would would look in Sampras' era, and that's before you even factor in that he'd be using serve & volley.

That is subjective as at this present time they both use the same level of technology and its not like having babolat makes nadal that much better? i mean roddick and tsonga use it as well? or are you talking about the 3/4 length shorts . On a slicker surface federer will also struggle (maybe not as much) with big serve and volley players. So it has helped him as well.

Nadal simply couldn't play his top spin game the same way with old technology. You take that away, he stops being a mismatch against average sized guys, and he's less successful.

Then there's the matter that the reaction to Sampras & co was to make changes to let hard court and especially grass essentially be more like clay - not because clay was the actual ideal with its needlessly slippery surface, but because the other surfaces just let the ball go so fast that they were concerned about watchability. Up until the current generation, most players had glaringly stronger and weaker surfaces, which was why it was so hard to do a Channel Slam (French & Wimbledon together). The reason its different this generation is in part simply due to the changes that were made...and those changes specifically helped clay court specialists look better on the other surface. Take it away, and Nadal is less of an all around player.

You mention Roddick and Tsonga, aside from the fact they clearly don't have the same range of benefits Nadal does, there's the issue that they aren't worth mentioning at all in a conversation where we speak of GOAT candidates.

As far as things being my opinions, c'mon, it's not like it's any kind of secret that Federer has the more well rounded game. Nadal's camp acknowledged it as such from the beginning, and the strategy has always been: If you can get to the ball and hit a hard, deep top spin shot to his forehand, he's going to have to take it at a height outside of his wheelhouse, and as long as you keep doing that you've got a great shot to win.

I'm not demanding that you personally penalize Nadal for this, but it is something to at least note. I'm over in the basketball Top 100 project right now on the PC board, and most there would take it as a given that you have to rally consider the context of different eras. (Although I will admit, many would tend not to apply that to current players so much, which to me means their thinking will be dated the next time a major shift happens.)

The argument people typically use for Rafa is based on his head-to-head advantage. Taken on face value though the argument is not reasonable. A player's head-to-head is already factored in when you look at the overall results, so if overall it's not enough to make him more successful, it must be because his game is unusually suited to match up well in one circumstance but it is vulnerable to other things that overwhelm that advantage most of the time. This is before you even factor in things such when and where the two guys played and all the times they didn't play because one guy lost early - for which he certainly get extra credit for (I do think Rafa has a match up edge on Federer, but it's not anywhere near as the raw head-to-head numbers suggest.)

Yea it is. He has beaten him in all surfaces. Stop being biased. The moment he got the momentum, he never looked back. Do not forget he won a hard court and a grass court grand slam against Federer in the final. Which federer couldnt return the favour.
The reason why head-to-head is important is because its one-on-one. that is it, you cant make an argument that nadal only plays him on clay because he doesnt get far in other tourneys because he does. I have no idea where you got that from.
one thing you forget to highlight is during their peaks when it was Federer - Nadal in pretty much every final, Nadal improved and found a way to beat federer while federer did not. Its like boxing, how can you say head to head is not important. its not the be all and end all but you cant just push it to the side.

Look. Typically, tennis players peak in their mid-20s. If you have one guy half a decade older than the other, that means the more the two players meet early on, the more advantage the older guy has, and the more they meet later the more advantage the younger guy has. Do you understand this?

Additionally, if say, one player is far better on one surface than all the others, and during his disadvantaged era he managed to play the the other player predominantly on that surface, then depending on how extreme the situation, that might completely skew even that era toward one player.

Your next couple points threaten to derail us before we go anywhere.

-You don't know where I got the notion that Nadal lost early? From the results. Go look at the results. Really, really analyze them. From how you're sounding, you seem to have a very much qualitative viewpoint where if you know that Nadal did it once, that's all there is to it. But it isn't. If you're fixated on head-to-head numbers, you're fixated on numbers, which means to do any kind of responsible analysis you have to focus on potential biases. Federer & Nadal disproportionately play on clay. That is a fact.

Some numbers:
15 of the 32 times Federer & Nadal played have been on clay. Roughly 47%

By contrast
Federer & Djokovic played 20% of their matches on clay.
McEnroe & Lendl played 19%
Sampras & Agassi played 15%.

Oh, and Federer & Murray have NEVER MET on clay.

To simply go by head-to-head without adjusting for stuff like this is something any statistician will tell you is folly.

-Federer & Nadal in "pretty much every final". Again, this isn't what happened and you coming back with this leaves me at a loss. My prior post essentially already said this, and rather than going and looking stuff up because you can't remember, you come back and say "No". I'm sorry, but my statement is right, and it's very easy to verify. Spend some time on Wikipedia and actually tally things up yourself if you don't believe me.


Now, really what people mean when they talk about head-to-head probably is that they think that that gives some kind of statement of who is better at peak. They have a tendency to think the difference in actual accomplishments comes from Federer being older, and so they think the head-to-head is a short cut way to see who would have had more majors if they were born the same year. Putting aside the literal issues with that that I've already mentioned, I certainly do understand the GOAT peak argument for Rafa - I will definitely not say it's unreasonable to think that.
However, it's important to also note that over the course of any full season, Rafa's never put up a record like peak Federer did (or peak McEnroe, who is definitely a GOAT peak candidate). While I would gladly put that aside if you could correctly say "Yeah, but he won the biggest tournaments in a more dominant fashion", you can't say that either. He's never done the 3 slams & 1 finals thing in a year, let alone the 3 slams & 1 final plus the WTF that Federer did in back to back years, and this of course despite the fact that on his weaker surfaces he's never had to face a final obstacle like "Nadal on clay". You take away that hardest ever obstacle to your weakest surface that Federer has on clay, and he's completing Calendar Grand Slams multiple times. Rafa's never shown anything more than the notion that he could conceivably do that if everything went exactly the right way once.

A peak is irrelevant as what you have highlighted earlier it is about carrer achievements. so fine, im more than happy for you to say federer has better peaks (even though i disagree and will explain later). If you are using the "nadal on clay" argument, that is quite weak as a. he had years before to win it and b. he played an 18 year old nadal and still could not beat him.
also if that is your argument, my argument is nadal had to go through "the best player of all time".


Okay. Federer was the best non-Nadal player at the French Open 6 times: That's 1 win, 4 times losing to Nadal in the finals, and 1 time losing to Nadal in the semis in 2005 before Nadal was properly seeded.

If Nadal didn't exist, he'd quite possibly have 6 French Open titles. Even if you rounded down based on the possibility of him losing to someone else in the finals, this is still enough to realistically make him the most accomplished clay court player of the Open Era other than Bjorn Borg.

This is the importance of considering precisely what a beast Nadal was on clay, because Nadal's existence shouldn't be made to make, say, Mats Wilander look better than Federer. And once you factor this in, you realize that a surface-by-surface ranking of Open Era players puts Federer at 1st on grass, 1st on hard court, and 3rd on clay. Pretty crazy.

Doing the same thing to properly gauge Nadal relating to Federer is completely appropriate, but if you think it through it doesn't have the same effect at all. Take away Federer, and Nadal gains 2 more major wins, that's it. His rank across surfaces doesn't end up looking anything like the 1/1/3 thing I mentioned with Federer, which is another way of making clear just how much Nadal's GOAT candidacy is based on him being inhumanly good on one surface.

And again, if Nadal wins and wins and wins. Wins enough. He'll be my GOAT too even if he never wins another tournament outside of Roland Garros, but yes, part of what I look at with a player is how portable his game is.A tie is certainly going to go to the guy who truly does it all everywhere.

What that leaves Rafa with in terms of the peak GOAT, is an argument not based on who had the best year, which what we use in basketball or any other sport I can think of, but rather that Rafa at his healthy best is both the best thing we've ever seen and something he absolutely cannot ever maintain over the course of a season. Something poetic about that, and it is impressive, but probably not what Rafa supporters really crave.

I do nothing there is anything wrong with saying that. His game is grueling and that is why he even stated that and that is why he is trying to shorten the points. But I actually disagree about peaks in a game. I have always said in a portion of a game federer's peak and maybe even djokoic is better but they cant hold it for longer. What makes nadal good is how consistent he is during the game. Whenever you see nadal play them, there will be a moment where it looks like a mismatch.

Well, Nadal's ability to outfight everyone else is certainly a big thing he's got going for him.

All that said, I think Rafa's got a very good argument for #2 all-time now. I don't see any reason to insist Sampras or Borg should rank ahead of him. I think you can make a case for Pancho Gonazles at #1 all-time actually, but I'm not so bold as to actually do it, or champion him for the #2 spot.

You kind of contradict yourself,you said earlier you can understand arguments for other players ranked as g.o.a.t but not nadal. but you basically say he is clear cut number 2.

As I said, I think Nadal needs to win atleast 2 more to be considered by all and I understand that.
But if you dive down to details I think he has a very good case, I mean you already see Mcenroe and agassi saying it already and courier saying he has the most impressive forehand of all time (due to safety and power combined).

my arguments are
a: h-to-h (as what we have talked about)
b: era. He had to go through the best player of all time in front him and is going up against a greater era than Fed had to after him. I mean Federer (as much as his fans would hate to admit) had an easy era to start of.
Look at his firt 9 slams. Who was his biggest competition? an 18year old nadal? a one slam roddick? a 36 year old agassi?
now lets look at nadals out of his 14 grand slam wins, only say 4 (puerta,ferrer, berdych and soderling) are names you wont remember. and if you want to look at strength in the tour. lets not get started of the strength pre 06.
c:he is 3 shy of federer even though his fav. surface only has 1 slam a year (while fed who specialises in grass and hard) slams a year. he cant be that one-dimensional right?
d:the channel-slam he has done it one more time the fed. Which i put as a grand slam on its own. if he wins another I think it will be a fair argument.

As I said, i udnerstand why people won't say it as people just like looking at raw data, but if you look more into it i think he has an argument. I also understand why fed is more liked as his game is more aesthetically pleasing but that is irrelevant when it comes to who was better.

I don't contradict myself. The issues I point out with Nadal don't make it so that his accomplishments count for nothing. They are factors, that hurt him in what would be seen as close comparisons, but if you just look at the raw accomplishments, who is actually close to Nadal at this point?

The obvious choice would be Sampras who also has 14 majors, but much of what I say about Nadal is true about Sampras and then some. Sampras in other eras would not be so dominant at Wimbledon, and his game certainly isn't more well rounded than Nadal's.

Borg is awesome for his streaks, and McEnroe is awesome for his peak, but add up everything they did, how can it really compare to Nadal?

Last note relating to the "weakness" of "Federer's era". I posted this on the other thread going right now on the board. I agree with you that competition got tougher to win titles once the rest of the Big 4 peaked, but it only makes sense to use that as your great equalizer if you make some attempt to normalize for this and see results that make Nadal look better than Federer.

If you normalize by taking the matches with the Big 4 out of the equation, here are the records of the 3 dominant members of the Big 4 in their most successful seasons (going by performance at majors):

2006 Federer (3 majors): 88-0 (9 matches against Big 4)
2010 Nadal (3 majors): 66-7 (8 matches against Big 4)
2011 Djokovic (3 majors): 58-4 (14 matches against Big 4)

As you can see it's not remotely competitive. You'll note, that Federer had less losses in 2006 even with the Big 4, which is largely Nadal on clay, than Nadal had against the dime-a-dozen competition that excludes the Big 4. This means era, while it is something you can adjust for, really isn't enough to put into question who the more reliably dominant player was.

This in and of itself doesn't clinch the big debate here, but I don't really see how one can get excited about the "weak era" argument if you see these numbers and understand them. The difference shown there is utterly massive.

So yeah, I understand you see yourself going beyond the raw numbers, and it's true that you're going beyond what the most simplistic of analysts do, but from my perspective there's all sorts of deeper still analysis that is not only there to do, but necessary to do. I probably get too heated at times, and I apologize for that, but when I get the impression that people think I'm the one whose analysis is too superficial and then accuse me of bias it's frustrating.

[Ong_dynasty]

[quote="Doctor MJ"][/quote]
I think our posts are getting too big . But let me reply to parts that I disagree with. (we have different points of view that it does not really matter).

Major wins: Federer 17, Nadal 14
Major finals: Federer 25, Nadal 20
Majors semis: Federer 35, Nadal 23

The reason why I find this data-mining and irrelevant (same when you bring in WTF), is that we are arguing against the best and not top 10 players. So finals appearences and semis. meh.. i think the difference between best and second should not be based on semis-appearences and all that. and the only reason I brought up the olympics is because you brought up WTF (which i think has more credence because it is 5 sets while WTF is 3.).
and Yes I agree Federer has more majors, as stated in my post before realistically speaking i think he needs maybe 2 more to be considered. atm, i think you can just start talking about it (like tiger and nicklaus.) he still has what 4 years more than Federer? So it is not out of the question.

Nadal simply couldn't play his top spin game the same way with old technology. You take that away, he stops being a mismatch against average sized guys, and he's less successful.

Yes he uses the spin more. But it doesnt mean he could still not spin more with past technology. That is all im saying. It is too much assumptions taking place. Which I for one do not like using. (if you do thats fair.) If you want to also bring him back in time. would he also be more physically dominating compared to the rest? should we take that into account?
And yes I agree that the grass has slowed down (not really the hard courts). but if you want to use that, do you think fed would be as dominant? the slow down of the grass kinda killed the serve and volley specialists.
Yes Federer is more well-rounded. But so what? its like saying Shaq vs Vince carter? (ofcourse abit more of an exaggeration). But if Nadal has a dominant fore-hand, backhand and athleticism and because of it can beat a more well-rounded player in Federer. so what? I mean yes, his tactic is naturally to make the ball bounce high with his top spin (and with fed naturally push it to his back hand). again so what? I mean you assume the G.O.A.T should be able to counter this right? I mean Nadal was able to adjust his game to lower bounces and attacking the ball better. Why coudnt Federer?

Some numbers:
15 of the 32 times Federer & Nadal played have been on clay. Roughly 47%
Again, so what? i mean that kind of highlights that Fed has an advantage because he was able to play Nadal in the surfaces that he prefers right? why is the statistics folly? I mean your statistics of other head-to-head is abit data mining again. as you highlight players who dont particularly do well in clay. (sampras and murray). While the rest do not specialise in clay. While Nadal and Federer actually have differing specialties and play each other in its specialist court about 50/50. isnt that fair? what is wrong with that?

And between mid 06- to early 09 (which was probably the peak of that rivalry) they saw each other 7 out 12 ish finals? is that not enough

Doing the same thing to properly gauge Nadal relating to Federer is completely appropriate, but if you think it through it doesn't have the same effect at all. Take away Federer, and Nadal gains 2 more major wins, that's it. His rank across surfaces doesn't end up looking anything like the 1/1/3 thing I mentioned with Federer, which is another way of making clear just how much Nadal's GOAT candidacy is based on him being inhumanly good on one surface.

But that is the problem you are forgetting to realise. to be the g.o.a.t you have to take away a player? wth? I mean now its Nadal's fault that he actually beat Federer in grass and hard courts and federer couldnt do the same?
I dont know where you got this 1/1/3 rating from. but ok, i disagree there is players like sampras that would probably say something with regards to grass and hard courts.
also one thing to take into account Nadal is so much better than anybody who ever played clay while you cant say the same with Federer.

2006 Federer (3 majors): 88-0 (9 matches against Big 4)
2010 Nadal (3 majors): 66-7 (8 matches against Big 4)
2011 Djokovic (3 majors): 58-4 (14 matches against Big 4)

But here is the porblem with that. Who was the big 4 in 2006? as stated earlier which you do not want to take into account was how federer racked up his first 8 or 9 grandslams against a weak era in tennis.
You always talk about differing eras but never highlight this part, can you imagine nadal have to go up against hewitt,safin and roddick instead of Federer, Djokvic and Murray (which he had to all his career) while Federer had a gimme 8 or so grand slams (compared to what it is now ofcourse).
So yes ofcourse Federer will look more dominant in 2006 that Nadal or Djoker did in their dominant eras.

As I stated. I have no problem with people calling federer I just don't think he is that unbeatable as you make it out and what nadal has done in this era in tennis is truly remarkable.

As I said my main points against Fed are
-He couldn't beat his main competition in his career (nadal on clay in the french) and I cannot think of any other sports men in any other sports who we consider G.O.A.T without overcoming his greatest challenge. To be honest with you that is probably worse than h-to-h differential.
-He had a relatively easy era to gain 8 or 9 grand slams. Which someone like Nadal never had.

[Doctor MJ]

I think our posts are getting too big . But let me reply to parts that I disagree with. (we have different points of view that it does not really matter).

Major wins: Federer 17, Nadal 14
Major finals: Federer 25, Nadal 20
Majors semis: Federer 35, Nadal 23

The reason why I find this data-mining and irrelevant (same when you bring in WTF), is that we are arguing against the best and not top 10 players. So finals appearences and semis. meh.. i think the difference between best and second should not be based on semis-appearences and all that. and the only reason I brought up the olympics is because you brought up WTF (which i think has more credence because it is 5 sets while WTF is 3.).
and Yes I agree Federer has more majors, as stated in my post before realistically speaking i think he needs maybe 2 more to be considered. atm, i think you can just start talking about it (like tiger and nicklaus.) he still has what 4 years more than Federer? So it is not out of the question.

I do understand the perspective of not being interested in how often you beat lower tier guys, but what I'm painting here is a picture of a trend. Federer was more likely to win, more likely to get to the finals even if he didn't win, more likely to get to the semis even if he didn't get to the finals, etc. It's just plain more consistent dominance top to bottom.

When you look at it from this perspective it becomes inconsistent in the narrative to simply say that Federer's results are about the era he played in, because era wasn't giving him the edge in all these rounds. You can argue that Federer was better at beating 2nd tier players but Nadal's better at beating top tier players, but this isn't the argument you were making, and you absolutely resisted even acknowledging this when I pointed it out so it's pretty clear that that knowledge wasn't even on your horizon when you came to your narrative about era.

Oh and yeah, post length is annoying. It is what it is though.

Yes he uses the spin more. But it doesnt mean he could still not spin more with past technology. That is all im saying. It is too much assumptions taking place. Which I for one do not like using. (if you do thats fair.) If you want to also bring him back in time. would he also be more physically dominating compared to the rest? should we take that into account?

Have you ever played with a tiny, wooden racket? There's never been any doubt that technology allowed spin to flourish, and there's never been any doubt that that extra spin allow Nadal's shots to kick up higher which Federer struggles with. That's before you even get into the fact that Nadal uses strings that are very high tech and designed for extreme spin. Here's the sales pitch of them:

this durable co-poly string is very, very spin friendly. The slick surface of RPM Blast allows the main strings to slide out of alignment, grab the ball and then snap back to add spin to the shot. While all co-poly monofilaments do this to some extent, our lab tests confirm that RPM Blast is exceptional in this regard.

Federer incidentally is one of the few players who still uses pure natural gut, and he played with a more normal sized racket all through his prime. One can debate whether he cost himself titles this way, but it makes it pretty dang clear that his game would work in earlier eras. Where Nadal developed a game that relies on a technique that became popular as a result of technology, Federer's calling card has always been that he has absolutely every shot and stunning racket & ball control.

Do you remember the '09 US match between Nadal and Del Potro? It was like Nadal was giving Del Potro gimme slams all the time. If the human race produced more tall people with good agility, Nadal would be in trouble with these techniques.

Or rather, to be more fair, the issue is that Nadal has a simplistic game that he's able to just stick with and win against other opponents that are more developed. He can do this because he has other talents: His core strength, agility, and endurance are phenomenal and that along with his simple game is enough based on typical tennis talent levels. If there were more tall players, it wouldn't render him awful, but it would absolutely make him less successful.

That "what if" doesn't change the fact that Nadal is winning titles, but since with this point we're not even agreeing on the "what if", it's telling us there are some things about tennis you're just not thinking about.

Re: he'd be more physically imposing back then. I think it's fine to argue that Nadal's the most impressive physical specimen we've seen. That never becomes irrelevant...but remember that tennis players look like they do because the best physical specimen doesn't count for nearly as much in tennis as it does in other sports.

There's also the matter of limitations. It's interesting that Nadal has the most powerful groundstrokes but he's never been close to being the best server. His frame gives him power in the traditional athletic sense, but he's not more powerful in the area that's typically seen as the most important in tennis. Hence, it's not like Nadal simply will dominate no matter what. He's found a way to dominate that uses his strengths. That way won't work as well in other eras. To presume he'll find some other way to counter simply because he's got thick muscles goes against everything we know about tennis.

And again, I'm not saying he'd be nothing in earlier eras, but there's every reason to think he's struggle a bit more because his Plan A wouldn't work as well.

And yes I agree that the grass has slowed down (not really the hard courts). but if you want to use that, do you think fed would be as dominant? the slow down of the grass kinda killed the serve and volley specialists.
Yes Federer is more well-rounded. But so what? its like saying Shaq vs Vince carter? (ofcourse abit more of an exaggeration). But if Nadal has a dominant fore-hand, backhand and athleticism and because of it can beat a more well-rounded player in Federer. so what? I mean yes, his tactic is naturally to make the ball bounce high with his top spin (and with fed naturally push it to his back hand). again so what? I mean you assume the G.O.A.T should be able to counter this right? I mean Nadal was able to adjust his game to lower bounces and attacking the ball better. Why coudnt Federer?

Federer began as a serve & volley player at Wimbledon. His volley game is excellent, he went away from it because court conditions made it better for him to stay back.

Do you remember the '09 Wimbledon finals with Andy Roddick - a player whose serve is his signature? Because of Federer's ability to place the ball in each corner, he outaced Roddick 50-27. Between that acing ability and serve & volley, if he played in eras where that technique worked he'd arguably be even better. Similar to a lesser degree on hard court.

This is what's so jaw dropping because Sampras in the current era, with his inability to be elite on a surface where his serve couldn't utterly dominate, would struggle with an era-switch but Federer really could skate across the eras without issue.

For the record, I think Nadal would do better in the '90s than Sampras would now. Clay would still be clay, and Nadal's more well rounded than Sampras was. This isn't about Nadal being the most susceptible to era differences among many, many different players...but Federer's well-roundedness is basically unique.

Re: "but so what? Shaq vs Vince Carter". Um, when was there ever an era that made it ill conducive to someone of Shaq's build & skills to dominate? That's the point. Me talking about well-roundedness is a way to get across what the actual issue is: That Nadal's strengths, in other eras would not be as strong.

It would be similar if there were some era that raised the hoop to 15 feet or outlawed shooting within 5 feet from the basket. If such things happened, Shaq would be less effective. Now, as someone rating players, I don't rate them at all based on absurd rule changes that never took place.

What I do look at, and this is a philosophical choice admittedly, is how the players would do across eras, because I make GOAT lists and it hardly makes sense to say Player A > Player B if you think Player B would have been better in Player A's era.

Re: "GOAT should be able to counter everything!" GOAT is not a title we grant someone because he's perfect, it's simply the guy who ranks the best among people who actually existed. Federer's not perfect. Neither is Nadal. Neither is anyone else. It so happens that Federer has achieved more in this era, and has the game that it makes sense to say he'd probably do the same in any era, and that seems pretty GOAT-ish to me.

Re: "Nadal could counter to lower bounces, so why can't Federer?" Huh? You're arguing that because Nadal adapted to X, Federer should be able to adapt to Y. That's just silly. Doesn't make sense to do any comparisons that way.

Some numbers:
15 of the 32 times Federer & Nadal played have been on clay. Roughly 47%
Again, so what? i mean that kind of highlights that Fed has an advantage because he was able to play Nadal in the surfaces that he prefers right? why is the statistics folly? I mean your statistics of other head-to-head is abit data mining again. as you highlight players who dont particularly do well in clay. (sampras and murray). While the rest do not specialise in clay. While Nadal and Federer actually have differing specialties and play each other in its specialist court about 50/50. isnt that fair? what is wrong with that?

I noticed you cut out how that differs from other great rivalries.

Look, the point is that head-to-head is a very simplistic way of looking at things. To say "therefore X is better" based on that alone ignores all sorts of factors that play into it, and one of those things is the fact that different rivalries are playing disproportionately on different surfaces. Simply put, that needs to be factored in in some way.

You want to try to spin it that Nadal's actually the unlucky one? Obviously I think you're wrong, but for where we are in the conversation I'd just like to make sure you understand that some sort of adjustment is necessary period.

And between mid 06- to early 09 (which was probably the peak of that rivalry) they saw each other 7 out 12 ish finals? is that not enough

Enough for what? Enough to ignore everything else? No, certainly not. Not by a long shot. It wouldn't even occur to me to think so. There's just so much more going on.

Doing the same thing to properly gauge Nadal relating to Federer is completely appropriate, but if you think it through it doesn't have the same effect at all. Take away Federer, and Nadal gains 2 more major wins, that's it. His rank across surfaces doesn't end up looking anything like the 1/1/3 thing I mentioned with Federer, which is another way of making clear just how much Nadal's GOAT candidacy is based on him being inhumanly good on one surface.

But that is the problem you are forgetting to realise. to be the g.o.a.t you have to take away a player? wth? I mean now its Nadal's fault that he actually beat Federer in grass and hard courts and federer couldnt do the same?
I dont know where you got this 1/1/3 rating from. but ok, i disagree there is players like sampras that would probably say something with regards to grass and hard courts.
also one thing to take into account Nadal is so much better than anybody who ever played clay while you cant say the same with Federer.

I'm not forgetting anything. I'm pointing out a specific issue with your thinking. To simply dismiss Federer's actually winning gap based on era without doing any attempt to adjust for era is not a rigorous way to do analysis. I gave you one thing you have to factor in, and I specifically made clear that I know that's not everything, but it's part of the puzzle that's just necessary to add in, especially if you want to use that particular excuse (era) as part of your reasoning.

2006 Federer (3 majors): 88-0 (9 matches against Big 4)
2010 Nadal (3 majors): 66-7 (8 matches against Big 4)
2011 Djokovic (3 majors): 58-4 (14 matches against Big 4)

But here is the porblem with that. Who was the big 4 in 2006? as stated earlier which you do not want to take into account was how federer racked up his first 8 or 9 grandslams against a weak era in tennis.
You always talk about differing eras but never highlight this part, can you imagine nadal have to go up against hewitt,safin and roddick instead of Federer, Djokvic and Murray (which he had to all his career) while Federer had a gimme 8 or so grand slams (compared to what it is now ofcourse).
So yes ofcourse Federer will look more dominant in 2006 that Nadal or Djoker did in their dominant eras.

Yeah, so I'm just not getting anywhere with you it seems I'll try one last time to boil it down:

We can split the era differences into two parts:

1) The high end talent you say wasn't there earlier on.
2) The rest.

What I've shown here is (2), and what that tells us is that Federer was far more consistently dominant against "the rest" as his peak than Nadal ever was. That's a mark in Federer's favor. Until you can acknowledge that we can't go further because it's just so far beyond dispute. I get the feeling you refuse to do that because you want a counterargument for your guy somewhere, but that defeats the purpose of splitting things like this. I'm splitting specifically to show you one part of this that's very clear cut, and which goes against your narrative, and this needs to at the very least add nuance to your takeaway.

Then we go back to (1), where you absolutely could say something like: "Everything I see tells me that Nadal's better against this top competition, and I believe this would lead Nadal to win more majors than Federer if they were born the same year. I acknowledge that Federer is more consistent, and this is going to mean that Nadal is going to lose early sometimes, but I think on the whole his endurance will give him the edge."

As I stated. I have no problem with people calling federer I just don't think he is that unbeatable as you make it out and what nadal has done in this era in tennis is truly remarkable.

As I said my main points against Fed are
-He couldn't beat his main competition in his career (nadal on clay in the french) and I cannot think of any other sports men in any other sports who we consider G.O.A.T without overcoming his greatest challenge. To be honest with you that is probably worse than h-to-h differential.
-He had a relatively easy era to gain 8 or 9 grand slams. Which someone like Nadal never had.

One point here is a little new, although it goes along with something else you said in this post:

You think "THE GOAT" ought to have been able to do better, but being #1 all-time is just about being more than anyone else, not about being perfect. Federer's done more, so to this point, he's #1.

Let's also make sure we direct that arrow back toward Nadal.
Don't you want "THE GOAT" to win at least, y'know, win more than some guy he was competing against?
Don't you want "THE GOAT" to prove himself an absolute all-timer on all surfaces?
Don't you want "THE GOAT" to be able to over the course of a year consistently beat all comers?
Don't you want "THE GOAT" to be able to thrive across eras without relying on a rule change brought in specifically to handicap other types of players?

Federer's not perfect. Nadal's not perfect. Nobody's perfect. Nadal may emerge as the GOAT, but you can't give him the nod simply by looking at head-to-heads or anything else that doesn't factor in the whole picture.

[bmbtimber]

King of clay has done it once againg, Nadal is really the king.

[olive_triangurl]

it looks like it will take a while for someone to beat Nadal at the French Open (since 2009), as Djokovic was a lot closer in 2013 than 2014.
and after someone does it, you can bet Nadal will be eager for redemption!
so who knows when he'll stop winning slams.....10 straight years of slam victories, and counting