Men's Tennis: Anyone think Nadal can catch Federer's all-time grand slam record?

[CDu]

Nadal has reached the semis of the French Open without losing a set. He'll avoid the #1 and #3 players in the world until the final, instead getting the #6 (Ferrer) in the semis. That's not a gimme by any means, but it means he has probably about an 80-90% chance of making the final.

Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. If he wins the French again (he's the favorite to do so - he OWNS this surface), he'll only be 5 behind Federer in Grand Slams won. Yet nobody seems to be talking about Nadal chasing Federer.

What do you all think? Will he do it?

[snowdenscold]

Nadal has reached the semis of the French Open without losing a set. He'll avoid the #1 and #3 players in the world until the final, instead getting the #6 (Ferrer) in the semis. That's not a gimme by any means, but it means he has probably about an 80-90% chance of making the final.

Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. If he wins the French again (he's the favorite to do so - he OWNS this surface), he'll only be 5 behind Federer in Grand Slams won. Yet nobody seems to be talking about Nadal chasing Federer.

What do you all think? Will he do it?

Couple variables at play here. First, you would need to address whether or not Federer will win anymore himself. Although he's had a bit of a dry spell, he is still consistently in the semi-finals of almost every major, and his quarter-final streak is still intact at astonishing 32 in a row! (IIRC). In addition, he's won two of the five Masters 1000 series events so far this year, as well as the 500-series in Dubai. So I think it's reasonable to believe he's got at least one more in him.

Now that might mean 7+ slams for Nadal to overtake Federer. Doable, but getting harder. And just as Nadal has been Federer's nemesis when it comes to grand slam titles, so has Djokovic been to Nadal. With the exception of the recent turnaround, Nole's just owned him in finals over the past year. Will that continue in the slams outside of Roland Garros? Although if Nadal can go out with 13 French Open titles, maybe it's a moot point =)

So, with all that said, I'll just take a stab in the dark and say he has a 25% chance to do it.

[Mal]

As soon as Rafa wins one more, there will be talk of him catching and/or passing Federer, I think.

If he does, I think it will be looked at with a bit of an asterisk unless he wins a few more on hard courts. Fair or not, you can be in the conversation about g.o.a.t. despite not being great on clay, but not so much if you're perceived as just a clay court specialist. Nadal's got his career slam, but I think he needs at least another U.S. or Wimbledon title if passing or catching Federer is to make him an equal in the eyes of history. If you get to 16 by winning 12 French Opens, you're far and away the greatest clay court player in history, but that detracts from the perception of your overall greatness. Rightly so, as far as I'm concerned.

I think he's got a tough row to hoe to reach 16, anyway. Unless and until he can beat the new and improved Djokovic in a hard court or grass final, at least, it's hard to pencil him in for more than 1 or maybe 2 more slams outside the French.

Off the topic somewhat, but man, Djokovic keeps getting hosed on the semifinal matchups. I realize Nadal's the defending champ, but Djokovic is the top seed, No. 1 in the world and holds all the other major titles right now. Why does he have to face Federer in the semi's, again? Not having the 1 seed slotted to face the 4 and the 2 play the 3 just isn't fair, in my opinion. Last season, Djokovic was clearly the top player in the world after the Australian, and still had to face Federer, if I'm not mistaken, in the semi's of each one of the slams. He's won three in a row and four of five, and now he's right back there, having to beat both the nos. 2 and 3 guys to win another. That seems wrong to me. Has Rafa ever beaten both Federer and Djokovich in the same slam?

[pfrduke]

Off the topic somewhat, but man, Djokovic keeps getting hosed on the semifinal matchups. I realize Nadal's the defending champ, but Djokovic is the top seed, No. 1 in the world and holds all the other major titles right now. Why does he have to face Federer in the semi's, again? Not having the 1 seed slotted to face the 4 and the 2 play the 3 just isn't fair, in my opinion. Last season, Djokovic was clearly the top player in the world after the Australian, and still had to face Federer, if I'm not mistaken, in the semi's of each one of the slams. He's won three in a row and four of five, and now he's right back there, having to beat both the nos. 2 and 3 guys to win another. That seems wrong to me. Has Rafa ever beaten both Federer and Djokovich in the same slam?

I don't follow tennis closely enough to know the answer to this, and this has always confused me as well. Why aren't the semis slated for 1/4 and 2/3 to be the matchup (and, similarly, why don't the quarters fall out nicely on 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5)?

[Bluedog]

I don't follow tennis closely enough to know the answer to this, and this has always confused me as well. Why aren't the semis slated for 1/4 and 2/3 to be the matchup (and, similarly, why don't the quarters fall out nicely on 1/8, 2/7, 3/6, 4/5)?

They flip a coin, so it's a 50/50 chance the one seed gets the three in his half. Djokovic has just been unlucky historically. Same thing goes for the other matchups. Going back to the main topic, I think there's a very low chance Rafa catches Federer. He has a long way to go. If anything, Djokovic almost seems betterpositioned based on his recent dominance on two surfaces which encompass three out of the four grand slams. Although I realize he's not even close to Fed yet but Djokovic is still quite young. I don't think either will match it though.

[snowdenscold]

Fair or not, you can be in the conversation about g.o.a.t. despite not being great on clay, but not so much if you're perceived as just a clay court specialist.
Not sure if the first half is a Federer reference or not, but in either case, it's interesting to note how the dominance of Nadal has made Fed seem a less great clay court player than he is. I mean, in the past 7 years the guy has made 7 quarters, 6 semis, 5 finals, and 1 championship. Plus at least the semis this year. Perception is relative, I guess.


If you get to 16 by winning 12 French Opens, you're far and away the greatest clay court player in history, but that detracts from the perception of your overall greatness. Rightly so, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree.


Last season, Djokovic was clearly the top player in the world after the Australian, and still had to face Federer, if I'm not mistaken, in the semi's of each one of the slams.

I think last year played out according to seed at the F.O. and Wimbledon. Nadal didn't lose his #1 to Djokovic until after Wimbledon, so Novak/Fed as the 2/3 matchup in the semis played out accordingly in both cases.

[CDu]

Not sure if the first half is a Federer reference or not, but in either case, it's interesting to note how the dominance of Nadal has made Fed seem a less great clay court player than he is. I mean, in the past 7 years the guy has made 7 quarters, 6 semis, 5 finals, and 1 championship. Plus at least the semis this year. Perception is relative, I guess.

This same argument can be used to show that Nadal isn't just a clay court specialist, though. He's won 2 Wimbledons and was the runner-up 3 more times there. And he has a runner-up and a title at both the US and Australian Opens. He also has two more appearances in the semis at the US Open and another appearance in the semis in Australia. Nadal is unquestionably the greatest clay court player ever. But he's not merely a clay court specialist.

That being said, I wasn't asking if Nadal is the greatest ever. I was merely asking if he could catch Federer's Slam record. I agree that it won't be easy. But if he wins the French, I think he has a reasonable chance (maybe 1 in 3) of pulling it off.

[Mal]

This same argument can be used to show that Nadal isn't just a clay court specialist, though. He's won 2 Wimbledons and was the runner-up 3 more times there. And he has a runner-up and a title at both the US and Australian Opens. He also has two more appearances in the semis at the US Open and another appearance in the semis in Australia. Nadal is unquestionably the greatest clay court player ever. But he's not merely a clay court specialist.

Good point, in response to a good point by snowden. One difference, however, is that I don't think Nadal's been stopped by Federer and Federer alone on hard courts quite the same way that Federer, while establishing himself as the second best clay court player for awhile, and making four out of six French Open finals, including last year, just could (can) not for the life of him figure out a way to beat Rafa in any country that has a Mediterranean coast. Other than Robin Soderling, if I'm not mistaken, no one outside of Nadal has beaten Federer in Paris since 2004. Nadal's been held back at times by Murray, Ferrer, del Potro, and others on his way to the top of the heap on other surfaces. To his credit, however, he figured out how to beat Roger at Wimbledon before Roger figured out how to beat him at Roland Garros.

Things have changed somewhat, in that Nadal's now consistently reaching at least the semi's at the other three slams, so long as his health is good. And, of course, everything's a little different now that Djokovic has joined the two of them and become, to date at least, Nadal's kryptonite in hard court slam finals.

[CDu]

Well, it turned out to be a fairly interesting final. Early on, Nadal dominated, winning the first two sets. But as the weather worsened, Nadal's clay court advantage disappeared. The rain made the balls heavier (less topspin) and the court slicker (harder to slide into your shots with confidence). That played to the advantage of Djokovic (who hits bigger groundstrokes). Djokovic reeled off 8 straight games against Nadal (an unheard of number) before the officials finally stopped play with Nadal down a break early in the 4th. When play resumed this morning, Nadal won 6 of the next 9 games to win the match.

He's now the unquestioned greatest men's clay court player ever (he's lost only once in the French, and that was again on a rainy day). Had the weather not been bad yesterday, he probably wins in straight sets.

The chase for the most grand slams in men's history is on. Nadal is behind by 5, with 5 years of youth on his side. He's probably going to have to play better on the hardcourts to pull it off. But with Djokovic surging on grass and hard courts and guys like Del Potro and Tsonga on the rise, it's very possible that the 31 year old Federer is done winning majors. Should be an interesting next few years.

[littlejohn]

Well, it turned out to be a fairly interesting final. Early on, Nadal dominated, winning the first two sets. But as the weather worsened, Nadal's clay court advantage disappeared. The rain made the balls heavier (less topspin) and the court slicker (harder to slide into your shots with confidence). That played to the advantage of Djokovic (who hits bigger groundstrokes). Djokovic reeled off 8 straight games against Nadal (an unheard of number) before the officials finally stopped play with Nadal down a break early in the 4th. When play resumed this morning, Nadal won 6 of the next 9 games to win the match.

He's now the unquestioned greatest men's clay court player ever (he's lost only once in the French, and that was again on a rainy day). Had the weather not been bad yesterday, he probably wins in straight sets.

The chase for the most grand slams in men's history is on. Nadal is behind by 5, with 5 years of youth on his side. He's probably going to have to play better on the hardcourts to pull it off. But with Djokovic surging on grass and hard courts and guys like Del Potro and Tsonga on the rise, it's very possible that the 31 year old Federer is done winning majors. Should be an interesting next few years.


However, you also have to consider Nadal's physical problems, especially with the way he plays. He could easily blow out a knee, and never win another match.

[CDu]

However, you also have to consider Nadal's physical problems, especially with the way he plays. He could easily blow out a knee, and never win another match.

No doubt. He's got a lot of work to do to catch Federer. I think the odds are still very much against him. But I think 1-in-4 or 1-in-3 chance isn't an unreasonable estimate.

I think the "blow out a knee and never win another match" is a highly unlikely scenario. Science has advanced to the point where athletes can recover to be just as strong as before their injury. Such an injury would cost him a year, but certainly wouldn't keep him from winning matches (if not Grand Slams).

But the wear and tear (especially on the hard courts) is definitely an area of concern, as is the recent dominance of Djokovic and the fact that winning 5 Grand Slams is pretty tough to do.

[Mal]

I think last year played out according to seed at the F.O. and Wimbledon. Nadal didn't lose his #1 to Djokovic until after Wimbledon, so Novak/Fed as the 2/3 matchup in the semis played out accordingly in both cases.

I think it's interesting that this has now come into play yet again. Djokovic as the top seed at Wimbledon gets to once again face the prospect of having to beat both Nadal and Federer, the 2 and 3 seeds, to retain his title. I don't think he's made any noise about this, but it strikes me as grossly unfair at this point that the coin flipping on this keeps working out so as to not give him the boost a No. 1 seed would expect. And it turns out that when he was stuck at 3 behind Roger and Rafa, he kept getting dropped in Roger's half, too, making it harder to just break through to the finals by beating a more evenly-matched Nadal instead of the guy winning 16 Slams. Since taking over the top ranking, Djokovic has now had Federer as the third seed fall in his half of the draw three out of four times at the Slams. The one time it didn't happen Federer may have done enough to tire out Rafa that it helped him survive that marathon in this year's Aussie final.

Out of curiosity, since I'd asked before and since I think it takes a touch of the sheen off of Nadal's hardcourt titles, I went to see whether Rafa had ever beaten the two top seeds (other than himself, of course) to win a hardcourt Slam. I didn't bother to look at the French, since it doesn't matter who he plays there unless that person's temporarily turned into a superhuman with Bjorn Borg tennis skills. Turns out he's not beaten two high seeds consecutively in the Aussie, Wimbledon or U.S. In both 2008 and 2010 at Wimbledon, Federer got the unlucky bounce in the draw that Djokovich's now getting, being the top seed and having the 3 (Novak both times) in his half of the bracket. In 2008 it didn't matter, as Roger and Rafa both faced unseeded surprises in the semi's. In 2010 it may have made a difference, depending on how much it took out of Tomas Berdych to upset both Fed and Djokovic in the quarters and semi's. At the 2009 U.S. Open, Nadal earned the top seed and benefitted by watching Federer and Djokovich fight through a grueling 5-setter before the winner faced him. And at the '09 Aussie, the seeds again went according to number so Nadal got the benefit of his top spot and got 14 Verdasco in the semi's. It's not that often that the results go according to seed and the top 4 make the semi's, of course, so grains of salt, etc. But the pattern is rather surprising - when Nadal's the top seed, the seeds consistently fall into predictable 1/4 and 2/3 order. When he's the 2 seed, they keep going 1/3 and 2/4.

I don't quite see this the same way that I inevitably think a little less of Federer's one French Open title, since it didn't involve personally beating Nadal. But it strikes me as pretty fortunate for Nadal that there have been far more times than math would predict that, regardless of what his seed is, he's seen a path to a hardcourt Slam title that can't possibly include having to beat both of the two best hardcourt players of the last decade. We'll see what impact the draw has on Wimbledon, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if you see the winner of another Djokovich/Federer slugfest facing the daunting prospect of playing the Energizer Bunny himself in the finals after he's whipped Murray or some other lesser player again. I don't think Federer's got it left in him to beat them both in the same tournament. Should Djokovic beat them both again, it'd be pretty impressive, and twice in the last four Slams.

I'm hoping for a Tsonga/Nadal quarters matchup, as that could make for a fascinating match. Tsonga's one of the few guys with the tools to present a stylistic danger for Nadal, but he'd need to make the tactical decision to put his chips on a full-on serve and volley attack. If he just stays back and tries to baseline it, he'd be out in two hours, of course, but with his big serve, size and coverage, if he decided to play at the net it could force Nadal out of his usual position well behind the baseline and/or neutralize his inhuman ability to get to everything hit his way.

[CDu]

I think it's interesting that this has now come into play yet again. Djokovic as the top seed at Wimbledon gets to once again face the prospect of having to beat both Nadal and Federer, the 2 and 3 seeds, to retain his title. I don't think he's made any noise about this, but it strikes me as grossly unfair at this point that the coin flipping on this keeps working out so as to not give him the boost a No. 1 seed would expect. And it turns out that when he was stuck at 3 behind Roger and Rafa, he kept getting dropped in Roger's half, too, making it harder to just break through to the finals by beating a more evenly-matched Nadal instead of the guy winning 16 Slams. Since taking over the top ranking, Djokovic has now had Federer as the third seed fall in his half of the draw three out of four times at the Slams. The one time it didn't happen Federer may have done enough to tire out Rafa that it helped him survive that marathon in this year's Aussie final.

Out of curiosity, since I'd asked before and since I think it takes a touch of the sheen off of Nadal's hardcourt titles, I went to see whether Rafa had ever beaten the two top seeds (other than himself, of course) to win a hardcourt Slam. I didn't bother to look at the French, since it doesn't matter who he plays there unless that person's temporarily turned into a superhuman with Bjorn Borg tennis skills. Turns out he's not beaten two high seeds consecutively in the Aussie, Wimbledon or U.S. In both 2008 and 2010 at Wimbledon, Federer got the unlucky bounce in the draw that Djokovich's now getting, being the top seed and having the 3 (Novak both times) in his half of the bracket. In 2008 it didn't matter, as Roger and Rafa both faced unseeded surprises in the semi's. In 2010 it may have made a difference, depending on how much it took out of Tomas Berdych to upset both Fed and Djokovic in the quarters and semi's. At the 2009 U.S. Open, Nadal earned the top seed and benefitted by watching Federer and Djokovich fight through a grueling 5-setter before the winner faced him. And at the '09 Aussie, the seeds again went according to number so Nadal got the benefit of his top spot and got 14 Verdasco in the semi's. It's not that often that the results go according to seed and the top 4 make the semi's, of course, so grains of salt, etc. But the pattern is rather surprising - when Nadal's the top seed, the seeds consistently fall into predictable 1/4 and 2/3 order. When he's the 2 seed, they keep going 1/3 and 2/4.

I don't quite see this the same way that I inevitably think a little less of Federer's one French Open title, since it didn't involve personally beating Nadal. But it strikes me as pretty fortunate for Nadal that there have been far more times than math would predict that, regardless of what his seed is, he's seen a path to a hardcourt Slam title that can't possibly include having to beat both of the two best hardcourt players of the last decade. We'll see what impact the draw has on Wimbledon, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if you see the winner of another Djokovich/Federer slugfest facing the daunting prospect of playing the Energizer Bunny himself in the finals after he's whipped Murray or some other lesser player again. I don't think Federer's got it left in him to beat them both in the same tournament. Should Djokovic beat them both again, it'd be pretty impressive, and twice in the last four Slams.

I'm hoping for a Tsonga/Nadal quarters matchup, as that could make for a fascinating match. Tsonga's one of the few guys with the tools to present a stylistic danger for Nadal, but he'd need to make the tactical decision to put his chips on a full-on serve and volley attack. If he just stays back and tries to baseline it, he'd be out in two hours, of course, but with his big serve, size and coverage, if he decided to play at the net it could force Nadal out of his usual position well behind the baseline and/or neutralize his inhuman ability to get to everything hit his way.

Nadal has certainly gotten some good fortune along the way. Sometimes it is just as important to be lucky as it is to be good, and better to be both.

I think there's only one player on tour who can beat Nadal in a baseline game (except on clay of course - then there's nobody that can beat Nadal except injury and the weather) and that is Djokovic. You're right though - with Tsonga's athleticism and power he could make for an interesting matchup with Nadal. It's probably Nadal's only true hurdle unless Murray plays out of his mind (or Nadal suffers an injury) before the final.

I'd love to see Djokovic and Federer in the semis. Two fantastic players on Federer's best surface (negating just a bit of Djokovic's current overall edge). Should be fun if it happens.

[pfrduke]

Well, Nadal won't add another one yet. A second round loss to Lukas Rosol. Ouch.

[Mal]

Well, Nadal won't add another one yet. A second round loss to Lukas Rosol. Ouch.

Wow. That was shocking. I haven't seen it, but early reports are that Rosol played out of his freaking mind, especially in the fifth set, and was crushing returns for winners all over the place and aced Nadal half a dozen times in his last two service games to close him out. Remarkable. Ranked 100 (for the moment, at least), so I'm sure this is the lowest ranked player to ever beat Rafa at a Major.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Wow. That was shocking. I haven't seen it, but early reports are that Rosol played out of his freaking mind, especially in the fifth set, and was crushing returns for winners all over the place and aced Nadal half a dozen times in his last two service games to close him out. Remarkable. Ranked 100 (for the moment, at least), so I'm sure this is the lowest ranked player to ever beat Rafa at a Major.

I watched that last set. WOW! I wonder what kind of deal Rosol made with the devil to play like that? http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/19.gifhttp://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/19.gifhttp://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/19.gif

[snowdenscold]

I also watched the last set (thankfully I had left ESPN 3 playing on my computer throughout the day while I was gone - so when I walked back in my room I saw it was in the 5th, otherwise I would have missed it).

Rosol had some unbelievable service games - especially the last 2. He must have had like 5 or 6 aces and 2 or 3 winners in those games - both love games against Nadal! (I think I read he only swung the racket 10 times in those eight points). He was also hitting 100 mph returns from the baselines (!).

I don't know where this guy came from (he's 26 so I assume he didn't first pick up a racket when he was 23), but I think this was only his 2nd tournament-level grass court win (the first being 2 days ago). Just unbelievable. It'll be interesting to see whether he can keep this up, or will suffer a big letdown on Saturday.

It's sort of fun and exciting to watch an upset like this, but then again, it's also been amazing to have the big 4 consistently make the semi-finals together (or at least the quarters). I suppose this match is an impurity on the 'golden' age of men's tennis.

Also, I suppose Andy Murray's fairly happy tonight =)

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Et tu, Roger? No sir, not today! Thank you very much! :cool:

[snowdenscold]

Man, that was intense! I had to walk away at times because I, the random fan on another continent, couldn't take the pressure. Hopefully that's the last scare like that we see until the semis.

[NSDukeFan]

Couple variables at play here. First, you would need to address whether or not Federer will win anymore himself. Although he's had a bit of a dry spell, he is still consistently in the semi-finals of almost every major, and his quarter-final streak is still intact at astonishing 32 in a row! (IIRC). In addition, he's won two of the five Masters 1000 series events so far this year, as well as the 500-series in Dubai. So I think it's reasonable to believe he's got at least one more in him.

Now that might mean 7+ slams for Nadal to overtake Federer. Doable, but getting harder. And just as Nadal has been Federer's nemesis when it comes to grand slam titles, so has Djokovic been to Nadal. With the exception of the recent turnaround, Nole's just owned him in finals over the past year. Will that continue in the slams outside of Roland Garros? Although if Nadal can go out with 13 French Open titles, maybe it's a moot point =)

So, with all that said, I'll just take a stab in the dark and say he has a 25% chance to do it.

Now 33. That is a record that I can't see anyone reaching anytime in the not too distant future. Over 8 consecutive years of making every grand slam quarter! Ridiculous consistency!

[BattierD12]

Terrific article by Rick Reilly: The Big Three (http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8112557/big-three-tennis)

I've always been in support of Federer being the greatest of all time (if not Rod Laver). Glad to see Reilly agrees.

[snowdenscold]

Terrific article by Rick Reilly: The Big Three (http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8112557/big-three-tennis)

I've always been in support of Federer being the greatest of all time (if not Rod Laver). Glad to see Reilly agrees.

Ha, nice article. I think he makes a good point about Murray:



Most weeks, Andy Murray is The Unluckiest Human on the Planet. He was born a fabulous tennis player at the worst time in history to be one.
............

You take greatness where you find it. It's here. Bathe in it.

Except you, Andy Murray. You just sue your parents.

[NSDukeFan]

http://espn.go.com/tennis/wimbledon12/story/_/id/8135028/2012-wimbledon-roger-federer-dumps-novak-djokovic-semifinals

Federer has a chance against Murray to make things a bit more challenging for Nadal. He would ascend to #1 and tie Sampras for the most weeks at #1 with a victory. Maybe the guy isn't done just yet.

The other side is what a story it would be if Murray is the first Brit to win Wimbledon in 397 years.

[CDu]

http://espn.go.com/tennis/wimbledon12/story/_/id/8135028/2012-wimbledon-roger-federer-dumps-novak-djokovic-semifinals

Federer has a chance against Murray to make things a bit more challenging for Nadal. He would ascend to #1 and tie Sampras for the most weeks at #1 with a victory. Maybe the guy isn't done just yet.

The other side is what a story it would be if Murray is the first Brit to win Wimbledon in 397 years.

There's a whole lot of history on the line on Sunday for sure. Could be a fun final. Hopefully Murray can step up and make it interesting. I suspect Federer wins in straight sets, but you just never know.

[snowdenscold]

And from what I understand, Federer would really pass Sampras since he would be guaranteed that #1 spot for at least 2 weeks.

If it wasn't decided already, I think it's pretty clear that if Fed wins on Sunday, the GOAT argument is put to rest. 7 Wimbledons and most weeks at #1 - basically no records left to get at that point (he just broke Connors record of most semi-finals a couple days ago).

Not saying he couldn't lose it one day, but at the moment no one else would compare.

[CDu]

And from what I understand, Federer would really pass Sampras since he would be guaranteed that #1 spot for at least 2 weeks.

If it wasn't decided already, I think it's pretty clear that if Fed wins on Sunday, the GOAT argument is put to rest. 7 Wimbledons and most weeks at #1 - basically no records left to get at that point (he just broke Connors record of most semi-finals a couple days ago).

Not saying he couldn't lose it one day, but at the moment no one else would compare.

I don't think there was ever an argument about greatest of all time. Certainly never in this thread. Federer has comfortably established himself there. I was merely asking if Nadal might pass him for the grand slams record. Totally different discussion.

[snowdenscold]

I don't think there was ever an argument about greatest of all time. Certainly never in this thread. Federer has comfortably established himself there. I was merely asking if Nadal might pass him for the grand slams record. Totally different discussion.

Oh, I know - I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread. More of the vocabulary in articles and commentary and whatnot of "probably the greatest of all time", "one of the all time greats - if not the greatest", "strong candidate for GOAT", "many say the greatest", etc. where there's still a little hedging. Maybe those qualifications will never fully go away, but I would expect them to lessen.

[NSDukeFan]

I don't think there was ever an argument about greatest of all time. Certainly never in this thread. Federer has comfortably established himself there. I was merely asking if Nadal might pass him for the grand slams record. Totally different discussion.

But I hope you still allow it in this thread, because it has been interesting. :)

[CDu]

But I hope you still allow it in this thread, because it has been interesting. :)

I'm in no position to stop it (just wanted to clarify that it wasn't the point of the thread). In terms of overall greatness, I think there are only two arguments: Laver and Federer.

Laver won 11 grand slam tournaments and 9 pro slam tournaments (in his era, pros couldn't compete at the Grand Slam events, or else he'd have likely won several more between 1962 and 1968 in his prime). He completed the professional slam in 1967 (US Pro, Wembley, and the ToC) and the Grand Slam twice in 1962 and 1969 (after pros were allowed to compete). He also won 200 championships. And he's the only man to have won multiple majors on every surface. So I think he has a very strong argument as the greatest of all time.

Federer has a strong argument as well, with likely the most weeks as #1 overall and the most Grand Slams (though again, that's probably a hollow argument in light of Laver's lost slam years).

But among modern era (post-1968), there's really no argument that Federer is the best.

[Dukefan1.0]

I'm in no position to stop it (just wanted to clarify that it wasn't the point of the thread). In terms of overall greatness, I think there are only two arguments: Laver and Federer.

Laver won 11 grand slam tournaments and 9 pro slam tournaments (in his era, pros couldn't compete at the Grand Slam events, or else he'd have likely won several more between 1962 and 1968 in his prime). He completed the professional slam in 1967 (US Pro, Wembley, and the ToC) and the Grand Slam twice in 1962 and 1969 (after pros were allowed to compete). He also won 200 championships. And he's the only man to have won multiple majors on every surface. So I think he has a very strong argument as the greatest of all time.

Federer has a strong argument as well, with likely the most weeks as #1 overall and the most Grand Slams (though again, that's probably a hollow argument in light of Laver's lost slam years).

But among modern era (post-1968), there's really no argument that Federer is the best.

The main argument I have against Federer being considered the greatest is his losing record to Nadal. Now I believe Federer is one of the greats, and this may just be me basing my criteria as the greatest unfairly to lower Roger. The question that I ask is how he is the G.O.A.T. if he is not even arguably the best in his generation. Now most people would define being the best as beating the best, which he has not done with Nadal, and Nadal cannot seem to do with Djokovic. This is why Muhammad Ali is considered the greatest because he regularly beat the best, and even Tiger Woods if he passes Jack would have a strong argument in golf because of his dominance, along with the fact he has never had a person he could not beat. This is simply not the case here as Federer is 2-6 in Grand Slam finals against Nadal and 2-8 overall in Grand Slams. Again as a disclaimer I enjoy watching Federer play, and this may be me as Nadal fan that is clouding my judgment of what criteria should be considered in measuring greatness.

[BattierD12]

The main argument I have against Federer being considered the greatest is his losing record to Nadal. Now I believe Federer is one of the greats, and this may just be me basing my criteria as the greatest unfairly to lower Roger. The question that I ask is how he is the G.O.A.T. if he is not even arguably the best in his generation. Now most people would define being the best as beating the best, which he has not done with Nadal, and Nadal cannot seem to do with Djokovic. This is why Muhammad Ali is considered the greatest because he regularly beat the best, and even Tiger Woods if he passes Jack would have a strong argument in golf because of his dominance, along with the fact he has never had a person he could not beat. This is simply not the case here as Federer is 2-6 in Grand Slam finals against Nadal and 2-8 overall in Grand Slams. Again as a disclaimer I enjoy watching Federer play, and this may be me as Nadal fan that is clouding my judgment of what criteria should be considered in measuring greatness.

While Federer does not have a great record against Nadal, you can't ignore the fact that Nadal is 4-5 years younger and beat Federer in most of the grand slams after Federer hit his prime. As incredible as the rivalry is right now, imagine what it would have been like if Nadal and Federer were the same age.

[CDu]

While Federer does not have a great record against Nadal, you can't ignore the fact that Nadal is 4-5 years younger and beat Federer in most of the grand slams after Federer hit his prime. As incredible as the rivalry is right now, imagine what it would have been like if Nadal and Federer were the same age.

Yeah, I don't think there is a strong argument against Federer. I think the strongest counter-argument is for Laver.

[NSDukeFan]

The main argument I have against Federer being considered the greatest is his losing record to Nadal. Now I believe Federer is one of the greats, and this may just be me basing my criteria as the greatest unfairly to lower Roger. The question that I ask is how he is the G.O.A.T. if he is not even arguably the best in his generation. Now most people would define being the best as beating the best, which he has not done with Nadal, and Nadal cannot seem to do with Djokovic. This is why Muhammad Ali is considered the greatest because he regularly beat the best, and even Tiger Woods if he passes Jack would have a strong argument in golf because of his dominance, along with the fact he has never had a person he could not beat. This is simply not the case here as Federer is 2-6 in Grand Slam finals against Nadal and 2-8 overall in Grand Slams. Again as a disclaimer I enjoy watching Federer play, and this may be me as Nadal fan that is clouding my judgment of what criteria should be considered in measuring greatness.

As BattierD12 has stated, there is a bit of a difference in primes at play when comparing Federer and Nadal. By the time Nadal beat Federer in a Grand Slam event that wasn't the French Open (Nadal, the greatest clay court player ever, had beaten Federer en route to his 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 titles), it was 2008 Wimbledon and Federer had already won 12 Grand Slams and been number 1 in the world for 4&1/2 years, with Nadal at #2 for almost 3 of those years. I don't believe that Roger should be blamed for Nadal not making it to the other Grand Slam finals in those years.

I believe Rafa has spent more time at #2 than any other player. I don't believe I have to state who was #1 that entire time. Nadal leads their head-to-head 18–10. Federer has a winning record on grass (2–1) and indoor hard courts (4–0) while Nadal leads the outdoor hard courts by 5–2 and clay by 12–2. Besides their clay court matches, I believe their head to head record is 8-6 Federer.

Nadal currently has 11 Grand Slam titles, is one of only 7 men to have won the career Grand Slam (Fred Perry, Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver, Andre Agassi, Federer and Nadal) and is certainly the greatest clay court tennis player ever. He has a greater head-to-head record vs. Roger since they have played mostly on clay courts, but it is hard to argue against Roger's 33 consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal appearances (every one since Wimbledon 2004), 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals appearances (2005-07) and 23 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals appearances (Wimbledon '05- Australian '10.)

Since Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon and took over the #1 ranking in 2008, he was #1 in the world for 2 years, with Federer #1 for almost a year while Nadal was injured and then Djokovic has been #1 for the past year. Federer has spent 5&1/2 years at #1, while Nadal has spent 2 years there. Federer has added 4 more Grand Slams to his resume since Nadal first became #1 (with a chance at another tomorrow) and been runner-up 3 additional times, while Nadal during this prime has won 6 (3 French and 1 of each of the others) and been runner-up 3 additional times.

Roger is the greatest tennis player of this generation and was clearly the best player in the world for over 4 years from 2004 to 2008. Since that time, during Nadal's prime, Federer has almost matched Rafa and would make this argument silly if he were to win tomorrow, get Grand Slam #17 and an argument for best grass court player ever, regain the #1 ranking in an era of fantastic tennis and tie Sampras for most weeks at #1.

Nadal has to be considered the second best player of this generation as highlighted by his amazing 240? weeks (almost 5 years) at #2.

[Dukefan1.0]

As BattierD12 has stated, there is a bit of a difference in primes at play when comparing Federer and Nadal. By the time Nadal beat Federer in a Grand Slam event that wasn't the French Open (Nadal, the greatest clay court player ever, had beaten Federer en route to his 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 titles), it was 2008 Wimbledon and Federer had already won 12 Grand Slams and been number 1 in the world for 4&1/2 years, with Nadal at #2 for almost 3 of those years. I don't believe that Roger should be blamed for Nadal not making it to the other Grand Slam finals in those years.

I believe Rafa has spent more time at #2 than any other player. I don't believe I have to state who was #1 that entire time. Nadal leads their head-to-head 18–10. Federer has a winning record on grass (2–1) and indoor hard courts (4–0) while Nadal leads the outdoor hard courts by 5–2 and clay by 12–2. Besides their clay court matches, I believe their head to head record is 8-6 Federer.

Nadal currently has 11 Grand Slam titles, is one of only 7 men to have won the career Grand Slam (Fred Perry, Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver, Andre Agassi, Federer and Nadal) and is certainly the greatest clay court tennis player ever. He has a greater head-to-head record vs. Roger since they have played mostly on clay courts, but it is hard to argue against Roger's 33 consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal appearances (every one since Wimbledon 2004), 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals appearances (2005-07) and 23 consecutive Grand Slam semi-finals appearances (Wimbledon '05- Australian '10.)

Since Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon and took over the #1 ranking in 2008, he was #1 in the world for 2 years, with Federer #1 for almost a year while Nadal was injured and then Djokovic has been #1 for the past year. Federer has spent 5&1/2 years at #1, while Nadal has spent 2 years there. Federer has added 4 more Grand Slams to his resume since Nadal first became #1 (with a chance at another tomorrow) and been runner-up 3 additional times, while Nadal during this prime has won 6 (3 French and 1 of each of the others) and been runner-up 3 additional times.

Roger is the greatest tennis player of this generation and was clearly the best player in the world for over 4 years from 2004 to 2008. Since that time, during Nadal's prime, Federer has almost matched Rafa and would make this argument silly if he were to win tomorrow, get Grand Slam #17 and an argument for best grass court player ever, regain the #1 ranking in an era of fantastic tennis and tie Sampras for most weeks at #1.

Nadal has to be considered the second best player of this generation as highlighted by his amazing 240? weeks (almost 5 years) at #2.

And that is a very compelling argument for Federer, and this maybe my Rafa fanboy in me coming out, as I hesitate to call someone the greatest of all time when he has a losing record to his main rival. Pete Sampras for example I believe was 20-14 against Agassi, and to venture to the women's side Navratilova has a record of 43-37 against Chris Everet, and 9-9 against Graf, making both of the former at least equal (in Graf's case) or superior to their rival. This extends into other sports as well such as Ali vs Fraizer, Ali is considered better than Frazier because he beat Frazier twice after the "Fight of the Century". This example also extends into Russell vs Wilt, now I realize the dynamics are different in a team sport which Russell usually had the better team, but people do not put Wilt in the same over a Kareem or a Jordan simply because Russell beat Wilt so often. Along with the fact that Nadal has beaten Federer on every Grand Slam court including Federer's best surface grass whereas Federer has not beaten Nadal on his best surface clay. Now I will admit I have convinced myself over the years on this issue, and I am in way dug in on my view point due to my bias as a Nadal fan so we may have to agree to disagree on this issue.

===>Edit I want to congratulate Federer for winning his 7th Wimbledon and 17th Grand Slam at the time I was typing this post.

[snowdenscold]

In 8 days the last major record will fall - Federer will have 287 weeks at #1. Absolutely incredible and something that I didn't think would ever happen (agreeing w/ John McEnroe that I thought he still had a chance for another major, but not the #1 again).

[throatybeard]

and to venture to the women's side Navratilova has a record of 43-37 against Chris Everet, and 9-9 against Graf, making both of the former at least equal (in Graf's case) or superior to their rival.

That is absolutely insane, given that Navratilova is thirteen years older than Graf.

I have a friend who is a more attractive and shorter version of Graf.

[JasonEvans]

A I hesitate to call someone the greatest of all time when he has a losing record to his main rival.

I use this argument all the time when trying to convince people that Trevor Berbick was a better boxer than Muhammad Ali. I don't know why more people don't understand it.

-Jason "and when you compare Jack Nicklaus's performance head-to-head against the top golfers of the mid-late 1980s, it is clear that Jack is just not that impressive a golfer" Evans

[snowdenscold]

I use this argument all the time when trying to convince people that Trevor Berbick was a better boxer than Muhammad Ali. I don't know why more people don't understand it.

-Jason "and when you compare Jack Nicklaus's performance head-to-head against the top golfers of the mid-late 1980s, it is clear that Jack is just not that impressive a golfer" Evans

Nice =)


Also, remember that Nadal isn't getting to every quarter and semi of hard and grass court surfaces like Fed is on clay. That's what's so impressive about the 33 in a row QF streak - no 2nd round exits or anything, no injuries. So a bit an argument from silence, but Nadal doesn't always make it to all those later rounds on non-clay surfaces and face Fed there - so that could potentially skew the head-to-head record.

(which is by the way, 12-2 Nadal on clay, 6-5 Fed on hard, and 2-1 Fed on grass)

And look at Grand Slam comparisons:

Australian: Fed 4, Nadal 1
French: Nadal 7, Fed 1
Wimbledon: Fed 7, Nadal 2
US Open: Fed 5, Nadal 1

ATP Year-end Championship: Fed 6, Nadal 0
Weeks at #1: Fed 286 (and counting), Nadal 102



Anyway, on a somewhat different note, here's an interesting question: Did Djokovic end up helping Federer make a claim for GOAT by spoiling Nadal's chances of catching up (despite potentially stealing majors from Fed)?

[NSDukeFan]

Nice =)


Also, remember that Nadal isn't getting to every quarter and semi of hard and grass court surfaces like Fed is on clay. That's what's so impressive about the 33 in a row QF streak - no 2nd round exits or anything, no injuries. So a bit an argument from silence, but Nadal doesn't always make it to all those later rounds on non-clay surfaces and face Fed there - so that could potentially skew the head-to-head record.

(which is by the way, 12-2 Nadal on clay, 6-5 Fed on hard, and 2-1 Fed on grass)

And look at Grand Slam comparisons:

Australian: Fed 4, Nadal 1
French: Nadal 7, Fed 1
Wimbledon: Fed 7, Nadal 2
US Open: Fed 5, Nadal 1

ATP Year-end Championship: Fed 6, Nadal 0
Weeks at #1: Fed 286 (and counting), Nadal 102



Anyway, on a somewhat different note, here's an interesting question: Did Djokovic end up helping Federer make a claim for GOAT by spoiling Nadal's chances of catching up (despite potentially stealing majors from Fed)?

I believe the answer is yes. He has also made things very interesting at the top in that Roger seems to think he is playing as well or better than he was 5 years ago, and I don't disagree. The level of tennis that the top 3 are playing at right now is ridiculous. This should make for a very interesting Olympics and U.S. Open.

[CDu]

Anyway, on a somewhat different note, here's an interesting question: Did Djokovic end up helping Federer make a claim for GOAT by spoiling Nadal's chances of catching up (despite potentially stealing majors from Fed)?

When compared to Nadal? Sure. But the standard to which Federer should really be compared in that discussion is Laver, not Nadal. There really isn't a strong argument for Nadal over Federer in the GOAT debate. Laver is the much more interesting discussion.

[Mal]

I'm with those that don't discount Federer's greatness by much due to his rivalry with Nadal. In addition to the age thing, it's hard to overlook the fact that Nadal's clearly the greatest clay court player of all time, and that fully half of the matchups between the two have taken place on clay. Federer leads 8-6 on hard courts, and as others have mentioned, especially earlier in Rafa's career when Federer probably would have handily dispatched him like he did everyone else, Nadal wasn't advancing to the point of meeting up with Fed in the big tournaments all that often.

It's conceivable Federer will have a losing record against Djokovic by the time he's done, too, if he plays for another 3 or 4 years in the middle of Novak's prime. Likewise, Nadal may also find himself on the losing side of the ledger with Djoker, too (although he's reversed that trend admirably this season).

The Laver vs. Federer comparison is an interesting one, but I feel like it will perpetually be apples and oranges due to the barring of the pro's from the Slams for a good bit of his prime, and also that (IIRC) once the Open Era began, they didn't all play in each of those tournaments right away.

Anyway, amazing tennis from Roger yesterday. Most amazing racket skills I've ever seen, for sure. I'll admit I was one who thought he was probably done winning Slams - funny how the original thinking on this thread was basically "Can Nadal get to 16?" without thinking it might eventually be 17. Now I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be 18!

[littlejohn]

FYI, I am not responding to a single email, but several who have made the following statements as "facts":

I wouldn't be quite so quick and definitive with "greatest of all time" or "greatest clay court player ever". Maybe it's my age, or that I've been a tennis fan since the early 70's, but those statements just don't hold water.

If anyone is basing their comments on the number of slam titles a player holds, that's a horrible statistic to use. Just off the top of my head, for years there was a challenge system where the previous year's champion only had to play in the finals; for a number of years "outsiders" weren't even allowed to play in the French; slam titles didn't mean nearly as much previously as they do now (see Chris Evert opting to play for World Team Tennis(?) instead of the French when she absolutely dominated clay court tennis); Connors being banned from the French the year he was kicking everyone's butt; see also, Borg, among many others, not playing in the Australian for years when it was the last tournament of the year, as he couldn't win the US Open, which meant he couldn't win the Grand Slam; Laver and others not being allowed to play in the slams for years in their prime; on and on and on with examples in tennis of greats who either weren't allowed to, or chose not to play in the slams.

Or simply hop on a boat and travel a month or whatever it took in the 20's and 30's when Tilden played to reach Wimbledon & the French. I think he still holds the records for most consecutive US Open titles and has 10 slams. Or that the US Open for years was a grass court tourney, then clay, then hard court.

Not apples vs oranges, but apples vs fish.

[Dukefan1.0]

I use this argument all the time when trying to convince people that Trevor Berbick was a better boxer than Muhammad Ali. I don't know why more people don't understand it.

-Jason "and when you compare Jack Nicklaus's performance head-to-head against the top golfers of the mid-late 1980s, it is clear that Jack is just not that impressive a golfer" Evans

Trevor Berbick only fought Ali once and that was toward the end of Ali's career in '81, and I highly doubt a large majority of people would consider Berbick one of Ali's biggest rivals over Norton and Frazier. Both whom he beat twice out of the three times he fought them. In response to Jack Nicklaus's performance or lack thereof in Major Championships during the mid-late 80s is where I consider he was past his prime only reaching the top ten six times between '84 and '05 when he retired. However during his prime he performed very well on a consistent basis beating his rivals Palmer, Trevino, and Player only towards the end of his prime did he struggle against Tom Watson in the late '70s and early '80s. My point is that every other player who is considered the greatest of his or her sport consistently overcame his or her rival(s). Examples I used in my previous post was Ali beating both his rivals Norton and Frazier, Pete Sampras who is 20-14 against Agassi, Navratilova who is 43-37 against Chris Evert and 9-9 against Steffi Graf ( which apart from Evert's 6-8 record is the closest someone has to a winning record against Graf), Rod Laver who previous posters said is the main contender against Federer as the greatest is 79-63 against Rosewall, 35-21(other sources 38-19) against Gonzales, and he is 49-18 against Emmerson. Also I pointed to that many continue to rank Wilt Chamberlain below the likes of Jordan, Kareem, even below Magic, and Hakeem because of the fact Wilt could not beat Russell only finally beating him in 67 in the Eastern Conference Finals. Now I ask why is this used to define the greatness of athletes in every other sport, except when the debate brings up Federer's record against his main rival in Nadal? It may imply a duality in the argument that is similar in the debates I have between my friends over Jordan being considered the greatest.

[snowdenscold]

Now I ask why is this used to define the greatness of athletes in every other sport, except when the debate brings up Federer's record against his main rival in Nadal?

Well, for one, because basketball is played on the same type of hardwood every game. Most concede Nadal as the greatest clay court player, and feel that since half of the head-to-head matches were on clay (something that does not make up 50% of the tennis season) it must be taken into account (and as mentioned, Fed's better head-to-head record on non-clay surfaces). And since clay is not a glaringly absent part of Federer's game (it's actually extremely good - Nadal's is just better), it's not that much of a blemish.

[Dukefan1.0]

Well, for one, because basketball is played on the same type of hardwood every game. Most concede Nadal as the greatest clay court player, and feel that since half of the head-to-head matches were on clay (something that does not make up 50% of the tennis season) it must be taken into account (and as mentioned, Fed's better head-to-head record on non-clay surfaces). And since clay is not a glaringly absent part of Federer's game (it's actually extremely good - Nadal's is just better), it's not that much of a blemish.

Is this not also similar to Federer's dominance on grass where Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon whereas Federer has not done the same on Nadal's surface at the French Open, and it does not explain their Grand Slam finals records on non-clay surfaces 4-2 in favor of Nadal with Federer's two wins coming at Wimbledon. I also think it is unfair to take away a player's dominance on one surface. If we were to take away Laver's grand slam wins on grass against Emerson it their head-to-head would be skewed from 7-2 in favor of Laver to 0-2 in favor of Emerson and I doubt people will say Emerson is better than Laver. Even if we do discredit their meetings on clay Federer only has an 8-6 record on the other two surfaces (three if you're of the crowd that separates indoor hard courts from outdoor like my grandfather does in which case it is 5-2 Nadal and 4-0 Federer.) meaning that Nadal is at least equal to Federer on the other surfaces and in my mind only makes Nadal's dominance of Federer on one surface even more impressive. I love Federer, as I only prefer Nadal and Murray before him, his case as greatest of all time is difficult to me as in no other case has the proposed greatest of all time has struggle consistently against one person in his prime. Now if Nadal cannot overcome his Djokovic funk then he would be held to the same standard I am currently holding Federer.

[NSDukeFan]

Is this not also similar to Federer's dominance on grass where Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon whereas Federer has not done the same on Nadal's surface at the French Open, and it does not explain their Grand Slam finals records on non-clay surfaces 4-2 in favor of Nadal with Federer's two wins coming at Wimbledon. I also think it is unfair to take away a player's dominance on one surface. If we were to take away Laver's grand slam wins on grass against Emerson it their head-to-head would be skewed from 7-2 in favor of Laver to 0-2 in favor of Emerson and I doubt people will say Emerson is better than Laver. Even if we do discredit their meetings on clay Federer only has an 8-6 record on the other two surfaces (three if you're of the crowd that separates indoor hard courts from outdoor like my grandfather does in which case it is 5-2 Nadal and 4-0 Federer.) meaning that Nadal is at least equal to Federer on the other surfaces and in my mind only makes Nadal's dominance of Federer on one surface even more impressive. I love Federer, as I only prefer Nadal and Murray before him, his case as greatest of all time is difficult to me as in no other case has the proposed greatest of all time has struggle consistently against one person in his prime. Now if Nadal cannot overcome his Djokovic funk then he would be held to the same standard I am currently holding Federer.


As BattierD12 has stated, there is a bit of a difference in primes at play when comparing Federer and Nadal. By the time Nadal beat Federer in a Grand Slam event that wasn't the French Open (Nadal, the greatest clay court player ever, had beaten Federer en route to his 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 titles), it was 2008 Wimbledon and Federer had already won 12 Grand Slams and been number 1 in the world for 4&1/2 years, with Nadal at #2 for almost 3 of those years. I don't believe that Roger should be blamed for Nadal not making it to the other Grand Slam finals in those years.
...

As I had mentioned above though, Roger had already won 12 majors and been #1 for 4&1/2 years (his prime) before Nadal ever beat him at Wimbledon. The problem is that Nadal never made it to the finals to challenge Roger during his prime, he was most often eliminated earlier in the tournaments. If you want to compare their head-to-head Grand Slam tournament record (i.e. who won the most Grand Slams when both were playing in them), you would come up with a great advantage for Federer.

[throatybeard]

I use this argument all the time when trying to convince people that Trevor Berbick was a better boxer than Muhammad Ali. I don't know why more people don't understand it.

-Jason "and when you compare Jack Nicklaus's performance head-to-head against the top golfers of the mid-late 1980s, it is clear that Jack is just not that impressive a golfer" Evans

If you ask me, Muhammad Ali, in his prime, was much better than anti-lock brakes.

[Dukefan1.0]

As I had mentioned above though, Roger had already won 12 majors and been #1 for 4&1/2 years (his prime) before Nadal ever beat him at Wimbledon. The problem is that Nadal never made it to the finals to challenge Roger during his prime, he was most often eliminated earlier in the tournaments. If you want to compare their head-to-head Grand Slam tournament record (i.e. who won the most Grand Slams when both were playing in them), you would come up with a great advantage for Federer.

Yes a very good point and one that I admittedly cannot dance around. My research, which anybody is free to check up on, has turned up that Federer has won 13 Grand Slams that Nadal was also competing in compared to Nadal's 11. Now if we scratch their best surfaces (Federer - Grass, and Nadal - Clay) then it makes it even more lopsided with Federer winning 7 compared to Nadal's 2. Federer's being the 2004 Australian Open, 2004 - 2008 US opens, and the 2010 Australian Open with Nadal's being the 2009 Australian Open along with the 2010 US open. Now I base my argument off of head-to-head match-ups becasue first it is easy to defend the numbers that go the way of my argument, and two it might be considered, even though I hate using it in college football, an eye test because I believe they should be measured in how they competed against each other. Now if this debate continues on in future posts then I want to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this debate, and wish to apologize to others if my posts throughout this debate have come off as being stubborn/dismissive towards the posters of the opposing view point. Now with that being said I do hope this debate with posters such as NSDukeFan continues, as it has been enjoyable.

[snowdenscold]

Yes a very good point and one that I admittedly cannot dance around. My research, which anybody is free to check up on, has turned up that Federer has won 13 Grand Slams that Nadal was also competing in compared to Nadal's 11. Now if we scratch their best surfaces (Federer - Grass, and Nadal - Clay) then it makes it even more lopsided with Federer winning 7 compared to Nadal's 2. Federer's being the 2004 Australian Open, 2004 - 2008 US opens, and the 2010 Australian Open with Nadal's being the 2009 Australian Open along with the 2010 US open. Now I base my argument off of head-to-head match-ups becasue first it is easy to defend the numbers that go the way of my argument, and two it might be considered, even though I hate using it in college football, an eye test because I believe they should be measured in how they competed against each other. Now if this debate continues on in future posts then I want to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this debate, and wish to apologize to others if my posts throughout this debate have come off as being stubborn/dismissive towards the posters of the opposing view point. Now with that being said I do hope this debate with posters such as NSDukeFan continues, as it has been enjoyable.

I also compared total number of matches won in grand slams in events they were both competing. It breaks down as follows:

Year Nadal Fed
2003: 3 / 10 (2)
2004: 3 / 14 (2)
2005: 13 / 24 (3)
2006: 17 / 20
2007: 20 / 26
2008: 24 / 24
2009: 15 / 19 (3)
2010: 25 / 20
2011: 23 / 20
2012: 14 / 16*
-----------------
157 / 193

Numbers in ()'s means Nadal only played that many of the events that year, so I only used Fed's results for the relevant slams. The '*' is because we haven't done the US Open yet for 2012.

[Dukefan1.0]

I also compared total number of matches won in grand slams in events they were both competing. It breaks down as follows:

Year Nadal Fed
2003: 3 / 10 (2)
2004: 3 / 14 (2)
2005: 13 / 24 (3)
2006: 17 / 20
2007: 20 / 26
2008: 24 / 24
2009: 15 / 19 (3)
2010: 25 / 20
2011: 23 / 20
2012: 14 / 16*
-----------------
157 / 193

Numbers in ()'s means Nadal only played that many of the events that year, so I only used Fed's results for the relevant slams. The '*' is because we haven't done the US Open yet for 2012.

Did you include the 2009 French Open where Nadal was eliminated due to his chronic knee problems, I did not in my post because I felt he played handicapped for the majority of the tournament and it was severe enough to force him to skip Wimbledon that year. However, if you did I will raise Federer's total I counted in my last post to 14 I believe to Nadal's 11.

[snowdenscold]

Did you include the 2009 French Open where Nadal was eliminated due to his chronic knee problems, I did not in my post because I felt he played handicapped for the majority of the tournament and it was severe enough to force him to skip Wimbledon that year. However, if you did I will raise Federer's total I counted in my last post to 14 I believe to Nadal's 11.

Yes I counted them, so instead of 157 to 193 it would be 154 to 186 if you were to discount the 2009 F.O. entirely.



Though the injury and longevity issue brings up a whole other topic for consideration =)

[Dukefan1.0]

Yes I counted them, so instead of 157 to 193 it would be 154 to 186 if you were to discount the 2009 F.O. entirely.



Though the injury and longevity issue brings up a whole other topic for consideration =)

Fair enough. Still an impressive showing by both in each of the majors which I've done the math, which is usually wrong more than it is right, using the stats you provided and the stats I looked up their individual win percentage in Grand Slams is pretty staggering. Federer winning 87.1% of his matches as of Wimbledon 2012 with his worst win percentage being at the French Open and Nadal winning 87.7% of his matches as of Wimbledon with his worst win percentage being at the US Open. Now my math showed that Nadal's highest win percentage is not surprising winning 98% of his matches at the French and Federer's at Wimbledon winning 90%. However, Federer's next two best percentages come at a more consistent basis when compared to Nadal's, Federer's being 87% at the Australian Open and 89% at the US Open, whereas Nadal's next two best are lower 83% at the Australian Open and 85% at Wimbledon. Now both of them look like they will continue to play at this high level that we have become accustomed to seeing, and with Djokovic looking to remain as a consistent threat to win Grand Slams we could continue to be witnessing a special era in tennis.

[snowdenscold]

Now both of them look like they will continue to play at this high level that we have become accustomed to seeing, and with Djokovic looking to remain as a consistent threat to win Grand Slams we could continue to be witnessing a special era in tennis.


This I think almost all can agree on. :D

[Blue in the Face]

Rafa withdraws from the US Open (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/19275181).

[snowdenscold]

Rafa withdraws from the US Open (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/19275181).

Although I'm not the world's biggest Nadal fan (though I don't dislike him), I think this is pretty unfortunate.

With Djokovic winning the Aussie, Rafa the French, Fed at Wimbledon and now Murray over Fed in straight sets for the Gold in London, I was really looking for to the (now?) Big-4 all together this fall! Alas, no epic semifinal showdown.

It will be interesting to see how the seeding is done now. I guess Murray won't have the easy final route he did at Wimbledon.

[Blue in the Face]

It will be interesting to see how the seeding is done now. I guess Murray won't have the easy final route he did at Wimbledon.
No disrespect to Cilic or Berdych (and I liked how Murray reminded reporters not to overlook that quarters matchup for Federer), but things have really opened up for Murray. At least until the final. 2 of the last 3 champs on the other side of the draw, and Djokovic, albeit with a friendly draw, has looked like a man on a mission.

[snowdenscold]

No disrespect to Cilic or Berdych (and I liked how Murray reminded reporters not to overlook that quarters matchup for Federer), but things have really opened up for Murray. At least until the final. 2 of the last 3 champs on the other side of the draw, and Djokovic, albeit with a friendly draw, has looked like a man on a mission.

I hope people saw the second set of tonight's Djokovic - Del Potro match. It was incredible. The defense Novak played on the point to get the break back was just out of this world. Add on a 17 minute game and some exhibition-style points in the tie-break and it was definitely worth tuning in for.

If Djokovic keeps that level of play up like tonight, I think he'll win it. The Murray / Berdych match is somewhat of a toss-up. I don't think Federer going out has exactly given him a walk to the finals, but we'll see - and I'll be rooting for him. Let's just hope he doesn't start off the way he did against Cilic (though being down a set and 1-5 in the second and surviving an early set point and coming back to win it in 4 was pretty amazing... but next time just don't put yourself in that situation!)

[Dukefan1.0]

Andy wins the US Open and becomes the first British male tennis player to win a major since Fred Perry in '36 I think. Really proud of Andy who has finally gotten that monkey off his back and who seemed to have been unlucky to be born into an era that holds Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Hopefully this win along with his gold medal from the Olympics spawns a deserving period of success for him in future Majors.

[Blue in the Face]

Andy wins the US Open and becomes the first British male tennis player to win a major since Fred Perry in '36 I think. Really proud of Andy who has finally gotten that monkey off his back and who seemed to have been unlucky to be born into an era that holds Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Hopefully this win along with his gold medal from the Olympics spawns a deserving period of success for him in future Majors.
I really enjoyed that match. The first set in particular was some terrific tennis. Some of those rallies were tremendous.

[Dukefan1.0]

I really enjoyed that match. The first set in particular was some terrific tennis. Some of those rallies were tremendous.

The whole match was intense with ridiculous rallies, they had two I think that went over 50 shots along with plenty more that were 30-40, then Djokovic coming back from being down two breaks in the second, but being held off by Murray. I'll admit though I lost a little faith in Andy when Djokovic won the next two sets rather convincingly, and it seemed that he was just coming unglued by the nerves/weight of an entire country on his shoulders. My fears were unfounded and he bounced back.

The wind was bothering both of them throughout the match, and it felt weird having the final on a Monday as soon as they knew it was going to rain they shoul've closed the roo... oh that's right :rolleyes:.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I really enjoyed that match. The first set in particular was some terrific tennis. Some of those rallies were tremendous.

Didn't see the first set, but yeah, those rallies (30 strokes? WOW!) were something special!

Congrats to Andy for finally winning the big one. Sort of like Coach K and Duke in 1991! :cool: