FEDERER v NADAL V DJOKOVIC (etc) - MOD NOTE 1ST POST

ballyargus

By Twitter followers. Nadal is almost 50% better than Federer.

Joe Dog

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Then how are subjective opinions "accurate"? "Accuracy" is an extrapolation of some sort of tangible measurement

Statistics can't prove everything.Sometime your eyes are the best guide when it comes to who the greatest is.

You constantly bang on on the soccer forum about statistics not really mattering when it comes to Ronaldo vs Messi debate but apparently now they matter in this debate.

You really need to show some consistency.

The Golden Miller

Joe Dog wrote: »

Statistics can't prove everything.Sometime your eyes are the best guide when it comes to who the greatest is.

You constantly bang on on the soccer forum about statistics not really mattering when it comes to Ronaldo vs Messi debate but apparently now they matter in this debate.

You really need to show some consistency.

I queried what his metric was, as any metric that "accurately" states Federer being the GOAT is simply a fallacy to begin with, so my line of thought is actually consistent. As an aside, I don't call Messi the GOAT, it's impossible to say as there are too many variables between the era's. Yet, all we hear on this thread is matter of fact opinions. Federer definitively better than Borg for example? Maybe, but not definitively, ergo maybe the GOAT, maybe not. Why are Federer fans so insecure that they need to repeatedly hail him as the GOAT?

Joe Dog

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I queried what his metric was, as any metric that "accurately" states Federer being the GOAT is simply a fallacy to begin with, so my line of thought is actually consistent. As an aside, I don't call Messi the GOAT, it's impossible to say as there are too many variables between the era's. Yet, all we hear on this thread is matter of fact opinions. Federer definitively better than Borg for example? Maybe, but not definitively, ergo maybe the GOAT, maybe not. Why are Federer fans so insecure that they need to repeatedly hail him as the GOAT?

He's won more grandslams than anyone else.

That's a pretty strong argument for him being the best of all time.

There is no possible way you can say one great player is definitively better than another great player.

The Golden Miller

Joe Dog wrote: »

He's won more grandslams than anyone else.

That's a pretty strong argument for him being the best of all time.

There is no possible way you can say one great player is definitively better than another great player.

My point exactly, so why do Federer fans have to constantly beat that drum? Slam counting is also a highly flawed metric for greatness, particularly since it only became a thing with Sampras in the 90's. Not to mention the first guy to come to prominence in an era, generally gets a headstart in racking them up, the guy coming next having to always compete against the former i.e fewer "easy" slams for the second guy. Roswell has more slams anyway

Joe Dog

The Golden Miller wrote: »

My point exactly, so why do Federer fans have to constantly beat that drum? Slam counting is also a highly flawed metric for greatness, particularly since it only became a thing with Sampras in the 90's. Not to mention the first guy to come to prominence in an era, generally gets a headstart in racking them up, the guy coming next having to always compete against the former i.e fewer "easy" slams for the second guy. Roswell has more slams anyway

Because they think he's the best of all time, he's widely regarded as being the best of all time so it isn't just Federer fans who are saying it.

The Golden Miller

Joe Dog wrote: »

Because they think he's the best of all time, he's widely regarded as being the best of all time so it isn't just Federer fans who are saying it.

And that needs to be mentioned every time Federer is mentioned? It is something unique about Federer fanbots that this "GOAT" stuff has to be shoved down everyone's throat at any given opportunity. It's almost as if they are trying to over-compensate to hide the fact he was routinely bested by Nadal on court, particularly between 08-14....huge insecurity in their minds as to whether he really is the "GOAT". Anyway, calling someone the "GOAT" is a definitive statement, as we've clarified, he isn't definitively better than the other greats, nevermind when we narrow things down to certain metrics like clay, faster courts, overall slam count, peak form etc

Joe Dog

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And that needs to be mentioned every time Federer is mentioned? It is something unique about Federer fanbots that this "GOAT" stuff has to be shoved down everyone's throat at any given opportunity. It's almost as if they are trying to over-compensate to hide the fact he was routinely bested by Nadal on court, particularly between 08-14....huge insecurity in their minds as to whether he really is the "GOAT". Anyway, calling someone the "GOAT" is a definitive statement, as we've clarified, he isn't definitively better than the other greats, nevermind when we narrow things down to certain metrics like clay, faster courts, overall slam count, peak form etc

People refer to players being the GOAT in every single sport, it isn't just people who like Federer who do it.

You're simply making a nonsense argument.

mickmackey1

Nadal fans weeping bitter tears yet again as Federer returns to No 1.

The Golden Miller

Joe Dog wrote: »

People refer to players being the GOAT in every single sport, it isn't just people who like Federer who do it.

You're simply making a nonsense argument.

People may talk about it in various sports when the topic arises, Federer fans do it anytime the lads name is mentioned, then often trying to qualify it as fact. I don't believe pointing out such pathetic fanboyism is a nonsense argument, their insecurity is worthy of a discussion in itself :pac:

Joe Dog

The Golden Miller wrote: »

People may talk about it in various sports when the topic arises, Federer fans do it anytime the lads name is mentioned, then often trying to qualify it as fact. I don't believe pointing out such pathetic fanboyism is a nonsense argument, their insecurity is worthy of a discussion in itself :pac:

Well then we might as well close the thread.

If you argue in any topic that some one or some thing is the greatest of all time you are obviously going to make the case that it is a fact that what you are arguing is the best, to do less than that would be extremely poor arguing technique.

He has the record that tends to be used to assess who the greatest is in a sport and therefore you can say Federer is the greatest with more certainty than any other player, that why great of all time is more attributed to him by people than any other player.

The Golden Miller

Joe Dog wrote: »

Well then we might as well close the thread.

If you argue in any topic that some one or some thing is the greatest of all time you are obviously going to make the case that it is a fact that what you are arguing is the best, to do less than that would be extremely poor arguing technique.

He has the record that tends to be used to assess who the greatest is in a sport and therefore you can say Federer is the greatest with more certainty than any other player, that why great of all time is more attributed to him by people than any other player.

You're willfully missing the point. I'm not against GOAT arguments per say. It gets tedious when every tennis thread on every site becomes nothing more than a "Federer is the GOAT" thread. OK, even if he is, why is it shoved down everyone's throat on every tennis related topic every second post? Maybe you don't see it, if not fair enough, nothing left for us to discuss then

dominatinMC

mickmackey1 wrote:

Nadal fans weeping bitter tears yet again as Federer returns to No 1.

Good man. Good to see you and all your fellow Fed fans have come out of hibernation now that the clay season is over. Ye were certainly missed

walshb

Career titles, GS wins, GS finals' appearances, 1000 titles and overall consistent brilliant rankings for such a long period of time put Fed as GOAT for me...

Nobody has his overall statistics....

Hector Savage

Has to be Nadal, he had the harder opponents and is close to winning all slams at least twice.

Federer will never win the FO again.

In Federers earlier years he breezed through slams while Nadal was still only a clay courter - no real rivals.

Djokovic didn't appear till 2008..

mickmackey1

Hector Savage wrote: »

Nadal was still only a clay courter - no real rivals.

Exactly. Nadal's clay court titles shouldn't be counted really.

dominatinMC

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Exactly. Nadal's clay court titles shouldn't be counted really.

Ya, you know what, I think you're right actually. We seem to forget that clay courts aren't really tennis courts at all. When played on clay, it is an entirely different sport afterall :rolleyes: Only the surfaces on which King Fed has had success should count as tennis courts...ya, that's it.

mickmackey1

dominatinMC wrote: »

Ya, you know what, I think you're right actually. We seem to forget that clay courts aren't really tennis courts at all. When played on clay, it is an entirely different sport afterall :rolleyes: Only the surfaces on which King Fed has had success should count as tennis courts...ya, that's it.

I was pointing out that Nadal has no rivals on clay, which the previous poster used as justification for downplaying Federer's early titles. You conveniently ignored that however, as simple logic is beyond Nadal fanboys.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I was pointing out that Nadal has no rivals on clay, which the previous poster used as justification for downplaying Federer's early titles. You conveniently ignored that however, as simple logic is beyond Nadal fanboys.

That's not a like for like analogy though. Federer won easy slams because the competition was relatively poor, the same competition Nadal, Murray and Novak also beat on hardcourts when they came onto the scene. If Nadal is winning easy slams on clay, it's because he's a level above anyone else, even the rest of the "big 4".

This GOAT thing wouldn't even be up for debate if two of the slams were still on clay. Nadal would be dominating 2, while at least splitting the other two with Federer. No one here is a Nadal fanboy, most who you call "Nadal fanboys" say Novak is better on grass and hardcourts. Some "fanboys", eh? The only fanboy here is yourself, who cannot accept what happened when Nadal and Federer came in direct conflict, so have to explain it away on forums's as your hero couldn't do it on the tennis court

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

That's not a like for like analogy though. Federer won easy slams because the competition was relatively poor, the same competition Nadal, Murray and Novak also beat on hardcourts when they came onto the scene. If Nadal is winning easy slams on clay, it's because he's a level above anyone else, even the rest of the "big 4".

This GOAT thing wouldn't even be up for debate if two of the slams were still on clay. Nadal would be dominating 2, while at least splitting the other two with Federer. No one here is a Nadal fanboy, most who you call "Nadal fanboys" say Novak is better on grass and hardcourts. Some "fanboys", eh? The only fanboy here is yourself, who cannot accept what happened when Nadal and Federer came in direct conflict, so have to explain it away on forums's as your hero couldn't do it on the tennis court

Seems like Nadal's latest failure has caused you to weep some salty tears

So when Federer was winning easy slams it's because the competition was poor, but when Nadal was doing the same it's because he's 'a level above'... that's exactly the kind of illogical tripe which makes Nadal fanboys a laughing stock. Nadal is extremely lucky to have even one Slam on a surface which is limited to one corner of Europe, whereas Federer's slams are mostly on a surface which 90% of players are more familiar with, and therefore infinitely harder to win.

But keep trying to argue that black is white and 2 plus 2 equals 5, it's giving me a great laugh.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Seems like Nadal's latest failure has caused you to weep some salty tears

So when Federer was winning easy slams it's because the competition was poor, but when Nadal was doing the same it's because he's 'a level above'... that's exactly the kind of illogical tripe which makes Nadal fanboys a laughing stock. Nadal is extremely lucky to have even one Slam on a surface which is limited to one corner of Europe, whereas Federer's slams are mostly on a surface which 90% of players are more familiar with, and therefore infinitely harder to win.

But keep trying to argue that black is white and 2 plus 2 equals 5, it's giving me a great laugh.

Salty tears? I couldn't care less that Nadal lost. I love how you try and call people "Nadal fanboys" so as to make it seem like me and others are the other side of the same coin as yourself. It's pathetic mate. Nadal, Murray, Djokovic wiped the floor of the guys Federer was beating in slams when they came onto the scene. Nadal roundly beat the rest of the "big 4" on clay. What is it you don't understand exactly? Nadal's clay slams wouldn't be easy if Federer and the others were better, just like Nadal got better on hardcourts and roundly beat Federer between 08-14. Also clay accounts for about 40% of the season, outdoor hardcourts marginally more, the rest other surfaces

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

That's not a like for like analogy though. Federer won easy slams because the competition was relatively poor, the same competition Nadal, Murray and Novak also beat on hardcourts when they came onto the scene. If Nadal is winning easy slams on clay, it's because he's a level above anyone else, even the rest of the "big 4".

This GOAT thing wouldn't even be up for debate if two of the slams were still on clay. Nadal would be dominating 2, while at least splitting the other two with Federer. No one here is a Nadal fanboy, most who you call "Nadal fanboys" say Novak is better on grass and hardcourts. Some "fanboys", eh? The only fanboy here is yourself, who cannot accept what happened when Nadal and Federer came in direct conflict, so have to explain it away on forums's as your hero couldn't do it on the tennis court

Jaysus. If you are going to say "what if" in relation to how many slams somebody would win if there were 2 clay slams, then you may as well say how many somebody would win if grass and hard courts played like proper grass and hard courts, and weren't glorified clay!

It's ok for you to come out with this rubbish, but when somebody else does likewise, it's "shifting the goalposts" or "Fed fanboyism".

Give me a break.

Homogeneous nature of tennis has benefited a player like Nadal. Fast courts aren't his specialty. There are NO fast courts in grand slams anymore.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nadal wins no Wimbledon titles in the 90s. He likely doesn't even bother trying, like all the other great clay courters of that time. US Open was much faster back then too. No way is he winning 3 against the likes of Sampras' big serve and volley on those courts.

Would Federer win 8 Wimbledons. No? Would he win a good few? Yes. He's much more comfortable on faster courts, hence his dominant indoor record against Nadal for example.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Jaysus. If you are going to say "what if" in relation to how many slams somebody would win if there were 2 clay slams, then you may as well say how many somebody would win if grass and hard courts played like proper grass and hard courts, and weren't glorified clay!

It's ok for you to come out with this rubbish, but when somebody else does likewise, it's "shifting the goalposts" or "Fed fanboyism".

Give me a break.

Homogonous nature of tennis has benefited a player like Nadal. Fast courts aren't his specialty. There are NO fast courts in grand slams anymore.

Mickey is the one who keeps calling me a Nadal fanboy, I couldn't care less about the guy. I couldn't care less about any of them, in terms of who I would shout for.

I said 2 as there used to be two clay majors. He was the one working off hypotheticals, I just spun it another way. I go by what I see, that was Nadal usurping Federer, thereafter Djokovic usurped Nadal on all but clay. The rest is just excuses

ballyargus

There were also two grass slams once upon a time too.

Chivito550

Correct me if I am missing anyone here, but since Hard Court was introduced to Slams in 1978, before the turn of the century only 2 men won grand slams on all 3 surfaces:

Mats Willandar and Andre Agassi.

Willandar's has to have a bit of an astericks as his grass titles came in Kooyong before the Australian Open became a hard court slam, moved to Melbourne Park, and actually became important.

So essentially one guy.

Then since the turn of the century, not only have 3 guys done this, but they have all done it at the same time.

Now we could easily just write this off as them being the 3 greatest in history, or we can acknowledge the elephant in the room, that tennis has been destroyed, by the need to make rallies longer, to please sponsors and fair weather fans. This homogenous sport we have now benefits all 3 of the Big 3. But it benefits Nadal more than all. Federer is by far the most adaptable of the 3 and I am in no doubt he would have won many slams on lightning fast courts. I'm very unconvinced that Rafa would have been any sort of a factor at SW19.

The sport has become stale. Seeing the same contenders at all 4 slams, not just in terms of the winners, but even just those making quarter finals, is incredibly uninspiring.

Don't expect the courts to be reverted back to the way they used to be until all 3 have retired.

The era of the specialist is dead.

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Mickey is the one who keeps calling me a Nadal fanboy, I couldn't care less about the guy. I couldn't care less about any of them, in terms of who I would shout for.

I said 2 as there used to be two clay majors. He was the one working off hypotheticals, I just spun it another way. I go by what I see, that was Nadal usurping Federer, thereafter Djokovic usurped Nadal on all but clay. The rest is just excuses

When were 2 slams clay? It was 3 slams grass and just 1 clay.

ballyargus

I think the Australian Open rotated it's surface for a period of time (it was once purely grass) - that would have given rise to there being two clay slams in a given year.

Edit: US Open was clay for 3 years in late 70s

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Correct me if I am missing anyone here, but since Hard Court was introduced to Slams in 1978, before the turn of the century only 2 men won grand slams on all 3 surfaces:

Mats Willandar and Andre Agassi.

Willandar's has to have a bit of an astericks as his grass titles came in Kooyong before the Australian Open became a hard court slam, moved to Melbourne Park, and actually became important.

So essentially one guy.

Then since the turn of the century, not only have 3 guys done this, but they have all done it at the same time.

Now we could easily just write this off as them being the 3 greatest in history, or we can acknowledge the elephant in the room, that tennis has been destroyed, by the need to make rallies longer, to please sponsors and fair weather fans. This homogenous sport we have now benefits all 3 of the Big 3. But it benefits Nadal more than all. Federer is by far the most adaptable of the 3 and I am in no doubt he would have won many slams on lightning fast courts. I'm very unconvinced that Rafa would have been any sort of a factor at SW19.

The sport has become stale. Seeing the same contenders at all 4 slams, not just in terms of the winners, but even just those making quarter finals, is incredibly uninspiring.

Don't expect the courts to be reverted back to the way they used to be until all 3 have retired.

The era of the specialist is dead.

I agree that variation is better, but what should work in theory doesn't always play out that way. Guys will grow up adapting to the game of the day, we can't just pick the variables we want when crossing era's. Also, bassliners did just fine on quicker courts, it was give and take between those and serve and volleyers. So yes, you could argue the current courts only suit one type of game, whereas beforehand either could work. It all comes down to how good you are at executing what you do. Nadal would need a better serve though.

You could argue Federer would be more adaptable, and maybe he would be, but by the same token you could argue guys like Sampras would get further ahead the more you speed up the court. So if the court is too slow, Federer may not be the best, but if it's too quick he may not be either. A competitive adaptable jack of all trades, but master of none?

To me this argument is just pushed as another metric to say Federer is better than Nadal. We'll never know. We just have what we have at the end of the day. Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc....the best will always find a way to rise to the top of the game regardless

Chivito550 wrote: »

When were 2 slams clay? It was 3 slams grass and just 1 clay.

I could be wrong on that. Thought the US was on clay before, maybe it wasn't?

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I agree that variation is better, but what should work in theory doesn't always play out that way. Guys will grow up adapting to the game of the day, we can't just pick the variables we want when crossing era's. Also, bassliners did just fine on quicker courts, it was give and take between those and serve and volleyers. So yes, you could argue the current courts only suit one type of game, whereas beforehand either could work. It all comes down to how good you are at executing what you do. Nadal would need a better serve though.

You could argue Federer would be more adaptable, and maybe he would be, but by the same token you could argue guys like Sampras would get further ahead the more you speed up the court. So if the court is too slow, Federer may not be the best, but if it's too quick he may not be either. A competitive adaptable jack of all trades, but master of none?

To me this argument is just pushed as another metric to say Federer is better than Nadal. We'll never know. We just have what we have at the end of the day. Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc....the best will always find a way to rise to the top of the game regardless



I could be wrong on that. Thought the US was on clay before, maybe it wasn't?

Be interesting to see the speed of Wimbledon courts in say 2001 and 2003 compared to 2007, 2008 and now.

Federer as a 19 year old beat Sampras who had not lost at Wimbledon for 5 years. That was the year Goran and Rafter played a very serve and volley final. The courts were definitely fast that year. 2003 I remember reading that the courts were still fast then, but I can’t remember where I read it so can’t go further with that.

Would definitely be interesting to see an analysis.

Would Federer have been better than Sampras on grass? Maybe, maybe not. I reckon it would be pretty close.

Sampras never could do it on clay. Federer has a fantastic clay court record. He’s way ahead of him on medium hard though.

Maybe Federer would be as you describe. Not the absolute best in any specific area, but the best overall. Agassi is certainly up there in that regard too.

The 4 slams should be fast grass, fast hard, medium hard, slow clay.

Right now the biggest difference in the slams is the country they play them in!!

Chivito550

Seems like US was on clay for a few years in 70s. It was grass the rest of the time until 1978. Australian was grass til late 80s.