Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Is the Federer-Nadal GOAT debate utterly pointless?

Options
  • 19-10-2017 11:32pm
    #1
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭


    Looking at the statistics and it is clear that these guys are not remotely comparable. Nadal is so far ahead of Federer on clay, and Federer is lightyears ahead on the faster courts (Hard, grass, indoor hard).

    Hard/Grass

    Grand Slam titles: 18-6 Federer
    Grand Slam finals: 24-13 Federer
    ATP World Tour Finals titles: 6-0 Federer
    ATP World Tour Finals finals: 10-2 Federer
    ATP Masters 1000 titles: 21-8 Federer
    ATP Masters 1000 final: 30-17 Federer
    Total ATP titles: 83-22 Federer
    Total ATP finals: 117-50 Federer
    Head to Head: 13-10 Federer

    Clay

    Grand Slam titles: 10-1 Nadal
    Grand Slam finals: 10-5 Nadal
    ATP Masters 1000 titles: 22-6 Nadal
    ATP Masters 1000 finals: 29-16 Nadal
    Total ATP titles: 53-11 Nadal
    Total ATP finals: 61-26 Nadal
    Head to Head: 13-2 Nadal

    Each one is so much superior to the other in their area of expertise. It's only when you combine them all together that things become close, but given the massive gap Federer has over Nadal on the faster courts, and the huge lead Nadal has on clay, the debate sort of feels a bit pointless. They are both the GOAT at what they do, Nadal on clay, Federer on grass and hard.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    One thing in Federer's favour is that while he isn't the best of all time on clay, an argument could easily be made that he is the 2nd best of all time on the surface. Nadal isn't close to being the 2nd best of all time on any of the other surfaces that Federer would be considered the best on.


  • Options
    #3
    jr86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭jr86


    I'd have Djokovic ahead of Nadal absolutely everywhere except clay too


  • Options
    #4
    Jim 77
    Registered Users Posts: 96 ✭✭Jim 77


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Looking at the statistics and it is clear that these guys are not remotely comparable. Nadal is so far ahead of Federer on clay, and Federer is lightyears ahead on the faster courts (Hard, grass, indoor hard).

    Hard/Grass

    Grand Slam titles: 18-6 Federer
    Grand Slam finals: 24-13 Federer
    ATP World Tour Finals titles: 6-0 Federer
    ATP World Tour Finals finals: 10-2 Federer
    ATP Masters 1000 titles: 21-8 Federer
    ATP Masters 1000 final: 30-17 Federer
    Total ATP titles: 83-22 Federer
    Total ATP finals: 117-50 Federer
    Head to Head: 13-10 Federer

    Clay

    Grand Slam titles: 10-1 Nadal
    Grand Slam finals: 10-5 Nadal
    ATP Masters 1000 titles: 22-6 Nadal
    ATP Masters 1000 finals: 29-16 Nadal
    Total ATP titles: 53-11 Nadal
    Total ATP finals: 61-26 Nadal
    Head to Head: 13-2 Nadal

    Each one is so much superior to the other in their area of expertise. It's only when you combine them all together that things become close, but given the massive gap Federer has over Nadal on the faster courts, and the huge lead Nadal has on clay, the debate sort of feels a bit pointless. They are both the GOAT at what they do, Nadal on clay, Federer on grass and hard.

    Yes but a lot of people include head-to-head stats and era when they won their matches, so it's not so straight forward. At the end of the day the GOAT will probably be determined by who has won most Grand Slams irrespective of surface.
    Johnmb wrote: »
    One thing in Federer's favour is that while he isn't the best of all time on clay, an argument could easily be made that he is the 2nd best of all time on the surface. Nadal isn't close to being the 2nd best of all time on any of the other surfaces that Federer would be considered the best on.

    Federer won one GS on clay but if your argument is that he could have won more if Nadal didn't exist then you could also argue that he wouldn't have won nearly as many GSs on the other surfaces if Nadal and Djoker were around in the early years.


  • Options
    #5
    Johnmb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Johnmb


    Jim 77 wrote: »
    Federer won one GS on clay but if your argument is that he could have won more if Nadal didn't exist then you could also argue that he wouldn't have won nearly as many GSs on the other surfaces if Nadal and Djoker were around in the early years.
    The argument is that Federer has been in more big clay court finals than most, and mainly only lost to Nadal. If Nadal had been good enough to reach more major finals on the other surfaces in his early years, Federer would have beaten him more often, and may even have won more French Opens...


  • Options
    #6
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Jim 77 wrote: »
    Yes but a lot of people include head-to-head stats and era when they won their matches, so it's not so straight forward. At the end of the day the GOAT will probably be determined by who has won most Grand Slams irrespective of surface.



    Federer won one GS on clay but if your argument is that he could have won more if Nadal didn't exist then you could also argue that he wouldn't have won nearly as many GSs on the other surfaces if Nadal and Djoker were around in the early years.

    Could also argue that Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't have won as many in their prime if Federer wasn't past his best at this particular time. Would Nadal have won Wimbledon in 2008 if Federer didn't have glandular fever that year? So many ifs and buts. In the end, the stats above do not lie.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Jim 77
    Registered Users Posts: 96 ✭✭Jim 77


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Could also argue that Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't have won as many in their prime if Federer wasn't past his best at this particular time. Would Nadal have won Wimbledon in 2008 if Federer didn't have glandular fever that year? So many ifs and buts. In the end, the stats above do not lie.
    There's a famous political saying: "There are lies, damn lies and statistics":D


  • Options
    #8
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Nadal is the only reason Federer is not universally accepted as the GOAT, but there are several reasons why Nadal is not universally accepted as the GOAT. Therefore Federer > Nadal. QED.


  • Options
    #9
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    finally a thread...can we try to keep all GOAT talk confined to this thread from hereon in?

    I think its a fun but meaningless topic (at the very least until both guys and maybe djokovic finally retire)

    one reasonable way of mashing the stats is what this guy did, similar to the elo model used for chess. it takes the quality of opponent into account (so somewhat accounts for 'weak' era arguments)

    link: http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2017/09/15/a-preface-to-all-goat-arguments/

    The guys findings are that while djokovic has the highest peak elo rating ever, Federers consistent excellence over a prolonged period is out of the park.


  • Options
    #10
    jr86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭jr86


    Djokovic getting injured right at his peak probably added an Australia Open to his CV too, with perhaps another one on the way

    All swings and roundabouts at the end of the day

    Completely pointless debate, yes


  • Options
    #11
    Rob2D
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 2,449 Mod ✭✭✭✭Rob2D


    Seomra51 wrote: »
    The current era has to be one of the weakest eras in decades, the fact old men are dominating the slams speaks volumes.

    Well Federer has been around now for what, 3 era's? And he's been great in all of them.

    People that say the last decade or so has been weak are insane. It's contained the highest quality of tennis ever.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    jr86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭jr86


    Rob2D wrote: »
    Well Federer has been around now for what, 3 era's? And he's been great in all of them.

    People that say the last decade or so has been weak are insane. It's contained the highest quality of tennis ever.

    I imagine they mean the exact present day 'era' which in fairness consists of Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka and even Nishikori and Raonic all being injured in some shape or form

    Naturally the overall quality will suffer as a result

    I personally don't think nadal would have gotten through a fit Djok/Murray/Stan at either HC slam last year and it would have been very tight with the other 2 (he did beat raonic at the AO but 2016 Raonic could well have beaten him)

    So while yes, he has dominated to an extent, it's a lot to do with a freakish plethora of injuries as opposed to a poor standard full stop


  • Options
    #13
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Seomra51 wrote: »
    The last 4-5 years have been weak, the level of talent coming through is abysmal. Top level players should be winning slams before they are 22 or 23 at the latest. Still nobody born in the 1990's has won a slam!
    Seems like you'd prefer the 1980s when three 17 year olds somehow won a Slam. That era was a joke.


  • Options
    #14
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Seomra51 wrote: »
    Also, the top players now are well past peak, Djokovic peaked in 2011, he got to similar levels in 2015 but downhill from there. Federer peaked in 2006, Nadal in 2010, the fact they are way past their best and still winning shows how poor the younger generations are in comparison.
    No it proves they are likely the 3 greatest players of all time.

    Nadal is the only teenager to win a Slam in the last 25 years, its not possible for kids to win anymore.


  • Options
    #15
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    Seems like you'd prefer the 1980s when three 17 year olds somehow won a Slam. That era was a joke.

    well, that was an era in which players were basically jacking it in in the mid 20s..Becker has admitted that by the time he was 23 he had mentally thrown his hat at it, Borg retired at 26 or thereabouts, it was more the norm.

    also, it was a time of much, much less play overall - a young player now in the top 30 plays 4 slams and 10 masters, as well as warm ups etc over an 11.5 month season, in a much more 'grindy' style of game; its probably too much to ask them to be consistently consistent.

    that and the fact that three of the best players of all time rocked up over a 10 year period...


  • Options
    #16
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    jr86 wrote: »
    Djokovic getting injured right at his peak probably added an Australia Open to his CV too, with perhaps another one on the way

    All swings and roundabouts at the end of the day

    Completely pointless debate, yes

    If you want to go down that route then Djokovic only won 2008 Aus Open because Federer had mono.


  • Options
    #17
    jr86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭jr86


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    If you want to go down that route then Djokovic only won 2008 Aus Open because Federer had mono.

    I'm not going down any route I was responding to a post which said exactly what you said - which is now deleted for some reason, and making me look a right doughnut


  • Options
    #18
    Pero_Bueno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 502 ✭✭✭Pero_Bueno


    The real issue is the seemingly weak new young lads coming through.
    Again, not Fed or Nadals fault, they can only beat the other guy on the other side of the net.

    But this debate has been getting shut down consistently on here, seems people want to believe the young lads are as strong as ever, it's just that Federer is so amazingly good they can't touch him - sure :rolleyes:

    I would say it's a mix, they are way better , but in their later years they have been aided by a weak next generation


  • Options
    #19
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    some very snotty attitudes here sometimes from some people - let people debate whatever.
    I see merits in all the top three and not an exclusive fan of any of the three particular but Federer has the most GS and his amazing resurgence (aided by factors external to himself) and game reinvention (backhand) has to be applauded.
    Never really warmed to Djkovic as a person for some reason (don't believe he's totally genuine) and Nadal's OCD stuff gets to me sometimes and Fed can be over-the-top laying-it-on-too-thick sometimes with the white jackets and shorts and saying all the right things but all amazing players.


  • Options
    #20
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,925 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    Locking this thread, please keep all Federer v Nadal chat in the below thread. Thanks.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057836001


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement