In 2018, the lawns of Wimbledon are once again generating their usual tingles of expectation across the sporting world and wider world. This marks the second year in which the grass schedule has been slightly different, with three weeks between the end of the French Open and the start of the season’s third slam.
This extension may seem like a simple thing but in the highly ordered and massively moneyed world of global sport, with each event and tournament fighting for optimum exposure and a privileged place in the overstretched schedule. It took years of work for the game’s powers-that-be to agree on this one shift.
The shift and extension is also an exciting and timely metaphor for another behind-the-scenes shift that has been happening in many sports and particularly in tennis. This is the shift and extension of body care and recovery science and technology, leading to much longer, older athletes having great careers. In the same way the elite players of sport have seen the long term importance of preservation and shelf life extension, so have tournaments had to adapt their schedules to facilitate something that world standard athletes have come to demand.
Roger Federer is enjoying a proverbial second chapter of his career that nobody would have predicted. At present he is bookies favorite to lift the Wimbledon trophy on the hallowed Wimbledon lawns at 13/8. Having had a career of winning slam after slam for a whole decade and establishing himself as undoubtedly the greatest player in the history of tennis, he then spent four years in what for him must have felt like the wilderness, even though it was a career many professionals would have looked back on with pride. He had a four year stretch where his average achievement was getting to the semi finals, he did reach three finals but he never won a slam. Time and again younger, stronger and seemingly fitter rivals were beating him. But he turned that around 18 months ago and won three more slams, how did he do it?
The seeds of Federer’s longevity are not just his use of cutting edge techniques and technologies, but the clever way in which his game is built. Because he was an offensive player, he always ended up running fewer miles than his opponents, even if he ended up losing (which, during his imperial phase, was very seldom). His backhand was either a low impact slice, or, to terminate a rally he would release the slight flick of his wrist to come over the ball and leave a rival stranded and red-faced at the baseline.
As Federer’s pristine soles tread on the immaculate grass at precisely 2 p.m. this coming Monday, no one will be thinking of these cutting-edge, behind-the-scenes dynamics, but they will be of vital importance as Federer starts after the five-minute warm up, to wield his magic wand of a racket.
[polldaddy poll=10042978]
Fed looks wrong in Uniqlo and as Nike owns the RF logo, Fed can’t use it anymore; he looks strange without it.
I was very happy to see Fed out of Nike; I can’t stand that company. Plus, I think he looks fine in uniqlo. For $30 million a year, I’d wear it too.
Never liked the RF logo either (sorry Ricky). I can’t stand Rafa’s bull either. Players being branded is dehumanizing somehow. Any player that went out to play in a plain white t shirt and shorts would have my undying loyalty.
But I’d still wear uniqlo for $30 million.
both are good logos
Yes, I agree, both logos are very good. Although, personally I couldn’t care less, and I don’t like many of the outfits the companies come up with for the players. I don’t even like that the outfits have become so important. I like most Wimby outfits exactly because there is a color restriction, which keeps it simple. I specifically hated many of this year’s AO outfits, including Rafa’s
Fed hadn’t dominated tennis since 2009! He won five slams from 2010 to 2018, so to say that he defied age to dominate men’s tennis is simply not true. He didn’t dominate since 2009! Maybe Fed defies age to remain relevant in men’s tennis seems more correct to me.
Djoko was the one who’s dominant from 2011-2016, neither Fed nor Rafa was dominant during that period.
Rafa was mostly injured between 2012-2016. He played half a season in 2012 and the only complete season he played was 2015.
Yeah but Rafa’s incredible comeback (imo his most impressive season given the circumstances) happened in 2013. I don’t think Djoker dominated that season lol
True, Benny, I also think that 2013 was one of Rafa’s most impressive seasons, considering the circumstances and that he didn’t even play the AO because he was still recovering from injury. It certainly was one of his best hardcourt seasons ever with winning three masters on hardcourt and the USO. And he was in the final of the WTF, which he lost, but he managed to beat Fed for the first time ever on indoor hardcourt along the way. All this is even more impressive because Novak wasn’t dominating but he most certainly wasn’t exactly in a slump either during the 2013 season. Rafa had to fight very hard to win the RG semis against Nole, which could’ve gone either way. And the USO final against NoLe wasn’t won easily as well. If Rafa hadn’t managed to steal that third set – who knows?
Fed didn’t dominate since 2007, the end of the Weak Era. Rafa finished no 1 in 2008 crying “God it’s killing me” in 2009 at AO after again losing to Rafa Then raga was famously injured handing Fed the French and Wimbledon before Delpo beat him at the uso.
Up until this year, Fed hasn’t defended a slam since 2008 USO and we’re supposed to believe that ten years later it’s all down to training lol. That’s what lance said.
If anyone is the GOAT, I believe it’s obviously Rafa winning the highest percentage of slams played than any other player including Federer and dominating him 9-3 at slams.
Hawk, I like your assessment 😏
Ha ha ha
The penny has just dropped 👵
😉
Hawks, I’m just surprised that you got away with this remark….😉
Yeah hawkbert you are right. 17/52 is just an insane conversion rate keeping it in mind that rafa lost 8 gs between 2014 wimby and 2017 ao during the worst time of his career and 17/24 finals is also insane. I think rafa has not lost a gs sf since 2009 uso. These stat just say that once rafa reaches the business end of a slam he is unbeatable be it hard court or clay court. These variable must also be used in goat debate.
Should Federer lift the trophy here in two weeks time, he will have won as many slams, off clay, as the rest of the big four -Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray- *COMBINED*.
Think about that the next time you have any doubt whether Federer is the greatest player ever, off clay.
👍
Fed is not even dominant at Wimbledon. Out of the 20 times he’s participated in it, he’s only won it 8 times. He hasn’t won the USO since 2008 and Nole has more AO titles than him. Of course, he’s a no-show at RG.
Nadline, whether or not Federer is dominant by your definition, he has the best record at Wimbledon of any player in the open era. Isn’t that enough?
And aren’t you impressed the stat that Fed has almost as many non-clay slams as the rest of the big four combined? I didn’t actually realize that until today.
Nole doesn’t have more Australian Open titles than Federer.
Federer – 04, 06, 07, 10, 17, 18
Djokovic – 08, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16
They stand together alongside Emerson with 6 titles each.
Well that means nobody has ever been dominant at Wimbledon 😂 To play a grand slam 20 times in your career and to win that slam eight times is highly impressive. Fed is approaching 37, he’s played Wimbledon as a teenager and as an old man (by tennis’ definition). You can’t expect him to win it five times in his 30’s, that’s just unrealistic even for an all time great. Why do you have to undermine his Wimbledon accomplishments like this? Of course he’s dominated Wimbledon during his career, he’s won it eight times for crying out loud! More than anyone else ever!!
1 rg and nadal will have 6 times the number of clay slams that roger nole and andy combined have. This is more likely to happen and stay than that record which you mentioned to stay as nole or rafa may uso 2018. You can cherry pick as much as you can
Another stat for you. One more rg and rafa will have as many slams in a single slam as djoko has in total. Not bad considering djoko is a contender for goat. I am just showing you how you can cherrypick stats to make your idol greater and please dont get back to the surface thing.
Federers numbers were enabled by the weak era until 2008 and now again since 2017.
The comparative numbers require context, something fanboy in denial selectively ignores.
It’s all clearly explained here by Jeff Sackmann’s fine ELO analysis that strongly supports the position that Nadal’s slam performance is slightly better than federers.
https://www.economist.com/game-theory/2017/09/13/sorry-roger-rafael-nadal-is-not-just-the-king-of-clay
That article has to be constantly updated. It’s almost 1 year old. Not speculating anything. Just want am updated one after each GS ends.
Hawks,this is a great article which confirm with a valid numerical system what many tennis fans have intuitively suspected for a long time: that Rafa’s and Novak’s slams were on average harder to come by than Fed’s slams. The article also gives Novak his well Reserverad respect. In my less objective evaluation I have ranked him before Sampras ever since his RG win in 2016. And yes, Wawa’s three slams are a crowning achievement for the “other” Swiss guy.
littlefoot, if you care more about quality of argument than supporting your biased intuitions, you’ll look on the Fed page, where I show at length why Sackman’s argument is flawed and doesn’t begin to show what the title of his article suggests.
The basic problem is that the statistical evidence Sackman provides doesn’t control for Nadal’s dominance on clay. Here’s the key sentence from his article, with the key phrase picked out:
“For each win, I credit the champion with the difference between one and the Elo forecast: If an average slam champion *on the tournament’s surface* had a 90% chance of winning the match, the player gets 0.1 points (1 – 0.9); if a typical major winner would have gone in with a 20% shot, he’s assigned 0.8.”
The average slam champion is just that -the average slam champion. But Nadal, on clay, is not the average slam champion. He is far, far better than that imaginary composite figure. So *Nadal’s* odds of winning at RG -against anyone- are much higher than the average slam champion’s. And, since the large majority of Nadal’s slam titles have come at RG, he derives an out-sized benefit from Sackman’s algorithm.
The upshot is that, contrary to the article’s title, all Sackman has shown -as if it needed more showing- is that Nadal is the king of clay. Nothing more.
Joe, I admitted that my intuition is colored by my personal assessment. It isn’t more biased than your preferences. But Sackman presents a good argument for assessing the quality of a slam win. Last year’s USO is a very good example. Even as a hardcore Rafafan I had to admit that Rafa had come by this title unusually easily. Sackman’s analysis confirms this.
And I like especially that this isn’t just about Rafa and Fed. It shows that Novak’s achievements cannot be measured by his naked slam count alone.
But as many have said here, the GOAT debate is always colored by subjective preferences. I admit this, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
littlefoot, I agree of course that we all have our biases. But we also have our reason, and I think we have to try to use it counter our biases. You say Sackman presents a good argument for assessing the quality of a slam win. Fine.
But I gave an argument, in my post above, for why his methodology says more about Nadal’s dominance on clay than anything else. Perhaps you disagree with my argument. Perhaps you don’t understand it (I’m not suggesting you don’t). But I don’t think it’s an adequate response to it to refer to my biases, unless you can give some reason to think what I’ve said is influenced by my biases, rather than my reason.
Again, I agree that the GOAT debate cannot entirely escape the influences of subjective preferences/biases. Recognizing this should make us try harder to control for those irrational influences.
littlefoot, what joe smith doesn’t realize is that he’s suffering from selective bias and reading comprehension once again. Until he sorts both out, adequate responses or otherwise towards him are hardly deserved None are required at all for that matter.
Jeff Sackmann clearly shows that Rafa’s slam results are more impressive than federer’s with all slams combined from an objective ELO analysis due to the tougher competition over his wins compared to Federer who had the Weak Era. He’s not saying anything else.
A GOAT analysis that only considers slam performance weighted by the field of competition on ALL surfaces together (not just clay), Nadal is the GOAT.
That’s Sackmann’s point. Joe Smith can’t comprehend reading anything to the contrary because of his selective bias. Sure I respect Rafa, but I’m just here to help the fed fanboys discover their bias that’s as severe (or worse in Joe Smith’s case) as fans of any other players.
And, even on clay- he’s right up there , second only to Nadal .
Good point, Al, though Novak also has a strong claim to being 2nd on clay.
Off clay, however, it’s astonishing that Fed has more slams than Nadal and Djokovic combined. I never realized that until the other day.
In fact, the more one looks into the stats, the more it becomes clear that Nadal’s utter dominance on clay distorts any overall comparison between him and Fed, indeed him and anyone. I’m sure it never even occurred to Sackman that his analysis would be skewed in the way I show above.
Not so impressive since he’s been playing a combined 12-13 years longer than them.
Your reference to Sackmann proves you are a liar about interacting with me. So easy.
Sackmann proves that Nadal’s slam count is more impressive. Nadal has also won a higher percentage of slams played than any other male player in history.
not until he wins the Aussie a second time
Anecdotal and subjective.
I repeat: Sackmann proves that Nadal’s slam count is more impressive. Nadal has also won a higher percentage of slams played than any other male player in history. (Nothing to do about a second Aussie title.) It’s all in the irrefutable ELO analysis.
Ricky, what has a (so far elusive) second Aussie title for Rafa to do with the quality of Rafa’s slam opponents and his winning percentage at slams where he actually participated??
Third at best. Nole is the better player on clay at his best. He’s pushed Rafa harder than federer at RG. Rafa makes Federer look pedestrian at the French open. Definitely one of the main reasons Roger retired early on clay.
I agree, Hawks. As far as clay prowess goes, I see Novak well before Roger. Roger never had the tools to seriously hurt Rafa at RG. Novak however was Rafa’s most dangerous opponent, and if my count is correct he scored more overall clay wins against Rafa than Roger. But I haven’t verified my count. I remember that Roger won a final in Hamburg when it was still a masters event and the 2009 final in Madrid. There may be another win, though…
you are right littlefoot novak has 7 wins over rafa on clay and fed has 2 wins. Hamburg 2007 and madrid 2009.
Yes, Novak has the better record on clay, mainly in masters 1000s and (closely related) his H2H vs. Nadal. He has one less final than Fed at RG, but he’s lost to Nadal in 3 SF plus 3 finals at that tournament; six times as compared to 5 for Fed.
We can make the stat stand out even more if we compare percentage of non-clay slams won.
Since winning his first slam in 2003, Federer has competed in 45 non-clay slams, winning 19 for a percentage of 42%.
Since winning their first slams (in 2005 and 2008, respectively), Nadal and Djokovic have competed in a combined 64 non-clay slams, winning 17, for a percentage of 26.5%.
Not only has Fed won more non-clay slams than Nadal and Novak, he’s done it in many fewer attempts.
If we include ALL non-clay slams played by Fed vs. (Rafa and Novak combined), we get the following.
Fed: 19 non-clay slams won out of 57 played (33%)
Rafa and Novak: 17 non-clay slams won out of 77 played (22%)
As Ricky says, WTF does non-clay have to do with anything. That’s simply fedbot cherry picking.
We’re talking about the male GOAT of tennis, on ALL surfaces.
Joe Sackmann takes it all into account in his excellent quantitative and objective ELO analysis that says that Rafa’s slam wins are more impressive than Federer’s.
I see you’re contradicting yourself about interacting with me contrary to your claim otherwise. You can’t help it Joe Smith. Lying I mean.
Good point Hawk! Why clay and non clay?? 👍
Sackmann had done a good job. I still don’t understand why separate clay and non clay? Why not separate grass and non grass?
Or hard court and non hard court.
They separate it because it calms their nerves and makes them feel better about themselves.
You are completely right lucky. Lets see the stats for non grass slams. Federer has 11 non grass slams, djoko has 9 non grass and guess what nadal has 15 non grass slams. Now we can make an argument that nadal is the best non grass player and fed is only a grass player. But I personally dont like to seperate surfaces. Yes I would have understood your claim if rafa would not have won anything on one surface but he is the only player in history of tennis to win multiple slams on all surfaces. So clay and non clay is rubbish. If there is clay and non clay there should be grass and non grass and hard and non hard also but this would only increase the variables and make the debate more complicated.
Rafa Rules, that is the funniest and cleverest argument I heard in a long time 😉
But it shows how you can twist statistics by selective choices. Everybody who has participates at the GOAT debate has been guilty of that to a certain degree. But it demonstrated that there simply isn’t an objective solution.
Rafa Rules! That was some argument 😀 😀 😀
Rafa – the best non-grass player!!
Luckystar you really dislike R. Federer, most of the things you say about him is always negative, not right.
Why is stating the fact interpreted as disliking Federer?
👍Nadline!
Federer was clearly recovering from heavy training before Wimbledon, thats why he looked tired in Stuttgart and Halle. Now he is recovered, power and timing is back.
Different training intensity requires different recovery time. Endurance 72h, hypertrophy 4 days, Strenght 8 days, power 2 weeks.
Technique takes the longest to recover. Golfers can totally lose their technique for one month from intense Power training.
Interesting. Is this just your speculation? Obviously Federer is engaged in very serious training, but I wondered if you have any specific information, or whether you’re just inferring from your own knowledge and experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3q3KnYtYIg&t=3574s
Starting from 27:00 minute there is some comments from Mike Israetel about recovery from different types of training.
Federer has himself many times mentioned training for explosiveness, speed and power. How he has become more serious about it.
Thanks!
I agree with you, RR. But why do you say, don’t get back to the surface thing? The whole point, both what I was saying and what you are saying, gets back to the importance of surface. In any case, I wasn’t cherry picking: concentrating on 75% of the slams can hardly be called cherry picking.
I have no problem acknowledging that Nadal is the greatest ever on any single surface, by far.
Federer is not my idol. I am, however, trying to correct for the Nadal idolatry that dominates this site.
I really don’t understand why every post about Federer has to turn into a GOAT debate. It’s a debate, so there are different points of view, right. In fact, I believe everything has already been said about it, we can just pick our GOAT and appreciate how good are the other guys that some call the GOAT.
I don’t think Ricky’s idea with post was to turn it into another GOAT debate, it’s just to make us remember and appreciate that a guy who is one month away from 37 years old, won 3 of the last six slams (3 out of 4 he participated in) and was the world no.1 for a few weeks playing a very limited schedule. The guy won his first title seventeen years ago and he managed to grab 99 titles along the way, with a lot of them coming in the latter stages of his career, some would say after his prime, which is the moment where a player’s body and brain are at their best ability. Even if you don’t consider him a GOAT, it’s still pretty damn amazing, right?
*98 titles, sorry
(Already added his this year’s Wimbledon trophy haha)
Hear, hear, manwerty. I’m of course as guilty as anyone of turning things into a GOAT debate. As I’ve said, that’s mostly to counter the nonsense that so many Rafa fans spout. Personally, I don’t think there’s much of a debate to be had.
However, you’re right that everyone should be able to appreciate Fed’s accomplishments regardless of the GOAT debate.
What’s striking about most (not all) of the Rafa fans on this site, however, is how hard it is for them to do just that. Almost reflexively, they claim that most of Fed’s slams have occurred during a “weak era,” first between 2004-07 and second, 2017-18. A lot of that stems from the fact that Rafa fans seem to have a collective hard-on for Djokovic: when he’s not at his best, it automatically becomes a “weak era” in tennis. It betrays such a gross misunderstanding of what achievement in professional tennis is about -namely, winning and doing well in big tournaments, not beating one particular player- that it boggles the mind.
As Big Al so memorably put it, “weak era” hypothesis = weak-minded hypothesis
Well said manwerty. It’s very impressive and goat is subjective opinion.
I’m here to point that out to the Fed obsessed fan here in denial who makes deliberately or ignorant false statements time and time again.
Lucky corrects him continuously. He doesn’t even know how wtf works.
Federer strategically avoided Djoko in the wtf final admitting that he defaulted not because he couldn’t play, but because he couldn’t win then looking just fine five days later to play and win the dc final.
Hawks, bowing out of the WTF final against Novak because of DC – that was indeed one of Fed’s questionable actions which weren’t goat-worthy at all and a slap in the faces of all the customers who had paid exorbitant ticket prices for that final. If he wanted to save himself for DC he simply should’ve withdrawn from the whole WTF and give another player a chance to participate.
I also firmly believe that Roger’s puzzling quarterfinal performance and loss against Delpo at the USO 2017 can be explained with him trying to avoid Rafa in the semis. Roger wasn’t at the height of his hardcourt prowess at the USO 2017, as he himself had admitted, and he knew that there was a good chance that Rafa would’ve won that hypothetical semifinal clash. It clearly shows that Roger himself is very aware of the lopsided head-to-head against Rafa – especially at the slams, and he didn’t want to add another loss to that list. And he probably wanted to preserve his pristine 20017 record against Rafa. He might also have figured that Delpo had a better shot than himself at preventing Rafa’s win of another title at the USO, lol! Nothing wrong with this kind of thinking. I could point out a few most likely strategic losses of Rafa as well. All this shows that the players care far more about the big picture than they usually admit.
Unfortunately, to some people, Feds greatest success has come during a weak era.
So, he deserves less credit for, eg, the Wimby-US double four straight times 2004-8 .
Not in 08 roger did not win wimby in 2008. It was rafa who won in 2008 in wimby
He did win both Wimby and US five times consecutively,as well as the 4 time double.Pretty amazing.
Hard to imagine the four in a row double wimby-USO being repeated again.
True, but Djoko’s four in a row will be hard to repeat also. Rafa’s three in a row on three different surfaces (done in 2010) is also hard to do. The channel slams too!
Since we are at it, Fed had his five in a row at Wimbledon and USO, hard to get that one. Rafa had his four in a row and then five in a row at the FO, that’s mighty impressive I feel, no one has such a dominance at a particular slam for so long and not losing a final there (at least not yet!). Djoko had his three in a row at the AO (2011-2013) also a first, and he’s able to win AO and FO B2B, not many could do that, not Rafa or Fed. I think only Borg had a five in a row (at Wimbledon), and he also had a four in a row (at FO) and three channel slams, mighty impressive. Sampras had his four in a row and three in a row at Wimbledon.
Fed had thrice won three slams in a season, Djoko twice and Rafa once. Fed and Djoko had reached all four slam finals within a year too, Fed thrice and Djoko once.
The three of them are very impressive I must say and all these happen in one era, hard to replicate what they have done.
luckystar, bear in mind that Djokovic had a free run in 2016 with both Federer and Nadal being injured at the same time. Would Djokovic have won RG in 2016 had Rafa not pulled out with an injured wrist?
Isn’t it amazing that Djokovic has only managed a bronze medal at the Olympics and in the year (2016) that he won 4 slams in a row he didn’t get a medal of any colour at the Rio Olympics?
It’s even more amazing that Federer has never won an Olympic Gold – a fact Fed worshipers and commentators alike conveniently overlook 😉
btw: I don’t count the 2008 Gold Medal in doubles
Well, the Djoker famously crashed after winning RG 2017 – and the Olympics caught him when he started his downward spiral. So, no surprise there.
The French Wimby double is way tougher than Wimby USO. Reason being very different surfaces and very less transition time and they come too soon together. Wimby USO have a 2 month gap and also both surfaces are relatively fast.
Yes, the Channel Slam is one of the greatest achievements in pro tennis. And incredibly Rafa has done it twice! Fed did it only once. And surprisingly the Djoker – despite his Nole-slam – never managed to get a Channel Slam!
But Borg’s three Channel Slams are most remarkable because in his time the surfaces played more different than today.
Borg’s achievement was exceptional because he did it three consecutive years in a row. He mastered both clay and grass and managed to win 11 slams by the age of 25.
This is why I dislike the GOAT argument so much. Look at what the likes of Laver, Borg, Sampras and Rafa, Fed and Novak have done. They all have unique and singular records. The key for me is records that stand the test of time. Laver’s calendar grand slams have not been equaled since. Novak has come closest in getting four slams in a row, but not in a calendar year. It took thirty years for Rafa to tie Borg’s record of six RG titles.
Rafa’s 11 RG titles will most likely never be equaled. Fed has his eight Wimbledon titles, maybe one more this time.
They have all been the greatest in their era and that is all a player can be.
I don’t know about ‘way’ tougher, but it is perhaps more difficult for the reasons you give. Borg’s accomplishment is most impressive: 3 straight channel slams from 78-80, and probably would have had four if he hand’t skipped RG in ’77 for world tennis. But, as far as I know, no one in the open era has won four straight in two back-to-back slams as Fed did from 2004-07 at wimby and USO.
I meant to say that I meant Borg’s three channel slams were done in consecutive years.
04-07 ie second half of the weak era.
but channel slam definitely more difficult which Rafa accomplished twice both during the Golden Era
Hawks, yes, Rafa achieving the Channel Slam twice – in 2008 and 2010 is clearly one of his greatest achievements and something which most experts had deemed impossible when Rafa’s career started to take off. And it’s one of the strongest arguments against him being merely the King of Clay, since he did it at a time when the careers of the other two GOAT claimants were in full swing. Novak had won the AO for the first time in 2008, and he was also Rafa’s final opponent at the USO 2010.
No,we would need another lengthy weak era for that to happen.😃
It has to turn into a debate about being the GOAT because that is what some Fed fans are obsessed about. It’s not just being a fan of Fed. It’s being a fan of the GOAT. So his greatness rubs off on them. Read the posts and the obsessive nature of the arguments made, not to forget the equality tedious and tiresome attempts to debunk any arguments in favor of other players, especially Rafa.
Sorry, my post @ 11:49 pm was directed at. Anwerty’s post up thread @ 8:22 pm.
Stupid autocorrect!
It’s Manwerty!
NNY, honestly, I don’t know why you use that program. Surely it’s more trouble than it’s worth!
Just like you Joe Smith.
thank you, roger! GOAT!!!!
Why do you need to thank Roger, as if you owe him something?
Lucky, stop it!! 😂 Now someone thanking Fed is pissing you off?! You’re unbelievable sometimes 😂 Have you not seen people holding signs saying “Thank you (insert name)” at their favorite athlete’s last game/match? They are thanking the player for providing them with entertainment over the years and for what they have done for the sport. It’s a simple concept that I’m sure you understand. JEEZ 😂
Benny, I agree with hoi here ☺
Correction: thast should read:
” Benny, I agree with you here”
NNy isn’t the only one who has difficulties with autocorrect, lol!
Joe : Fed 19 off clay not 20. Have you already given him the Wimby title after first round?
Rafa + Nole + Murray off clay = 6 + 11 + 3 = 20
Please stop atleast doing incorrect maths how much ever you want to put Fed up. 19 20. Are you not tired defending him and projecting him to be the greatest day in and day out ? Howmuchever you try, it is subjective and every fan will only feel their player is the greatest. Give it a rest man.
If either Rafa of Djoko wins this wimby..I wonder what will happen to you ? 🙂
Sanju , he stated ‘IF he wins’…
‘Should Federer lift the trophy here in two weeks time, he will have won as many slams, off clay, as the rest of the big four -Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray- *COMBINED*.’
I thought you are more rational Sanju. Let’s be fair till the end, not selectively.
To be fair to Joe, Joe said if Fed wins this Wimbledon, he’ll have as many non clay slams as the other big four guys’ total non clay slams. Don’t understand why he has to bring up this stats, as it’s not going to stay; whilst Rafa’s FO titles alone, is many times more than what the other current players FO titles combined but we hardly mention that until now for a comparison since we’re at it. It’s really not a meaningful stats imo, as the other three could most likely win some more non clay slams.
Imo, Fed is given a second chance due to Djoko’s slump, and the field is getting weaker because of Djoko’s, Stan’s and Murray’s slumps due to injuries. It’s not only about Djoko, but Murray and Stan too, don’t forget they both did win slams during 2014 to 2016. I’ll say the same for Rafa, that he too is given a second chance; nothing wrong with Fedal taking advantage, when the rest of the field is ‘pathetic’ in that they couldn’t even beat these two ‘old’ fellas to win at the slams.
I don’t think is fair for both Rafa and Roger, to imply that their domination is a bit lucky or facilitated by Novak’s regress. A slam is a slam and should be counted as 1 and not 0.8 because someone was not at their best.
At the moment, is there is a GOAT debate, it should be only between Fedal. Novak has to at least equal Nadal’s slams to be considered. I don’t care if at his peak he was the best. That’s just a single variable from this complex formula.
It’s not a matter of lucky or not, it’s a fact that they did benefit from Djoko’s slump, not unlike Fed benefitted from Rafa’s in 2009, or Djoko benefitted from Rafa’s and Fed’s in 2016.
Djoko was the one blocking Fed’s way to the slam titles in 2014-2015; without Djoko, Rafa also had it easier at the slams as Djoko was the only one who could go toe to toe with Rafa for four/five hours in a slam – AO, FO, USO!
When mixing those factors together one can conclude that each of them at some point benefited or was disadvantaged by it as you say. But because of it, people focus on a specific period of time to diminish someone’s achievements, instead of seeing the big picture.
People here are still kind of ‘protecting’ Djokovic and being nostalgic for 2015 version which is gone forever. It’s THAT level of play that required him 2 years to recover. Federer performance at 37 is seen here again lucky and sporadic. The way he manages his physical and mental resources are key weapons that work for him.
luckystar, the slams that Rafa won during Djoker’s slump are the ones he would have won whether Djoker was there or not. Rafa is 2:1 against Djoker at the USO (all 3 matches in the final) and Rafa is 6:1 against Djoker at the FO!
Actually, Eugene, Novak is probably closer to Nadal than Nadal is to Federer. It’s only when people count slams exclusively that he’s further away.
As I’ve said many times now, although slams are clearly the most important factor, they are not the *only* factor. Someone who claims, for instance, that WTF or masters tournaments don’t count, or only count as a tie-breaker, has the burden of proof to say why that is. It’s striking that nobody on this forum, pro-Fed, pro-Rafa or other, has even tried to take up that burden.
A few people say the GOAT debate is purely subjective. It’s easy to show that they don’t actually believe that. All we need to imagine is what they would say if someone sincerely affirmed, e.g., that Nicholas Mahut is the GOAT.
What would a supposed advocate of the GOAT-debate-is-subjective view say to such a person? Well, after several rounds of saying “you’re not being serious,” they would point out that Mahut has never won anything (actually, he’s won 4 250 series singles titles), and for that reason doesn’t belong in the conversation.
Once one admits that, one grants that the GOAT debate is not purely subjective: it’s based on objective criteria. Which criteria, and how they should be weighted, are of course up for debate. Which is not to say they are purely “subjective” either. They may be. But that is a matter of argument, not stipulation.
It’s very easy to eliminate players from goat debate, than it is to choose between Fedal 🙂
I agree with the above Joe. I agree that slams are not the only factor, but its share in that debate is the largest.
I also think Nadal has time to become the GOAT (according to MY criteria, for some people he already is and I respect that) considering his h2h vs Fed, and being 5 years younger, theoretically gives him more chances to win more titles than Roger in the next 2 years. Also, he MUST win the WTF. I think a WTF at this point (no generalizing, GOAT debate) for Rafa is more important than another RG. Just my opinion.
Don’t try to tell Rafa that! He’d like to win the WTF, sure, but he’s obviously never placed much value on the thing. It rates well below a Davis Cup final on his personal scale.
I find the GOAT debates amusing but, well, silly. When did all this start? I began watching tennis when Ashe, Connors and Borg were the big guns. Don’t remember any talk about goats or sheep. Lambs, possibly.
Back in the day slams got a lot of attention, sure. But there was not nearly the value placed on them that there is today. Connors (and others) frequently passed on slams to play World Team Tennis for instance. Outside of Australians few made the trip for the AO unless they’d won the previous 3 slams and hoped to get the calendar slam, then known as a Grand Slam btw. Borg might well be the GOAT. True he never won a hard court slam, but he barely played them. “Hard” was a new surface, invented by those weird Americans. Winning the channel slam 3 times was a huge achievement.
Ramada, I remember Well that the GOAT debate started Well before Fed’s arrival on the scene. It started when Sampras hunted Emerson’s slam Count. When he finally broke it by winning his last Wimby trophy, and when he bettered his own record by winning his final USO title, many thought 14 slams was a record for eternity and the case was closed. Little did we know…Poor Sampras had very little time to enjoy most of his records. What nobody anticipated however, was that Sampras wouldn’t even enter the GOAT discussion anymore these days because not just Fed but another player would exceed Sampras’ slam haul, and a third would be in hot pursuit. And these three players would all complete the career slam, which famously eluded Sampras. Sometimes I’m a bit sad for Sampras because he was certainly an all time great, and it was actually his self proclaimed goal to become the GOAT. But in the end you can only compete against your contemporary peers. What happened before your time and will happen after your career isn’t in your hands. And that is of course one of the big problems of any GOAT debate.
Why do you assume Rafa doesn’t place value on the World Tour Finals? Because he hasn’t won it?
Barely played them? Only between 1978-1981, and went often to the final.Lot of matches at Flushing Meadow
Not what little foot said about value at all Al.
(Jeez, Joe better watch out. You’re slowly catching up on straw man arguments.)
Eugene, of course I agree that it’s easier to eliminate players from GOAT debate rather than choose between two contenders. That wasn’t my point. The point is that doing so is based on *objective* criteria, just as is any comparison between Federer and Nadal.
Let’s take just one apparent point of disagreement: the importance of H2H. I say that this statistic barely matters in overall comparisons. Why do I say that? There are a few reasons, chief among them being the way tennis competitions are structured and remunerated. Professional tennis is about winning and doing well in tournaments, and points are awarded based on the importance of the tournament. That should be obvious.
In contrast, tennis not structured or remunerated around how players do in any particular H2H match-up. That comes closer to describing tennis of the pre-Open era, 60-70 years ago. Any professional player today will tell you that they care more about winning and doing well in tournaments than they do about beating a particular player. Nadal himself has said words to this effect more than once.
If H2H was nearly as important as some people suggest, than Federer would have had a clearly better year than Nadal in 2017. They were equal in slams, and Fed swept the H2H 4-0, beating Rafa in a slam final and two masters 1000 finals. But Fed didn’t have a better year than Nadal in 2017, even if he was close.
In comparing their careers, the comparison is not nearly as close as 2017, even though Fed is much closer in the H2H. Nadal is nearly five years younger, so that may change. But for now he’s still well behind in any overall comparison.
That’s a looooong post there.
You sure you’re not obsessed with Federer? You might want to reexamine that stance. Your energies here suggest otherwise. Even your stance to “challenge Rafans” is very suggestive of your underlying love for him.
Many more knowledgeable people suggest that Rafa is the GOAT. Jeff Sackmann and Sharapova to name just two.
(As opposed to a fedfan troll who claims not to be obsessed LOL.)
The GOAT debate is centred around Federer’s achievements, i.e. his slam count and weeks at number 1. First of all, Roger’s slam count should also allow for the fact that he is older and won slams before Rafa and Djoker turned pro. Roger has had to play 72 GS tournaments to win 20 of them; out of 52 played, Rafa has won 17 and Djoko has played 53 to win 12. So even in slams, Rafa’s ratio is better considering he’s missed 10 slams through injury. Djoker and Fed have only missed 1 in their entire career through injury and Fed has missed 3 FOs through choice because he knows he won’t win it.
Rafa’s domination of clay is highly unlikely to be surpassed on any surface; I think that should be in the mix.
I fully agree with the second paragraph of you comment, Lucky.
We should be fair and acknowledge that Rafa profitted from the current weak area almost as much as Fed, especially during the USO 2017. Although I would argue that an in-form Rafa didn’t need a weak area in order to win two more RG trophies. At RG it doesn’t matter.
The same cannot be said about Roger’s two AO and (so far) one Wimby title since 2017. Unlike Rafa Fed hadn’t won a slam for whopping six years since Wimby 2012, and without three slumping top contenders being sidelined (Novak, Wawa and Andy) this slam draught would most likely have continued for Fed, since Novak and Andy were now beating Fed at the slams.
The current state of things – where two aging GOAT contenders manage to dominate the tour for one and a half year’s now and have split the last six slams evenly amongst themselves – is a very, very peculiar and unique situation and shows how top heavy but without a solid foundation the tour has been for many years now. This shaky foundation and the immense gap between the superpowers and the rest of the field is now exposed.
True about FO and Rafa. At the USO too, Rafa had beaten Djoko twice there, so when Rafa was playing well he could win the USO. He had proven that by beating Delpo the USO2009 champion in the SF, who had beaten Fed in the QF.
I would say without top form Djoko, Rafa need not fight tooth and nail to win at the FO and USO, Djoko was still his main obstacle at the slams.
It’s all subjective though Lucky. You say Fed has been “given a second chance” and that he has benefitted from the injuries to Stan, Novak, and Andy. Well so has Rafa hasn’t he?! What about when Roger was dealing with back pain and a humongous dip in form all of 2013? He had just won Wimbledon and had regained world number one the prior season, and then his back bothered him and he couldn’t compete at a high level or defend titles he very well could have defended if he had stayed healthy. I could easily say that Fed’s back pains and dip in form gave an opening for Rafa to have such great hard court success in his comeback and for Murray to win that first Wimbledon and a bunch of other biased hypotheticals.
Yes, Benny, that’s why all of these sorts of claims are deeply problematic, and it’s best to go on actual results. It’s not Nadal’s fault that Fed was injured in 2013, or that he had mono in 2008. Rafa won the relevant slams in those years, and that’s what counts. Same when we substitute names and years.
Benny is correct and lucky also agreed that both Rafa and Federer have benefitted from relatively poor competition since all of 2017 and this year.
I think Federer strategically lost to robredo at the uso just before he would have had to face Rafa. Just like he strategically defaulted at the wtf final despite his admission that he could have played denying the fans from watching the final. I doubt he would have defaulted a slam, masters, Olympic or dc cup final like that. Unless he was going up against his two main rivals with winning records against him.
This kind of match avoidance and skipping clay for me tarnishes and detracts from his goat quotient.
Hawks, I agree, and I made the same argument elsewhere. Just one correction: Fed didn’t lose to Robredo but to Delpo at the USO 2017. But I totally agree that it was most likely a strategic loss in order to avoid Rafa in the semis. The way this rather curious match unfolded against a Delpo who was clearly tired after his long match against Thiem, strongly supports this suspicion. I also think that Fed thought Delpo might’ve a better shot at Rafa than he himself, since he wasn’t at the height of his hardcourt prowess during the USO 2017.
littlefoot, this is an example of pure speculation. I seriously doubt that Fed has ever deliberately lost a match, certainly not to avoid a particular player.
I agree that WTF final in 2014 was the wrong thing to do. But even there, it was not because Fed was “ducking” Novak. Rather, he had just had a grueling SF against Wawrinka, and he wanted to preserve his body for DC. Criticize it as the wrong thing to do, by all means, but don’t put too much weight on your intuition that he lost to Delpo, or anyone, to avoid playing Nadal. There’s simply no objective evidence that that is true.
Of course it’s my speculation that Roger lost strategically to Delpo at the USO 2017. I clearly stated that it’s my believe, and of course I can’t prove it, although I think, there are some indications that I could be right. The course of the match was very, very peculiar. Roger should’ve never lost that match IMO.
I also firmly believe that Rafa’s loss to Thiem in Rome 2017 was strategic (unlike Thiem’s Madrid 2018 win over Rafa, which was fair and square). But last year in Rome Rafa had played a lot of matches already before the FO, and winning against Thiem would’ve meant a potentially very gruelling semi against Novak who at the time was playing very well. Such a match would’ve been the last thing Rafa needed before RG, especially since he had just won easily against Novak in Madrid. Why risk spoiling this psychological advantage? At the time the dimensions of Novak’s slump weren’t well established, yet.
I think that strategic losses are far more common than we think they are. IMO there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. Especially very successful players need to look at the big picture, since they are playing far more matches than lesser players.
You have to be joking Mr. Smith. You can’t seriously believe that statement.
LF, Federer also lost to Robredo at the 2013 USO in the 4th round to avoid Rafa waiting for him in the QFs.
There is irrefutable evidence that Federer ducked Nole skipping the WTF final when he admitted he pulled out not because he couldn’t play, but because he couldn’t win.
Lust like he did vs Rafa twice on hc at the USO.
Robredo!!!! On HC? With Rafa waiting where they’ve never met before?
That’s irrefutable evidence right there.
Federer has failed to get to later rounds with Rafa waiting on ALL surfaces.
Rafa was there in the finals at Wimbledon grass in 2010 and 2011 but Federer wasn’t good enough to meet him there.
Also Aussie Open finals twice in 2012 and 2014 where Federer bowed out early.
So much for that reasoning why the h2h is so lopsided.
Ah, ok, hawks! Yes, losing to Robredo – I would consider that strong evidence in favor of strategic losses, lol! Especially in 2013, when Roger had many reasons to assume that he would lose to Rafa on hardcourt. 2013 was one of Rafa’s strongest hardcourt season, and Roger had lost already a few weeks before at the Canadian Open to Rafa.
Benny that’s why tennis analysts like Jeff Sackmann and his ELO analysis is able to break down how Nadal’s slam wins as a whole are more impressive than federers.
https://www.economist.com/game-theory/2017/09/13/sorry-roger-rafael-nadal-is-not-just-the-king-of-clay
So Rafa has collected his slams against a tougher field.
Some fedbot here selectively makes the point that Rafa hasn’t defended a “non-clay” slam. Nor has Roger during the golden era. Prior to this current weakened field that most objective fans agree exists, Federer hadn’t defended a slam on ANY surface since 2008, a ten year stretch! And we are to believe that it’s just coincidence and that it took 10 years for Federer to figure it all out. That’s quite the fantasy.
From 2008 to 2018, Rafa defended six clay slams to Rogers two hc slams.
Yup!
Benny, read again! I said Rafa also was given a second chance.
Your argument for Fed (his 2013) was weak, because Fed in 2012 couldn’t even beat Berdych at the USO, how can you assume Rafa benefitted on the HCs in 2013 because of Fed’s back pain? Rafa and Fed had beaten each other at both IW and Miami, so it’s not like Rafa winning IW in 2013 was due to Fed’s back issue. If you think Rafa beating Fed at Cincy was because of Fed’s back issue, then you can practically write off all Fed’s losses that year! Rafa is Fed’s nemesis on outdoor HCs (at least before 2017!).
It’s different from 2009 when Rafa missed Wimbledon totally, and so Fed need not face Rafa when winning his Wimbledon title(Rafa being the defending champion), and Rafa losing early at FO made it easier for Fed to win the FO.
Also, Rafa was beating Djoko on the HCs – Montreal and USO – and Djoko was someone tougher to beat than Fed was where Rafa was concerned, on the HCs. At that time Rafa was already leading Fed in the H2H on the outdoor HCs.
Stan benefitted from Rafa’s back injury in the final of the AO 2014. No way would Stan have beaten a fit Rafa in that final.
Again, if there is a GOAT debate for me is between Fedal. So close, almost impossible to separate. Even Hawk said earlier in his opinion, Rafa’s slightly in front. I accept this debate because Rafa won a higher % of slams he participated and has a better h2h. Still have Roger just slightly in front when making the totals. It’s much better to discuss about this after they both retire and we have the updated performance. Anyway, this is just tennis. I respect both.
A sensible post and approach by Eugene.
One more thing, its the slams that are the most important, where the general tennis community is concerned. I remember when Murray won his many masters but yet to win his slam, people back then were saying that he’s only good in winning the masters, even when he’s beating the big three along the way to win them; and they said he’s not good enough when he couldn’t beat the big three to win the slams. People were/are placing much more importance on the slams (I don’t know since when, and I’m not saying it’s necessarily the right thing to do) and so we hear people comparing slam tallies among the players, but not comparing how many masters or WTF titles the players have, when it comes to assessing a player’s greatness.
This is not something peculiar to this site, but on any tennis site, people seem to accept the fact that only Slams matter.
Because they’re steeped in history, and keeps it simple when comparing across different eras , without making excuses. Slam numbers, regardless of surface, number of matches/sets played etc.
William Renshaws record still has to be broken, even Fed has the record for total number of sets won on a Wimbledon winning streak.
luckystar JULY 3, 2018 AT 11:02 AM
“One more thing, it’s the slams that are the most important, where the general tennis community is concerned. I remember when Murray won his many masters but yet to win his slam, people back then were saying that he’s only good in winning the masters, even when he’s beating the big three along the way to win them; and they said he’s not good enough when he couldn’t beat the big three to win the slams.”
_________________________________________________
Fedfans, which include the media and ‘experts’, have made slams the be-all and end-all because it favours Fed. They were saying, only the other day, that in the past if a player got to number 1 without winning a slam it wasn’t such a big deal.
Eugene, there are indeed no other GOAT contenders than Fedal right now, although Novak could insert himself into the discussion again by winning a few more slams. But right now it’s highly unlikely that he will equalize or even surpass Rafa’s slam count. And it’s next to impossible that he will catch Fed. We can re-evauale Novak’s GOAT potential after the USO.
As far as Fedal ist concerned there are valid arguments in favor of each player. The naked slam count and the number of year end No 1 finishes clearly favor Fed. But a nuanced analysis of these numbers shows that the two players aren’t separated by much, and the race ist too close for an unequivocal call just yet.
I respect Eugene’s opinion despite disagreeing that a wtf is a must. He understands (as do all reasonable unobsessed fans open to actually listen to others) that goat is subjective opinion and not fact.
I had Sampras as goat before Federer despite his lack of a French slam which is obviously more significant that wtf. Wtf is just below an Olympic gold in singles which Federer lacks (but is not a must). There are no musts for me. It’s a collection of many subjectively weighted variables.
As I said before: it’s a totally freaky development that Sampras’ GOAT claim which seemed to be rock solid after his fourteen’s slam trophy, has totally fallen along the way side and many have almost forgotten about Pistol Pete. These days his name mostly comes up when another one of his records has been broken by Fed or Rafa. He deserves better IMO. He certainly didn’t play during a weak area.
Hawks, quick point. You say a WTF is “below” a gold medal, and this doesn’t surprise me. Diehard Rafa fans will always say gold medals are better, and diehard Fed fans will always say WTF is better. Personally, I think they both have their strengths and weaknesses. At WTF, you can actually lose a match and still win the thing, which is quite a benefit. The Olympics is really a glorified Masters tournament, similar to pre-2007 Masters tournaments where the Final is best-of-5. I really think you can argue either way for it. But I just think it’s so funny how obviously biased Fedal fans are toward either the Olympics or WTF, depending on which guy their a fan of, because each of them has won one of them while the other has won none. 😂
It’s similar to how I’ll see arguments over which major is “better”- RG or Wimbledon (as if that could objectively be decided), and it’s ALWAYS Fed fans arguing for Wimbledon and Rafa fans arguing for RG. It’s really quite amusing…
I see it the way Rafa does. The Olympics encompasses all sports, not just tennis, and just every four years making it more difficult to win. Definitely WTF is well below a Singles Gold Medal. The gold medal was the first ever for Spain in Olympic tennis. I’m confident that Roger puts his Doubles Gold higher than a WTF. Of course, Rafa has a doubles gold with Marc Lopez as well which I’m sure is even treasured more by him than a wtf.
Here is a picture of Rafa crying after winning doubles gold. I doubt that he’d cry if he won a wtf.
http://sports.inquirer.net/219309/nadal-notches-olympic-gold-unforgettable-return
This Rafa quote shows Rafa puts Olympic Gold almost as good as a slam, in some ways better…
“When I got to Beijing I was incredibly tired and the first few days practicing were very hard” admitted Nadal. “The only reason I was able to win was the lift I got from living in the Olympic village. Being among many other great athletes was fantastic. And the support I got from the rest of the Spanish team was amazing.
“Although they don’t know it, it was thanks to them that I somehow found the energy and mental strength to get the gold medal. I would not have been able to manage this from a hotel, however luxurious it was. The feeling at the end on the podium was indescribable. I am very happy to have made it to Olympic champion.
“The Olympic Games are very special. I know in tennis the grand slams are a little bit more important. But here you only have one chance every four years. For sportsmen, the Olympic Games are more important than anything. I feel like I win for all my country. That’s more special, no? I win for a lot of people, not only for me.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/2580598/US-Open-Golden-boy-Rafael-Nadal-heads-straight-to-US-for-Open-date-Tennis.html
Plus these pictures show just how historic and significant olympics are for him compared to what a wtf would be…
https://rafaelnadalfans.com/2013/08/17/flashback-rafael-nadal-wins-olympic-gold-august-17-2008/
Kevin, I think the Olympics are important, certainly. I as sure Fed would have liked to have won a gold medal in singles. However, as you say, they are only played every four years. There are also no ATP points or money attached to them. By any objective measure, most players care much less about them than they do about WTF:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/sports/tennis/points-and-prize-money-mean-more-to-olympic-tennis-holdouts.html
Sorry, I got that wrong: the players think there are not enough ranking points attached to the Olympics, even those, like Novak, who think it is like a “fifth slam”. There does seem to be a real difference of opinion among the players. Maybe unsurprisingly, those who have done well, like Murray, rate it as very important.
To be clear, I have never said the Olympics isn’t important, in sharp contrast to some here who denigrate the WTF.
Hahahaha no you got it right with that article to begin with.
Either a Freudian slip or reading comprehension challenge for you. Probably a combination of both. I’ve always suspected that you aren’t just being dishonest here but also with yourself.
The armchair doctor is in and I’m here to help you get past your delusion of your not being obsessed.
@ Benny G (in response to your question),
I was going by Toni and Rafa’s attitude at the end of 2008. Rafa’s knees had given out – he retired during a match in Paris Open, in fact. He dropped out of the WTF rather early that year – Toni said “we would go if we didn’t have the DC Final (in Argentina that year).”, making it clear that their priority was the DC. (In the end Rafa missed the DC Final, too, but La Armada won it anyway.) I don’t know if that’s still the case but we may see this year. Rafa’s won 3 DC finals and no WTF but he is a patriot.
Probably in 2008 Nadal was confident he would pick up a WTF title at some point. I’m pretty confident that if asked to choose between another DC final and a WTF title today, Rafa would choose the latter.
Federer would much rather have an Olympic gold.
I’m pretty confident that Federer would trade all of his WTF titles for one singles gold.
He skipped a wtf final even though he admitted he could have played. Wtf is overrated exho. It’s well known that most players play because they have to if they finish top 8 and this is proven because it’s often difficult to get the 9-10 ranked to be alternates because they are free to skip.
You’re bias is shining through on the topic of Olympics to WTF, Hawks. I know you’re generally good about checking your bias, but this one is funny to me. 🙂 Couldn’t an equally valid argument be made that the Olympics is just an old-school Masters tournament where the final is best-of-five, that is only played every 4 years? Couldn’t you also make an argument that the WTF is impressive at least because you can only face top-8 competition? How about the argument that the WTF has been held in relatively high regard for like 50 years, while players have opening admittedly that nobody gave a shit about the Olympics until recently?
The point is that I don’t understand how the WTF could be any more of an “overrated exho” than the Olympics…
See above Kevin. Not about bias. Read Rafa’s own words. He compares Olympics to being right up there with slams.
But I’m definitely very biased, as are 99.9% of fans!!!! I never claimed otherwise (like one fedbot in denial here does).
Ha, ha, yes, Hawks, we are all biased to a certain degree. Very natural and nothing wrong with that. If we hadn’t our personal preferences there would be no tennis fandom community, and “The Grandstand” wouldn’t exist.
And Kevin, I agree with you about the WTF. They rank highly on my personal scala, exactly because the players compete only against the very top tier. For me the WTF is almost an indoor slam. I deeply regret that the final isn’t best-of-five anymore. There have been terrific finals and the players gave their very best. But I disagree with you about the Olympics. The times where players didn’t care are long gone.
the alternates not wanting to be alternates have nothing to do with anything
are you aware of how annoying it is to be an alternate at the WTFs?
your subjective opinion
As I said, we may see this year. In 2011, Rafa did poorly at the WTF, not winning a match. Said he “lacked a bit of passion”. A week later he had plenty of passion for the DC final.
WTF is indoor; 2011 DC final was on clay. There’s your difference.
Wrong, Rafa will choose a DC final, he loves the team spirit and playing for his country. He knows his country needs him for the final, as there’s no one to replace him, unlike in the past during the golden age of tennis in Spain. He can play poorly at the WTF (like in 2009 and 2011) but when it comes to DC final, he’ll push hard to play his best.
Indoor tennis is a joke. Just one masters in Paris, the event that historically has on average the worst field and the most upsets of the eight mandatory events.
That’s one more masters than grass has… Pro tennis does not have to make sense, just money. Hopefully.
You’re right Ramara. They should drop Paris as a masters and add a grass masters. (I know of some grass courts on Majorca.)
But what bothers me about the WTF is that it’s restricted to the top 8 guys who get to compete for a large chunk of points that gives the best players a big leg up on the rest of the field right out of the gate for the next year. Points to which the also-rans have no access, nor do they have even an opportunity to play ANY tournament that week.
Sure it’s restricted to the top 8, but why does it give the best players a leg up for the next year? Next year starts afresh.
Not for ranking purposes for the next 52 weeks it doesn’t.
Go to bed Joe Smith. You’re firing one one less piston than your usual low.
Sincerely,
Captain Obvious
What Hawk said. The YEC points are retained until the YEC the following year. Like any other ranking points won, hello? But unlike most these points (1500 to the winner, for instance), are NOT available to most of the tour players, just the select 8.
Now the ATP in what passes for wisdom has decreed that ranking points not be awarded for Davis Cup or Olympics on the theory that these aren’t equally available to all players. But it makes all these points available to the Top 8 only, which makes it even harder for lower ranked players to break into that elite group.
Disclaimer: this has absolutely nothing to do with the endless GOAT discussion. It’s just a personal gripe with the YEC which is basically a money making exhibition, except to get players to do it they gotta give them something and it’s a whole lot cheaper to hand out ranking point candy than more cash.
Well said Ramara.
GOAT debate is endless as it’s purely subjective and no one is going to convince the other.
That said, if there’s a GOAT on all surfaces.comsidered, it’s definitely Rafa IMO. And a rising number of others.
Ok, sure. By the same token, those who made the tournament in one year have a burden of defending them in the next, which players who didn’t make the tournament don’t have. The point is that the tournament rewards those who are in the top 8 in the race to London, i.e. points gained in that year. Points from the previous year don’t count toward that.
No that wasn’t your point at all. Nor was it Ramara’s point to begin with.
You’re embarrassing yourself now Joe Smith really. And I’m saying this as a friend.
Sorry not sorry.
Also, should the top eight skip the WTF for no good reason, they won’t get their year end bonus! Rafa didn’t get a single cent year end bonus in 2008 despite finishing the year as no.1, when he missed WTF due to injury. In 2005 he and Safin were top eight but didn’t play at WTF (then YEC) but they did promotional work there for the YEC and so were paid their bonuses.
I have to admit that the Big Goat Debate is fun, but ultimately futile, since there are too many subjective parameters. And we all are a bit obsessed with the question to a certain degree, lol! Although, I suspect, that the obsession isn’t so much about supporting a certain player. At least for me it’s more about trying to be right and winning a long running argument, lol! It reminds me a bit of the Great Balrog Wing Debate* which has divided Tolkien fans for decades, and there’s anecdotal evidence that it even led to a few bitter divorces!
*The Great Balrog Wing Debate tries to solve the question once and for all, if balrogs had wings, and if so, if they could fly – or if they may even have been able to fly without material or metaphorical wings – or if they had wings but couldn’t fly. You get the drift. The big problem is, that Tolkien hasn’t been very specific about this and that he sort of contradicted himself. Also, his original concept of balrogs had undergone substantial changes over the years – just like the GOAT concept ☺
Lol! I love LOTR, but I’ve never hung out in the forums devoted to it so never heard of the GBWD. Thanks!
Must be related to the ancient debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Ramara, as a great LOTR fan I stumbled accidentally over TGBWD, lol! But it really sucks you in, because in both camps people are absolutely certain that there is only one sensible solution. I was initially surprised that there even was a problem, because I had always firmly assumed that of course balrogs have wings and that they can fly! But my imagination was influenced by Ralph Bakshi’s first ill-fated attempt to make a movie out of Tolkien’s material. In that movie the balrog looks like a great moth fluttering around in the dungeons. This rather silly depiction also gave rise to a very funny sub-debate: whether balrogs may wear habitually cute fluffy bedroom slippers, which could be an indication that they hibernate. If Gandalf & company had disturbed the balrog’s sleep, it would explain why he was so grumpy and antagonistic ☺
Here’s a very funny two-part video made by a kid about the GBWD. Maybe we should ask the guy to document The Big Goat debate as well 😉
https://youtu.be/JNjs_DXayl
Let’s consider Lucky’s suggestion that we divide grass from non-grass, and Rafa Rules’ parody of it above. Is my suggestion to separate clay from non-clay as silly?
No, and that for an obvious reason. Federer has won 8 grass slams but 11 HC slams. He’s also won 6 WTF. The point is that he’s excellent on all three surfaces/types -arguably, the best ever on each one. So separating his accomplishments between grass and non-grass is completely unmotivated: the underlying statistics provide no reason to do so.
In contrast, it makes a lot of sense to separate Federer accomplishments on clay from off-clay. He clay record is certainly not bad, but it’s not in the same league: 1 slam, 2 masters titles. A quick glance also shows the degree to which Nadal has to do with that. Fed has lost to Rafa 5 times at RG, 4 finals and 1 SF; and 13 times on clay, mostly masters finals.
What about Nadal? Well, on clay he has 11 RG titles and over 20 masters titles, plus the rest, which obviously stands alone in clay tennis history. Nadal’s achievements off clay stand in sharp contrast and are much less impressive: 6 slams, 8 masters, 0 WTF. In this case the distinction between clay and non-clay is very well motivated, supported by the underlying facts.
The point is that Federer’s record is arguably the very best on all surfaces except for clay, where Nadal is the main reason for the exception.
Nadal is inarguably the very best on clay but also inarguably not the best on any other surface. Federer (and Djokovic) are only a minor part of the explanation for Nadal’s relative lack of success off clay. As I’ve shown on the Fed page, the large majority of Nadal’s losses in slams have come to players other than those two.
In short, distinguishing clay from non-clay is well-motivated by the facts and makes a lot of sense, for both Nadal and Federer; whereas distinguishing grass from non-grass makes no sense.
It’s selective cherry picking.
We could just as easily call Federer the weakened field GOAT and Rafa the Golden Era GOAT (or simply GOAT).
Jeff Sackmann’s ELO analysis proves beyond a doubt that if based on slam performance alone weighted by difficulty on all surfaces combined, then Nadal is the GOAT.
Joe, let’s stop the debate right here, because it’s getting absurd. Basically you’re saying that we should separate clay wins from non-clay wins because Rafa is better on clay than Federer is on grass! Rafa is simply too good on the red stuff, so, let’s just declare clay as less relevant for the GOAT debate than other surfaces, lol!
We won’t ever convince you. That’s fine. But with this kind of argument you won’t win over anyone who is still on the fence, either 😉
Joe Smith can’t even convince himself.
No, that’s not what I’ve said at all, littlefoot. I think Rafa’s wins on clay count just as much as wins on any surface. I definitely don’t count them any less.
However, it’s an undeniable fact that Nadal is much, much better on clay than he is on any other surface/type. It’s also an undeniable fact that Federer is much better than Nadal on outdoor HC, grass, and indoor HC by the most obvious objective measure, namely, performance in the biggest tournaments. Those two facts are why a distinction between clay and non-clay is well motivated in any GOAT comparison between Fed and Nadal.
If all surfaces count equally, and all titles count equally (according to points distributed) then Federer has a clear lead in any objective GOAT comparison. He’s ahead in slams, WTF and weeks at #1. So the burden is on someone who thinks Nadal is the GOAT to say why, in spite of these facts, Nadal > Fed.
Alternatively, you could agree with me and say what seems undeniable:
1) Nadal is much better than Fed on clay.
2) Fed is much better than Nadal off clay.
If it helps to eliminate confusion, we can dispense with the concept of “off-clay” entirely, and just say the following:
1) Fed is much better than Nadal on outdoor HC (11-4 slam lead)
2) Fed is much better than Nadal on grass (8-2 slam lead)
3) Fed is much better than Nadal on indoor HC (6-0 WTF lead)
4) Nadal is much better than Fed on clay (11-1 slam lead)
littlefoot: Is there any of 1-4 that you honestly disagree with?
1) Fed is much better than Nadal on outdoor HC (11-4 slam lead)
a) Nadal is much better against Fed on outdoor HC (leads 3-1 in slams h2h)(of the three wins, one is a straight set beatdown, one a 4 set and one a five set. One defeat came in 5 sets)
2) Fed is much better than Nadal on grass (8-2 slam lead)
b.(Fed is a little better against Rafa on grass. (2-1 slam h2h. A five set loss and a five set win)
3) Fed is much better than Nadal on indoor HC (6-0 WTF lead)
c.(Fed is much better against Nadal on indoor HC. Hence Rooferer)
4) Nadal is much better than Fed on clay (11-1 slam lead)
d.Federer is a no contest against Rafa on clay (5-0 in slams including a whooping in 2008)
Joe Smith- do you disagree with any of the statements I made?
vmk, it all depends on how you interpret your a-d.
If, for instance, by “Rafa is much better against Fed on outdoor HC,” you mean “Rafa has a much better H2H record in HC slams,” then yes, I agree (if 3-1 counts as much better).
If we interpret a-d as about H2H, then my 1-4 and your a-d are compatible, since my 1-4 were about being better *overall,* rather than H2H.
Clearly, the key question is whether “Federer is better than Nadal on outdoor HC” is to be decided by H2H record. I say it’s not, because H2H record doesn’t count for much. For my reasons, you can see my response to Sanju below.
Do you disagree? Do you think H2H record determines whether one player is better on a surface than another player? Or do you think, as I do, that that question is best decided by overall performance in big tournaments?
No need to fall down Joe Smith’s this and thats.
littlefoot,
It is a fool’s errand to try and engage in this endless and tedious GOAT debate with a Fed fan. They will always move the goal posts. Even if Rafa got as many slams or more than a Fed, then they would bring up the WTF. If not that, then something else.
This is a subjective debate. It is only opinions. How do we equate Rafa’s considerable achievements when you have a Fed fan who persists in compartmentalizing them? When you say that it’s only about clay and Fed fans have already devalued excelling on that surface, then the argument is skewed.
I think you are understanding the futility of engaging in this nonsense. Much better to be with calm in the knowledge that Rafa has made his make in this sport and will be among the greatest ever to play this game. As will Fed. Equals!
Nice try, NNY, except it’s not me who is devaluing anything. Rather, it is (some not all) Rafa fans who continually devalue Fed’s achievements by chalking them up to weak competition.
I am bringing up WTF now, not waiting for Rafa to overtake Fed, if that should happen. WTF is worth 1500 points and has always been relevant to the GOAT debate, unless you have an argument otherwise.
As I said to Rara Rules, I am trying to find common cause with rational Rafa fans, not trying to stir anything up, despite what I may have said on my first visit to this site last year. I hope I have partially succeeded with RR, and I hope to find others. Agreeing to what I have said in 1-4 above, to littlefoot, is a first start.
test
Yeah!…very agree with u Nny!…I mean,both of them r very special…Novak too don’t forget!…Why not we just enjoy them while we still can & not divulged much in this debate…It’s pointless me thinks..
Tho,i think some Rafans or Fedfans just love to hackle each other..i think for the fun of it…Hahaha…If so..keep doing it guys!…It’s been a while i’ve seen a 6 year old kindergarteners ‘teasing & loving’ each other like this!…Hehehe…
MA, I think you are right: some people simply love to debate (I do to a certain degree, lol). And there’s nothing wrong with that as long as it happens decently. But the GOAT debate always tends to end up in endless unproductive circles. And then it’s time to get out! 😉
NNY, you are absolutely right: it was fun for a while, but I’m out of this GOAT debate. There are simply too many subjective parameters, but some people fail to reckognize that they are subjective.
I will rather try to convince people that balrogs a) have nice wings and b) yes, they can fly just fine if they have enough space. I won’t convince anyone either, but it’s a lot more fun ☺☺☺
And now let’s see what Rafa can accomplish against Kukushkin! He probably will be a much harder task than Sela…
Rafa has made his MARK in this sport! *