OTF's GOAT Debate

It's about time OTF had a decent GOAT debate.

I think all of us here with the exception of Kimmy & Blueclay agree that Roger Federer is the GOAT.
It's such a no brainer.

However media have to turn their dollar and keep asking the silly question...

This article on Wimbledon's website is the latest attempt:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2014-11-25/does_winning_the_davis_cup_make_roger_federer_the_greatest.html

Really, Fed should be the GOAT just because now he has Davis  Cup?!!!

We all have our opinions, and I respect other people holding differing points of view to me.

If people are confident in their opinion, and think it can withstand scrutiny, they are free to debate with me if the like

You don't seriously think Nadal is GOAT, do you?

noleisthebest wrote:You don't seriously think Nadal is GOAT, do you?

I think he's part of the top tier of tennis GOATs.

There's only one GOAT, just like there is only one number one player.

You think ?
I think in reality it's impossible to actually objectively see who's GOAT, you can see who has accumulated most statistically, but not who is actually the best/greatest.

Believe me, every one in the OP photo knows it's Fed, incl. Fed

noleisthebest wrote:It's about time OTF had a decent GOAT debate.

I think all of us here with the exception of Kimmy & Blueclay agree that Roger Federer is the GOAT.
It's such a no brainer.

I don't believe in the outright one GOAT concept. It is too difficult to compare players from different generations playing under different conditions to come up with ONE GOAT. But, I most certainly do think that based on his accomplishments to date such as slam count and weeks at number one, Federer is the closest thing we have to the GOAT. I also feel he is one of the most talented players I have ever seen play and is certainly the most talented in terms of his variety and ability to adapt quickly to all conditions out of all of the current players.

Federer is statically the best, no doubt about it.

Welcome back to the forum BlueClay, hope you're gong well

noleisthebest wrote:Believe me, every one in the OP photo knows it's Fed, incl. Fed

...

and including Nadal!

Kim Jong-Un wrote:You think ?
I think in reality it's impossible to actually objectively see who's GOAT, you can see who has accumulated most statistically, but not who is actually the best/greatest.  

I would agree with you on this statement. We can clearly see that Federer is the most successful player of all time and the most accomplished based on many of the most important tennis records but we can't say for certain that he is the greatest player of all time because we don't know how he would have matched up with every other great player of past generations with different technology, conditions, etc. We can say he is the best accomplished of this generation but he certainly has not been the best vs one of his biggest rivals, Nadal in slams and that has been the only weak spot on his resume. His poor slam h2h vs Nadal is not enough to knock him off of his "greatest in this generation" platform. Nadal will need to do some more work and equal Federer's slam count before that poor h2h vs Nadal can come into more prominence.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Federer is statically the best, no doubt about it.

Welcome back to the forum BlueClay, hope you're gong well

Thanks. Yes, all is well.   I have not been around much lately but came by today to check things out and I saw my name mentioned by NITB at the top of this thread so I had to respond especially since I do think that Federer is the closest thing we have to the GOAT.

Was the term Goat invented in the past decade or two?
Obvs the web has heightened the debate and proliferated it but did people have these debates in the likes of Borg, Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden etc?

BlueClay wrote:
I don't believe in the outright one GOAT concept. It is too difficult to compare players from different generations playing under different conditions to come up with ONE GOAT. But, I most certainly do think that based on his accomplishments to date such as slam count and weeks at number one, Federer is the closest thing we have to the GOAT. I also feel he is one of the most talented players I have ever seen play and is certainly the most talented in terms of his variety and ability to adapt quickly to all conditions out of all of the current players.

I agree it's not easy to compare eras and tennis played across them, mainly because of technology.
On the other hand, one has to be blind not to see what a player is able of doing with his racquet, how he plays the game.
You can see the wonderful skill of all the oldies...Laver, McEnroe etc...but to see someone with the same plus a lot more game developed through sheer athletic demands caused by conditions...that's a different story.

luvsports! wrote:Was the term Goat invented in the past decade or two?
Obvs the web has heightened the debate and proliferated it but did people have these debates in the likes of Borg, Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden etc?

Yes, isn't it interesting there was no GOAT debate before Fed?
Maybe it's because never before did a player stand hand & shoulders above the rest.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Believe me, every one in the OP photo knows it's Fed, incl. Fed

...

and including Nadal!

Yes, both of them - Toni&Rafa!

I wonder if Toni has and ID on OTF, the timing of his latest interview is impeccable :

"Rafael has won more titles than Novak Djokovic, but speaking merely about tennis and about the game, Rafa has to be considered slightly lower than Djokovic. The Serb is such a good player that he is as close as you can get to Roger Federer.
With all the titles he has won, there is no doubt that Federer is the greatest"."

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Toni-Novak-Djokovic-a-Better-Player-Than-Rafael-Nadal-And-Federer-articolo21423.html

I think he says that cause he knows Fed achieved more with "less".

I remember posting a thread ages ago who was going to retire first Nadal or Federer...
It caused such an outrage, but it's making more sense by the day!

It's quite cool how Toni recognises Nole is a better player than Nadal despite Nadal winning more trophies than him.

Toni knows

Toni understands what he has in Rafa..   Rafa is a nightmare matchup at times and in certain conditions.  He has thrived in a perfect storm of technology (both legal and illegal), court and ball conditions and style that elevated him past his true talent level.  Forgetting about the Peds for the sake of argument-   it's always impressive when an athlete can perform and succeed at a level higher than his god given or mom/dad given talent. 


He reminds me of a more successful Ken Norton... a guy with average talent (amongst the top of the sport) who legitimately made the far far greater talent Ali look bad in every bout they fought.  If not for the assurances in place at the time in boxing for the champion or bigger name, Norton should be 3-0 against Ali. 

It should get interesting in the next few years about Nadals true place among the Goats--- or more specifically how he matches up against Djokovic...  Nadal is very likely to have a player in Djokovic basically the same age and exact same generation who will have more weeks at #1, equal too and more varied Masters 1000', more year end #1's, more WTF's, and if Nadal acutally plays much off of clay- Djoko will catch him on H2H.  The Major count might even be within a few Majors like Nadal is close to Fed.  Then the debate really heats up.

As they age and get into their 30's, Federer will be even more elevated in Goat hood as others are able to compare how well he performed in his mid 30's compared to Nadal and Djokovic.  The abilitly of talent to overcome slight reductions in physical ability that hits every athlete is very telling and where Federer is really starting to pull away.

OF course, stem cells and other new treatments might wipe out Nadal and Djokovics aging process, but that's yet to be seen.

Before people get too carried away, Nadal currently has the second most slams and double Djokovic.

However statistically he is not going to improve, as hes at the end of his career.
He was good when he played (best W/L ratio) but injuries have meant he's had to miss many slams and had missed many opportunities to add to his title count and ranking points.
How he's even done what he's done given his injury problems is incredible.

Also when discussing Nadal, let's not talk about his H2H with Federer.

Forget just one guy, as a percentage his H2H vs everyone is better than anyone else in tennis history.

Do yuo think Nadal's many injuries were bad luck or maybe the result of his grueling game?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Before people get too carried away, Nadal currently has the second most slams and double Djokovic.
However statistically he is not going to improve, as hes at the end of his career.
He was good when he played (best W/L ratio) but injuries have meant he's had to miss many slams and had missed many opportunities to add to his title count and ranking points.
How he's even done what he's done given his injury problems is incredible.

That's what Toni said, too...and went on to conclude that Nole is still the better player.

NITB, apparently the day after Nadals first French Open title when he was 19, Toni was annoyed with Rafa for the unforced errors he made and told Rafa to get up early to work on improvements.
Toni is tough on Rafa, and is rarely positive about him in public.

Tenez wrote:Do yuo think Nadal's many injuries were bad luck or maybe the result of his grueling game?

I had a similar discussion on v2 with LF-

The point I was making was that I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as very important when judging a player. I think it is valuable, but as I said when judging a player I'd see mainly aspects of their game (ie forehand), when healthy, rather than the ability to not get injured.
For Nadal it's a combination of congenital problems (his congenital foot problem mean he has to wear shoes which put more strain on his knee) and playing style which have resulted in injuries which have basically destroyed his career.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:Do yuo think Nadal's many injuries were bad luck or maybe the result of his grueling game?

I had a similar discussion on v2 with LF-

The point I was making was that I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as very important when judging a player. I think it is valuable, but as I said when judging a player I'd see mainly aspects of their game (ie forehand), when healthy, rather than the ability to not get injured.
For Nadal it's a combination of congenital problems (his congenital foot problem mean he has to wear shoes which put more strain on his knee) and playing style which have resulted in injuries which have basically destroyed his career.

Oh you twisted mind! We are not asking you to judge a players ability not to get injured, but simply a player ability sustain a tennis season after season and clearly Nadal cannot do it.

So you now admit that Nadal is not talented. You have denied it for years but simply admit it in your post above. Having a congenital problem to play tennis means Nadal is not "naturally apt" to play the game at this level. Talent definition is about "natural aptitude".

And you confirm by saying that his playing style is "also" to blame. So therefore Nadal IS to blame for not being able to run a normal tennis season.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:NITB, apparently the day after Nadals first French Open title when he was 19, Toni was annoyed with Rafa for the unforced errors he made and told Rafa to get up early to work on improvements.
Toni is tough on Rafa, and is rarely positive about him in public.

Toni may be strict on his nephew, (how else was he going to turn him into, sorry, but I can't think of another word - freak player?), but that doesn't mean he is lying when he says Nole is better player and Fed is the GOAT.

Why is it so hard for you to accept it?
Are you only able to love/like Rafa if in your mind you believe he is the best?

Tennis is a game where talent shows in attacking. Attacking is tough. Infinitely tougher than defending.
Especially in current playing conditions.

Winning while attacking like Federer is almost a miracle. Him nearly ending up as number one at he end of 2014 is quite a statement.

That's why those who understand it love watching him so much.

The older he gets, the more he shines. It's quite something and it's sad you can't enjoy it.

NITB, I have my opinion; I don't base it on simply on what someone else says he believes. As I've said, I think both Federer and Nadal are tier one GOATs, and I have Nadal above Djokovic.
Also I do enjoy watching Federer, just not near as much as I enjoy watching Nadal.

Now onto Tenez's post:

Tenez wrote:So you now admit that Nadal is not talented. You have denied it for years but simply admit it in your post above. Having a congenital problem to play tennis means Nadal is not "naturally apt" to play the game at this level. Talent definition is about "natural aptitude".

Ha !
Your argument against Nadal is in absolute tatters, and now you resort to this bit of straw clutching !
OK Nadal has a congenital foot problem which he's had to deal with by wearing special shoes, if that is how low people are willing to go to form some sort of argument which ends in 'this means Nadal has less talent' then I think it exposes the paucity in arguments against Nadal.

Tenez wrote:So therefore Nadal IS to blame for not being able to run a normal tennis season.

Well it is a combination of his congenital foot problem and his playing style; which means he gets injured frequently, and has basically obliterated any hope of him getting as many titles as players who he is actually superior to (when healthy). The effect of injuries on his ranking, which looks at aggregate points accumulated rather than any average measure, is brutal.
As I said it's exceptional, unbelievable, jaw-dropping, astounding that Nadal has got 14 Slams and the most Masters Titles given how his career has been ripped apart by injuries.
It's no coincidence that he has the best W/L ratio in history out of any player.

The most important stats according to most tennis fans when seeing who is the GOAT is Slam Count.
We have Federer on 17 slams, who has 3 more Slams than Nadal who is joint second on 14 slams. NITB asked why I had a top tier of GOATs rather than just Federer as the GOAT.
So this is may argument as to why the difference of 3 slams is actually better explained by external factors, rather than Federer being better than Nadal.
(Keep in note this argument can be used both for arguing a 'top tier' where Nadal and Federer are equal, or to say Nadal's slam count is more impressive in the circumstances. Feel free to disagree):

OK here are 2 confounding factors when considering the slam gap of 3 which I think are significant:

Different competition:
For 12 out of Nadal's 14 slams, he had to beat either Federer or Djokovic. In a few occasions he had to beat both. Federer is one of the top tier GOATs, Djokovic is an ATG; this is exceptionally hard competition.
Meanwhile Federer (and I'm sure you've heard this from me before, I'll C&P from a piece I've written before):

One stat which more or less cements why many believe that the players Federer's age did not provide tough competition is this:

Between the period 2004-2008, Murray (while he was still young) amassed more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, and Safin did put together. This list includes every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic (around and above his age), as well as some other players from his generation.

Looking at the rankings throughout Federer's peak years, questions must be asked of the other players in his generation. In 2006 Ljubicic had sustained spells as world number 3 and world number 4, this is despite only even reaching 1 Grand Slam semi in his whole career ! It can also be noted that Rafael Nadal stayed comfortably at number 2 after he reached there in 2005. When Nadal was younger he had not yet adjusted well in terms of movement on hard courts and grass, and relied on clay for most tournament wins when he was a youngster. And yet players who were Federer's age and from his generation, could not even get close to knocking him from the number 2 spot. What is even more alarming is that Djokovic, when he was just 20 years old, reached number 3 behind Nadal and Federer in 2007. This was at the time when players who were around Federer's age and of his generation should have been at their prime, but both the world number 2 and 3 were youngsters !

If we have a close look at the players of his generation, it's clear none of them could challenge Federer like Nadal can:

Haas's career had been decimated by injury in 2002, Nalbandian showed promise but never even reached a Grand Slam final after 2003. Hewitt played well at the start of the decade, but rapidly declined after 2005 falling out of the top 10. Safin was incredibly inconsistent, and plummeted after winning the Australian Open in 2005.
And lastly we have Andy Roddick, the only player who really consistently reached Grand Slam finals between 2004-2007 apart from Federer. Apart from 2009 where his baseline game improved, his game was very reliant on serve- and he did not have the groundstrokes to trouble Federer in rallies.

So overall I think it is fair to say that players of Federer's generation around his age, who should have been challenging Federer when the Swiss was at his prime, did not provide tough competition- certainly not as tough as the generation younger than Federer.

Injuries:
From 2009, there are 5 Slams where I feel Nadal has played but not been able to compete to the best of his ability in the match he lost due to injury (Note: this doesn't mean I necessarily think he would have won those slams without the injury, that is speculation).
Furthermore from 2009 he's had to miss 4 Slams due to injury, i.e. not play them at all.
Now first things first, I thing that shows Nadal has not been able to do well in the 'ability to not get injured' department of the game. If someone replies to my observation that this shows Nadal can't play for years sustained without injuries and negative effects on his body, I agree with you. However as I have said before, I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as a particularly important factor when judging a tennis player; things such as mental strength, serve, forehand, movement etc. are all far more important for me.

Second point is that I think from 2009, with the exclusion of these 9 slams where he has been affected by injury, he has won 9/15 of them, so 60%. If we apply the same statistical ratio to these 9 slams, it comes to 5.4 slams (again, this would be the best way I think of calculating an estimate, obviously I'm not actually suggesting Nadal would literally add 5.4 slams to his slam count if he was healthy for those slams).

So therefore I think it's very likely that if Nadal's terrible injury record, he would be comfortably ahead of Federer on the slam count. And I don't see the ability to get injured as a very important factor when judging a player.


The combination of these two confounding factors explain why Federer's slam count is ahead of Nadal. Easier competition, and ability to avoid injury. Nadal has a strong case here for being the better player, and his slam count is more impressive in the circumstances.

Kimmy, here's a deal:
print your post above and give it to Rafa/Toni next time you see them.
I'm sure they'll enjoy reading it and probably end up completely " confounded".

Nadal's injuries are a direct result of his style of play.

If he was more talented, he wouldn't need to abuse his body so much. Nothing else is stopping him from moving close to the baseline and taking the ball early.
Do you have any idea how draining it is to create pace on EVERY ball standing so far behind?

noleisthebest wrote:
Nadal's injuries are a direct result of his style of play.

I addressed this exact point on my post:

Now first things first, I thing that shows Nadal has not been able to do well in the 'ability to not get injured' department of the game. If someone replies to my observation that this shows Nadal can't play for years sustained without injuries and negative effects on his body, I agree with you. However as I have said before, I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as a particularly important factor when judging a tennis player; things such as mental strength, serve, forehand, movement etc. are all far more important for me.

Your reply shows lack of understanding of ball-striking.

You are not alone, though.
You enjoy watching Nadal for his fighting spirit etc...that's fine.

Comparing him to Federer is the same as saying fat women are better looking than slim ones.

noleisthebest wrote:Comparing him to Federer is the same as saying fat women are better looking than slim ones.

If Nadal is superior when healthy and only lags because of injuries how do you explain

In tournaments where both Federer and Nadal have entered together- against the exact same competition

On outdoor hard, Federer has won more titles in those tournaments than Nadal, in a tourney where neither won, Federer made it to a farther round than Nadal more times.

On Grass, Federer has won more titles in those than Nadal, in tournies where neither won, Federer made it to a farther round more times.

On indoor, Federer has won more titles in those than Nadal, in tournies where neither won, Federer made it to a farther round more times.

On clay, Nadal has won more titles in those than Fed, in tournies where neither won, Nadal make it farther more often.

This eliminates any time Nadal missed time because he was hurt, eliminates smaller tournies where neither had the highest level of competition.


Only on clay, is a healthy Nadal superior in results.   Now surely both players have played some of those less that 100%- we can look at Feds 2013 and see that- which btw was when the H2H really got nutty and Nadal pulled away on non clay h2h.  All in all though- they were both healthy enough to play, and Federer performed against the same field better than Nadal.

It also should be noted  that while there will be some overlapping early on when Federer was in his prime and Nadal not in prime off of clay, there is also just as much time and arguably more time spent overlapped in the past few years where Nadal was in his prime and Federer out of prime and declined slightly.   That can only be fairly see as a wash at this point.

We also can fairly see that Nadal is not the best hard court player of his generation and Federer of the previous generation is better than he.

Nadal is not the best grass court player of his generation- and certainly not better than Federer on grass of the previous generation.

Nadal is not the best indoor player of his generation, and certainly not better than the previous generation Federer indoors.

Again- the only area where Nadal is superior is clay.    Now there is nothing wrong with that-  he is the best clay courter of this generation by far, and possibly, probably the best clay courter ever.  That in itself puts him amongst the very best ever,   but to be the all around Goat-  sorry-  not even being the best on one other surface amongst the players he has played with eliminates that.

Your precious win/loss ratio is poorly and improperly used by you.   The other greats you are weighting it against all played and declined in their later years which happens to all athletes and their win/loss ratio fell with it.  Other than Borg who retired in his prime, the win/loss can't be compared until it's all said and done and their carreer is over.   Further-  and even greater- while you use the injuries the injuries as a conveinient excuse to explain away where Nadal lags, you ignore that the injuries time missed also greatly helps Nadal in the win loss.

See the fact is and it is a fact, Nadal has magically been able to never miss time on clay, but seems to always miss his big chunks on the other surfaces. It is also fact that when healthy and playing his win/loss percentage that you love so much falls from 93% on Clay to approx. 78% on hards and grass, and 67%on indoor.  You do understand that simple math undeniably tells us that if Nadal had played on those surfaces during those times he missed- he would have more of those periods of 67-78% winning weighted in relation to his huge clay % and his overall % would fall?   Surely you understand how % work and the more he plays winning at the less clip, his overall will drift towards that lesser clip.       Nadal has played plenty on hard, grass and indoors to tell us those %'s are valid as well. 

The win/loss is great and impressive, but it's not complete yet, and also is propped up by time missed.


I never read Nadals book, so I don't know how big a factor his foot condition plays into his success. I know that many athletes are born with imperfect bodies and have had to overcome those conditions.  Sampras has a horrible condition that robbed his of strength and energy, Federer has surely been robbed of titles by his congenital back issue, the list is endless of athletes who - especially fans could say-  he "should" have won if not for.....       All we can go on is what actually happened.

Tenez also has a good point in terms of talent via playing style.  Anyone who has been in athletics or around elite athletes understands that their skills and style are developed from what the coaches/mentors see as their talent. In other words- what works best and gives you most chance to succeed given your talent areas.   If they had their choice, every boxer would want to fight and have the style of Ali- floating and deflecting punches and winning without the extreme efforts and beating that someone with great but lesser talent like Frazier had to take.  The reason why Frazier had to lower his head and bulldoze in taking vicious hit after hit, and why he has to throw three times the punches an Ali did was because his talents required him to do so to be successful.  Which led to a shorter carreer and many more injuries. 

Now Ali fought too long and his skills eroded and he had to resort to being a warrior in the ring which led to a horrible injury to his brain-- again-  his talent being reduced necessitated a style that led to injury.

Even wide receiver would love to have the style Jerry Rice did- who played for a tremendous amount of years without taking on the injuries some of the other lesser talented receivers took because their talent level required them to take vicious hits in the middle of the field, whose muscle twitch talents required extreme planting and change of direction.  Only when Rice declined somewhat and had to resort to that style did he blow out his knee and start to get injured.  

Point being-  if you have to play a style in order to be successful  that requires your body to be put into distress- it's certain that your talent levels are a factor in why you use that style.   IF Toni thought Nadal could win with less stress on his body-  it's a no brainer they would have done so.   

Now- whatever style it is-  it takes a great talent or proficiency in it to succeed, so the fact that Nadal has been able to succeed more so than anyone else attempting such a playing style is a credit to him and Toni... but it absolutely indicates he is not the GOAT talent.


Finally-  at some point as a fan, you can't just continue to put your head in the sand and explain away every experts opinion that does not agree with yours as being wrong.   Sure- if half the people feel one way and the other half another- you can argue it either way.   However in the case of Goat- you literly have every single great player and every single great expert in the field saying Federer is the Goat and Nadal is not.  Toni, Rafa, Sampras, Borg,Edberg, Laver, Conners, Del Potro, Stan, Nishi on and on just this year have said Fed is Goat.  The best anyone can come up with that has a different opinion is McEnroe who litelry changes his mind depending on whose match he is calling and despite what Nadal fans want to believe-  never definitively takes a stand without using words like "arguably" "maybe" "might be"..   Just this US Open, on my DVR I can point to 5 different times in two Federer matches where Mcenroe says Federer is arguably the Goat.  or  "I mean, come one, Federer or Nadal, how can you choose"    So McEnroe is a fence straddler.    

Agassi is the other who seems to have been swayed.  He has actually used the reasoning that for years he used as declaring Federer Goat over Nadal (in Agassi's mind it determined by how far you pull away from your age peers)  to now say that Nadal is #1 and Fed #2.   When he said it, we went over some circumstances that might have been a factor, but I'll give you Agassi.. He is the one guy at the top who says Nadal is 1 and Fed 2....  both clearly massively appreciated by him.

It just stands to reason though that all these experts 99% who feel one way and 1% who are just slightly or tied in the other way- are probably more qualified than someone who is a fan- which by very definition is going to be extremely biased towards their player.

We all have a right to an opinion... but look at it this way--   if 98 of the greatest minds in nuclear fission say X way is the best way to split an atom, and 2 of the greatest minds says  "yes, X way could be the best, but I think Y is just as good or slightly better)    and you are a fan of nuclear fission but far from an expert, and never split an atom on the level of these experts, but you say "Y is def better"  --  which side do you think is more likely to be correct?    I'd bet on the 98 side.  This is what we have with Federer/Nadal. the vast vast majority of unbiased people think Federer is greater,  his fans of course think he is greater...    The only ones who think Nadal is better is a vast vast minority of 2 experts who one sways back and forth, and Nadal fans and other haters of the Federer success.




I do believe that Nadal is a talent (enhanced surely by Peds but again for these arguments I ignore that) and has accomplished huge titles. Federer is the greater talent and has accomplished more huge titles and in a more varied way. He is the all around Goat, and Nadal is the clay Goat.

One thing I learnt rather recently when comparing greats is to take into account adaptability...since the open era. The pre-amateur era saw minimum changes in technology and fitness...due to the amateurish side of the game.

When the game became pro and allowed players, any player, to make a living, the game evolved rapidly in both technology and fitness, which in turn resulted in tournament directors to adapt to the effect of technology and fitness advances by modifying balls and courts pace. It became a race to make money. Racquets started to change rapidly, fitness became suddenly more key than ever, and even strings became very varied as opposed to only nat gut like in the past.

The changes brought different ways of playing and with competition constantly increasing champions could never dominate in their 30s like they could in the pre-open era. New generations and new technologies/fitness always shortened careers of previous champs.

Regarding Nadal, he came with an unseen fitness which added to new strings, lighter racquets, slower conds AND extending of the 20s rule, allowed him to dominate on clay and do better than expected on other surfaces. This physical superiority came of course at a cost. Missing long stretches of seasons. But when a player could handle his fitness, he had nothing else to give. He lost 7 finals in a row to a younger player when he was meant to to start to reach his peak! This was unprecedented in the history of the game. Never a champion at his peak experienced such humiliation.

Nadal came back stronger, fitter, added some weight to his racquet and had again another great season which however coincided with other top players having physical troubles.

I do not see Djoko, Murray, Cilic or even Nishi able to adapt when conds , technology or/and new players will come on board.

The one who was able to last as much and get through such changes of playing conds is of course Federer.  Not enough to dominate like he did but enough to stay very close to the top player to beat them.

The only other player I can think of is Lendl. Lendl however lacked some mental strength (due to his very risky game) and therefore did not achieve as much though had the opportunity to win over 14 slams by reaching many slams finals.

Reasonable post Truffin, let's have a discussion, hopefully it can stay civil

truffin wrote:If Nadal is superior when healthy and only lags because of injuries how do you explain

In tournaments where both Federer and Nadal have entered together- against the exact same competition...

Yes but they were not the same age against the same competition.
During the time of weaker competition (i.e. with players like Baghdatis and Gonzalez in Grand Slam finals), it was Federer who was in his peak years and therefore was in the best place to take advantage of it. Nadal was much younger, so could not take advantage of the weaker competition. For 12/14 of Nadal's slams he's had to beat either Federer or Djokovic or both.

truffin wrote:Surely you understand how % work and the more he plays winning at the less clip, his overall will drift towards that lesser clip.

It barely would make any difference, if you look at the stats carefully:
After Nadal turned 25 there have been periods he's missed due to injury.
Since Nadal was aged 25, on hard courts his W/L: 85-17. This is 83.3% (This is from Born Slippy on v2, and I double checked it on ATP website). His current ratio is 83.4%. So if we take the expected percentage after he turned 25, and apply it to the periods he missed- it would barely make a difference.

truffin wrote:Your precious win/loss ratio is poorly and improperly used by you.   The other greats you are weighting it against all played and declined in their later years which happens to all athletes and their win/loss ratio fell with it.

I have done a year by year comparison with Federer, and Nadal is ahead for his respective age and always has been.

truffin wrote:I never read Nadals book, so I don't know how big a factor his foot condition plays into his success. I know that many athletes are born with imperfect bodies and have had to overcome those conditions.

Indeed.
Look, to reiterate I don't think Nadal's ability to avoid injury is his strongest department. A combination of congenital problems and playing style have meant his injuries have been ripped apart by injuries.
But I don't think being able to avoid injuries is very important when judging how good a player is. And although I would disagree with Tenez on the fact it means your less talented (Nalbandian has always struggled with injury... more so than Ferrer... but is he less talented); I see it as irrelevant anyway as the GOAT debate is not the same as the talent debate.

truffin wrote:When he said it, we went over some circumstances that might have been a factor, but I'll give you Agassi.. He is the one guy at the top who says Nadal is 1 and Fed 2....  both clearly massively appreciated by him.

Agassi may have said this, but I do not blindly follow what other people are saying.
I think most people approach this debate in a purely statistical way. Most see it as this: the player with better statistics is definitely the better player. But I have scientifically proved that this is simply not the case.

For the last bit of my post, I have found my argument on this issue on v2.
The point I was trying to make is that I think most people see it as purely a statistical exercise when they see who is the best player out of any two. They see that as objective. For example if a player who is actually worse than Federer goes on to win 30 Slams, I think most would say he is GOAT above Federer.
I show here that the idea we are being objective when using purely stats is simply incorrect. And I feel many people take this flawed approach, and hence all agree with each other:

My post to SB on v2-

summerblues wrote:In principle, you cannot ever avoid this type of subjectivity - even falzy's square with four sides ultimately requires agreement on subjective definitions.  But that does not mean that the statement itself does not reflect objective reality.

Good you bring up a square has 4 sides.
For me the debate is not whether the square having 4 sides is similar to a player being the best at tennis. It's just obviously not true. I think the real question now is why is resolving the question as to who is best at tennis not comparable to how many sides a square has.


First let me start with this statement:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better, although it is likely he is.
Now most reasonable people will agree with that, but in case some don't, I'll clarify further.
We can take any statistic, and show what the statement just said. I've talked at length about slams and the natural fluctuations in difficulty to win them in the past; this time let me choose another statistic... let's say finishing year end number 1.
Now let's say hypothetically in 2015: Federer retires in January, Djokovic takes a year break to look after his kids, Murray starts trying to rebuild Hadrian's wall, and Nadal, Cilic, Del Potro, Wawrinka all have injury problems. Ferrer turns out to be the guy heading to number 1 in the rankings. Now let's say you are called 'Player A'.
For Player A, it would be require you to be a better tennis player to be number 1 in 2007/2010 (where Federer and Nadal had stunning years respectively) than in this dystopian 2015 (let's keep ceteris paribus in terms of technology and say you simply have access to the best technology at the time).

For those now who think they have a valid counter point by saying 'Yes IMBL, but how do you prove that you have to have a better tennis level in 2007 to be year end number 1 than this dystopian 2015??'- I can assure you- you don't actually have a valid counter point. Think about it, my statement said it is 'not necessary' a player with better stats is a better player- so therefore the burden of proof is on you- I just have to show that what I'm saying is a possibility for that statement to be correct.

So when this statement is acknowledged, that is when the problem to get a definition really emerges:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better.

If the statement is true (which is demonstrably is), then it can mean that any definition that just looks at statistics (can be all, can be some) simply cannot be reliably accurate.

So therefore any definition would have to include factors as well as the statistics, and this simply cannot be objective in reality.

And my reply to JohnyJeep on that thread:

Johnyjeep wrote:What exactly is your definition of "best"? For me - it is winning. Winning tournaments....
Tennis is as cut and dried as that. It's not there for entertainment purposes. That's just a by-product. It's a game which is entirely based on line calls. It is either in or out. It is not subjective.

Interesting post JJ, and one I totally disagree with you on, and I agree with HM (and I guess Julius too?).

Alright to counter what you're saying, rather than actually bringing players into this (after which we may go down a line of debate we've gone before), let me use this metaphor:

I'm a scientist trying to conduct an experiment. I'm seeing at which rate different plants grow. The first plant (Plant A) I put in conditions of 10°C and see how fast it grows. It doesn't grow very quickly.
The second plant (Plant B), a different plant, I put in conditions of 35°C. It grows very quickly. Then a third plant (Plant C), another different variety, I put in conditions of 150°C and it unsurprisingly  fails to grow at all.

So I head back to the science committee, with a graph and spreadsheet in my hands and shout, 'Look, I've proved my case. Plant A grows at a higher rate than Plant C, but the fastest growing plant is Plant B for sure- look at my statistics !

So, have we actually proved that Plant B is the fastest growing ? Well we may have shown it's highly likely, but to make it clear that it is likely- it's also important to observe the variables first. You see, the problem with this experiment, was that the variables were changing.
It's only if we can accurately determine how those variables affected the statistics, that we can see whether we have 'proved' (or even less than that.. 'shown it's likely') that Plant B is the fastest growing plant.

Someone did a very good put down of you on that comment Kim.
I must say your ability to find this stuff at the drop of a coin is, i won't say impressive, funny. :P

luvsports! wrote:Someone did a very good put down of you on that comment Kim.
I must say your ability to find this stuff at the drop of a coin is, i won't say impressive, funny. :P

I mathematically proved my case, no one had a chance of coping in that debate.

I sense the self deprecating type is strong in this one, young padded one.

Tenez wrote:One thing I learnt rather recently when comparing greats is to take into account adaptability..since the open era. The pre-amateur era saw minimum changes in technology and fitness...due to the amateurish side of the game.
The only other player I can think of is Lendl. Lendl however lacked some mental strength (due to his very risky game) and therefore did not achieve as much though had the opportunity to win over 14 slams by reaching many slams finals.

That is so true!
If I can also add the size of racquet heads.

I actually thought of Lendl yesterday.
I tried Stan's old 89" Yonex, what a superb racquet...yes you guessed it only WHEN you get the sweet spot!

I am quite proud  of my 95" Wilson, but to think that almost all pros are swinging 100"  super light racquets is criminal!

Lendl was awesome with his big FH and that tiny racquet!

I don't know the complete history/evolution of Fed's racquet sizes, but am sure it would make a fascinating read!

Something needs to be done about strings and frames as they are killing game.
Give them all 85-90" ones max and let the fun begin!

Kim Jong-Un wrote:For the last bit of my post, I have found my argument on this issue on v2.
The point I was trying to make is that I think most people see it as purely a statistical exercise when they see who is the best player out of any two. They see that as objective. For example if a player who is actually worse than Federer goes on to win 30 Slams, I think most would say he is GOAT above Federer.
I show here that the idea we are being objective when using purely stats is simply incorrect. And I feel many people take this flawed approach, and hence all agree with each other:

My post to SB on v2-

summerblues wrote:In principle, you cannot ever avoid this type of subjectivity - even falzy's square with four sides ultimately requires agreement on subjective definitions.  But that does not mean that the statement itself does not reflect objective reality.

Good you bring up a square has 4 sides.
For me the debate is not whether the square having 4 sides is similar to a player being the best at tennis. It's just obviously not true. I think the real question now is why is resolving the question as to who is best at tennis not comparable to how many sides a square has.


First let me start with this statement: (nitb: here where readership groans and feel like Nadal's opponents must feel as they wait for him at the net while he arranges his bottles etc...) a
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better, although it is likely he is.
Now most reasonable people will agree with that, but in case some don't, I'll clarify further.
We can take any statistic, and show what the statement just said. I've talked at length about slams and the natural fluctuations in difficulty to win them in the past; this time let me choose another statistic... let's say finishing year end number 1.
Now let's say hypothetically in 2015: Federer retires in January, Djokovic takes a year break to look after his kids, Murray starts trying to rebuild Hadrian's wall, and Nadal, Cilic, Del Potro, Wawrinka all have injury problems. Ferrer turns out to be the guy heading to number 1 in the rankings. Now let's say you are called 'Player A'.
For Player A, it would be require you to be a better tennis player to be number 1 in 2007/2010 (where Federer and Nadal had stunning years respectively) than in this dystopian 2015 (let's keep ceteris paribus in terms of technology and say you simply have access to the best technology at the time).

For those now who think they have a valid counter point by saying 'Yes IMBL, but how do you prove that you have to have a better tennis level in 2007 to be year end number 1 than this dystopian 2015??'- I can assure you- you don't actually have a valid counter point. Think about it, my statement said it is 'not necessary' a player with better stats is a better player- so therefore the burden of proof is on you- I just have to show that what I'm saying is a possibility for that statement to be correct.

So when this statement is acknowledged, that is when the problem to get a definition really emerges:
Even if Player A has slightly better statistics in every department to Player B, it does not mean necessarily he is better.

If the statement is true (which is demonstrably is), then it can mean that any definition that just looks at statistics (can be all, can be

Vintage stuff, Kimmy, absolutely vintage!

Your debating style is almost as asphyxiating as Nadal's tennis! Too many words, too much rallying...

You are missing a flashy winner...SBHDTL!!!

Go, on say it!

Run into the court and take the ball on the rise

Tenez wrote:One thing I learnt rather recently when comparing greats is to take into account adaptability...since the open era. The pre-amateur era saw minimum changes in technology and fitness...due to the amateurish side of the game.

When the game became pro and allowed players, any player, to make a living, the game evolved rapidly in both technology and fitness, which in turn resulted in tournament directors to adapt to the effect of technology and fitness advances by modifying balls and courts pace. It became a race to make money. Racquets started to change rapidly, fitness became suddenly more key than ever, and even strings became very varied as opposed to only nat gut like in the past.

The changes brought different ways of playing and with competition constantly increasing champions could never dominate in their 30s like they could in the pre-open era. New generations and new technologies/fitness always shortened careers of previous champs.

Regarding Nadal, he came with an unseen fitness which added to new strings, lighter racquets, slower conds AND extending of the 20s rule, allowed him to dominate on clay and do better than expected on other surfaces. This physical superiority came of course at a cost. Missing long stretches of seasons. But when a player could handle his fitness, he had nothing else to give. He lost 7 finals in a row to a younger player when he was meant to to start to reach his peak! This was unprecedented in the history of the game. Never a champion at his peak experienced such humiliation.

Nadal came back stronger, fitter, added some weight to his racquet and had again another great season which however coincided with other top players having physical troubles.

I do not see Djoko, Murray, Cilic or even Nishi able to adapt when conds , technology or/and new players will come on board.

The one who was able to last as much and get through such changes of playing conds is of course Federer.  Not enough to dominate like he did but enough to stay very close to the top player to beat them.

The only other player I can think of is Lendl. Lendl however lacked some mental strength (due to his very risky game) and therefore did not achieve as much though had the opportunity to win over 14 slams by reaching many slams finals.

What, (if any) changes ate you expecting to see in the next 5 years?

Coric and Zverev (17/18) have both displayed unusual ease of keeping the ball in play which is quite something bearing in mind their lack of experience and normal looking bodies.
What are they going to "develop" and move/evolve the game forward with?

It's strange for me to start considering Nole a veteran...

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Reasonable post Truffin, let's have a discussion, hopefully it can stay civil

truffin wrote:If Nadal is superior when healthy and only lags because of injuries how do you explain

In tournaments where both Federer and Nadal have entered together- against the exact same competition...

Yes but they were not the same age against the same competition.
During the time of weaker competition (i.e. with players like Baghdatis and Gonzalez in Grand Slam finals), it was Federer who was in his peak years and therefore was in the best place to take advantage of it. Nadal was much younger, so could not take advantage of the weaker competition. For 12/14 of Nadal's slams he's had to beat either Federer or Djokovic or both.

truffin wrote:Surely you understand how % work and the more he plays winning at the less clip, his overall will drift towards that lesser clip.

It barely would make any difference, if you look at the stats carefully:
After Nadal turned 25 there have been periods he's missed due to injury.
Since Nadal was aged 25, on hard courts his W/L: 85-17. This is 83.3% (This is from Born Slippy on v2, and I double checked it on ATP website). His current ratio is 83.4%. So if we take the expected percentage after he turned 25, and apply it to the periods he missed- it would barely make a difference.

truffin wrote:Your precious win/loss ratio is poorly and improperly used by you.   The other greats you are weighting it against all played and declined in their later years which happens to all athletes and their win/loss ratio fell with it.

I have done a year by year comparison with Federer, and Nadal is ahead for his respective age and always has been.

truffin wrote:I never read Nadals book, so I don't know how big a factor his foot condition plays into his success. I know that many athletes are born with imperfect bodies and have had to overcome those conditions.

Indeed.
Look, to reiterate I don't think Nadal's ability to avoid injury is his strongest department. A combination of congenital problems and playing style have meant his injuries have been ripped apart by injuries.
But I don't think being able to avoid injuries is very important when judging how good a player is. And although I would disagree with Tenez on the fact it means your less talented (Nalbandian has always struggled with injury... more so than Ferrer... but is he less talented); I see it as irrelevant anyway as the GOAT debate is not the same as the talent debate.

truffin wrote:When he said it, we went over some circumstances that might have been a factor, but I'll give you Agassi.. He is the one guy at the top who says Nadal is 1 and Fed 2....  both clearly massively appreciated by him.

Agassi may have said this, but I do not blindly follow what other people are saying.
I think most people approach this debate in a purely statistical way. Most see it as this: the player with better statistics is definitely the better player. But I have scientifically proved that this is simply not the case.

smh.....  lets wait until Nadal is 33 or retired and see where the win/loss is..   If it's not best ever, then he isn't best ever right?

Amri- I hardly think that the fellow players and experts are purely going by statistics.  They have played the same players Federer and Nadal have, they have played at the levels that Fed/Nadal have, they actually know what it takes, they know what  skills are needed and they overwhelmingly decide Federer is greater.      Each of these guys know all about Nadals injuries, Federers generation competition and they still view Federer as greater.  They are not biased fans like us and certainly like you are.

You have not proved anything scientifically. Just because you say you have doesn't mean you have. If anything the statistics as they stand which you admit show Federer as #1 are the only scientific facts... everything else is typical fan based picking and choosing.. IF Nadal wasn't injured, if his competition, if, if, if.

Let me ask you this- which will basically determine if I waste any more time on this topic..  Seeing the vast expert opinions of players and former players, seeing the vast statistics that he has compiled and his level even at 33 against the so called prime of the golden era--  is there any part of your mind that says there is a very real possibility that Federer is greater as an all around player than Nadal?

truffin wrote:smh..... lets wait until Nadal is 33 or retired and see where the win/loss is.. If it's not best ever, then he isn't best ever right?

I don't know what it will be, but so far if you do it year by year as I did in my analysis, Federer comes out as ahead.

truffin wrote:Amri- I hardly think that the fellow players and experts are purely going by statistics.

I disagree with your judgement, I think it's highly likely that when people ask 'who is the greatest player of all time' the reply will be the player with the better statistics.

truffin wrote:If anything the statistics as they stand which you admit show Federer as #1 are the only scientific facts...

Read my posts earlier. Having the better stats doesn't mean you're necessarily the better player. Variables and circumstances change, so there's no 'objective scientific' answer in this debate.

truffin wrote:is there any part of your mind that says there is a very real possibility that Federer is greater as an all around player than Nadal?

As I said, I have both of them have tier one GOATs. There are parts of Federer's game that are stronger than Nadal's and vice versa.

truffin wrote:Amri- I hardly think that the fellow players and experts are purely going by statistics.

I disagree with your judgement, I think it's highly likely that when people ask 'who is the greatest player of all time' the reply will be the player with the better statistics.

This is just completely wrong on your part.  I've know/ known plenty of athletes and in any sport- they judge others more on what they know of what it takes to achieve or perform at the level than they do statistics.   

It's easy to show you are wrong...  Take others who are claimed to be GOATs in other sports by their fellow athtletes--- not one has the greatest statistics ever in the sport.   so why do you think suddenly tennis players are the only ones going by who has the best stats?

Ali-  ask boxers who the greatest heavyweight ever is-    you will here Ali nearly every time.   Ali does not have the best record, the best stats, the most championships, the greatest period of domination in the sport.  Others do- but Ali is named because of what boxers could see with their eyes,  his success which was indeed great and ranks highly compared to others even if not the best stats.

There is no definitive NFL QB goat as you will hear different names from different players- but ask any NFL pro or expert and you will here the same names.. Montana, Elway, Unitas, Manning, Brady...       None have the greatest stats ever.. mannings are approaching but are widely regarded as inflated due to the changing rules that allow for more offense.   If anyone is named more often it would be Montana and his overall carreer stats now rank in the teens all time...

Michael Jordan?   nearly 100% will say him...   He's prob as named as much as Federer is by the players/experts-- so 99% will name Jordan goat.  Jordan does not have the best statistics and other players scored more points, more championships, longer carreer, better win/loss %, better shooting %


So why? why? do you think suddenly tennis athtletes don't think like these other athletes do and just spout off Federer because he has the best statistics?

noleisthebest wrote:What, (if any) changes ate you expecting to see in the next 5 years?

Coric and Zverev (17/18) have both displayed unusual ease of keeping the ball in play which is quite something bearing in mind their lack of experience and normal looking bodies.
What are they going to "develop" and move/evolve the game forward with?

It's strange for me to start considering Nole a veteran...

I don't expect many but I can certainly see attacking players again gaining an advantage. Just smaller balls would change the balance in a huge way. No need to change racquets or revert to nat gut. As much as you don't like Rao for instance, he can with confidence blast any player off court. Give him smaller balls and Nadal and Djoko will stand little chance.

Better fitness as well....we thought Chang and Hewitt were incredibly fit and then came Nadal...then Djoko and Murray, now Nishi is getting there....it's moving fast.

Djoko missed his chance to reach the 11+ slam group. I don;t even think he will reach 10 (which would be a great achievement). He lost too many finals, in particular FO finals.

truffin, I'm afraid when it comes to tennis people do pick players who have the best statistics. Federer also has what is seen as the most elegant style, which cements people's opinions.

I'm not sure about other sports you mention, I do not follow them as closely.