Nadal Wins again

[HUNTERMANIA]

Interesting article comparing the difficulty of Nadal's and Fed's major wins.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/gam...d/sorryrogerrafaelnadalisnotjustthekingofclay

Based on ELO rankings, Nadal has 18.8 Major wins compared to Federers 18.7 Major wins.

Nadal faced better competition in his major wins than Federer did.

"At majors, the Spaniard has faced the other three members of the Big Four 13% of the time, and won a remarkable 74% of those meetings. In contrast, Mr Federer has played his Big Four peers in just 9% of his grand-slam matches, and won only 42% of them."

 

[Madmick]

There are many factors. But in individual sports like tennis, golf, etc, the single biggest factor is wins at majors IMO. After that would be factors like dominance on all surfaces, longevity, h2h, etc.
If they end up tied in GS's, Id still give the edge to Fed(despite getting wrecked in tge h2h). But if Nadal ends up with more trophies, I think that(combined with being up 23-14) would be enough to earn him title of GOAT, despite the perception that he is merely clay court specialist. But I'm not that into it. Just my .02.

Does it matter that Nadal doesn't really win majors if he isn't on Clay? Why is this diversity of skill not more important to tennis culture? After all, I was under the impression this is why Martina Navratilova was still regarded as the overall hands down P4P GOAT of the sport even if some believe Serena is the greater female Singles champion.

There's four different surfaces, and Federer has dominated all, but one, because of Nadal-- the only one that Nadal has dominated. Again, take away Federer's grass victories on Wimbledon, and he still has 11 major victories. Take away Nadal's clay victories at the French Open, and he has just 6 major victories.

As @jcc3508 pointed out, day in day out dominance matters, and I don't think that's true just for tennis.


*Edit* Correction strike. I misread a key stat, here, for the original version of this post.

 

[gspieler]

Does it matter that Nadal doesn't really win majors if he isn't on Clay? Why is this diversity of skill not more important to tennis culture? After all, I was under the impression this is why Martina Navratilova was still regarded as the overall hands down P4P GOAT of the sport even if some believe Serena is the greater female Singles champion.

There's four different surfaces, and Federer has dominated all, but one, because of Nadal-- the only one that Nadal has dominated. Again, take away Federer's grass victories on Wimbledon, and he still has 11 major victories. Take away Nadal's clay victories at the French Open, and he has just 6 major victories.

As @jcc3508 pointed out, day in day out dominance matters, and I don't think that's true just for tennis.


*Edit* Correction strike. I misread a key stat, here, for the original version of this post.

The perception that Nadal is only elite on clay is completely unfounded. He's a proven winner on all surfaces. He dethroned Fed at Wimbeldon ffs.
While I believe Fed is the GOAT, I think the case for Nadal is too strong if he gets the overall trophy count. The case would resemble this....

Most GS wins: check
Proven winner on all surfaces: check
Way ahead H2H vs other GOAT candidate: check
Longevity: check

 

[Madmick]

The perception that Nadal is only elite on clay is completely unfounded. He's a proven winner on all surfaces. He dethroned Fed at Wimbeldon ffs.
While I believe Fed is the GOAT, I think the case for Nadal is too strong if he gets the overall trophy count. The case would resemble this....

Most GS wins: check
Proven winner on all surfaces: check
Way ahead H2H vs other GOAT candidate: check
Longevity: check

You just talked about majors as the defining aspect, and I pointed out that Nadal's majors off clay are way too skinny to respect any sort of diversity of skill. He's simply not that "proven", relatively, to Federer if you're going to do the all-eggs-in-majors-basket thing.

Apart from the H2H it's already been established he loses on all other counts. His #1 "longevity" is half what Nadal's is.

 

[gspieler]

You just talked about majors as the defining aspect, and I pointed out that Nadal's majors off clay are way too skinny to respect any sort of diversity of skill. He's simply not that "proven", relatively, to Federer if you're going to do the all-eggs-in-majors-basket thing.

Apart from the H2H it's already been established he loses on all other counts. His #1 "longevity" is half what Nadal's is.

The all-in-the-majors basket dictates the most majors =GOAT. The only prereq would having won at all of them, which Nadal has.

 

[Madmick]

The all-in-the-majors basket dictates the most majors =GOAT. The only prereq would having won at all of them, which Nadal has.

No, it simply makes the majors the focal point of measuring their respective greatness. I would presume that diversity of success by surface is important, and so you have invited that gaping advantage for Federer by trying to retreat to this silly metric.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

No, it simply makes the majors the focal point of measuring their respective greatness. I would presume that diversity of success by surface is important, and so you have invited that gaping advantage for Federer by trying to retreat to this silly metric.

You keep saying 4 surfaces... there are 3 surfaces, 2 hard-court majors. If there were 2 clay court majors or 2 grass court majors, it would change things dramatically in this argument.

 

[gspieler]

No, it simply makes the majors the focal point of measuring their respective greatness. I would presume that diversity of success by surface is important, and so you have invited that gaping advantage for Federer by trying to retreat to this silly metric.

If Nadal ends up having more majors wins, odds are he'll have double-digit wins in non-French Open majors anyway. If that isnt diverse enough for, i doubt anything would be. On top of which having a dozen or so French Open wins. Not that i support the notion that major wins have to be equally distributed(which Fed's are neither). If Nadal never existed, Fed would have more wins at the French. If Fed didnt exist, Nadal would ve considered one of the best on grass ever. They're both proven on every surface. Major wins is the single best metric(although there are other important factors) to place them on a subjective all-time list.

 

[gspieler]

You keep saying 4 surfaces... there are 3 surfaces, 2 hard-court majors. If there were 2 clay court majors or 2 grass court majors, it would change things dramatically in this argument.

Indeed. But apparently majors are weighted differently, depending on surface.

 

[Mondo Freaks]

Love that him and Federer are winning this year. Both are still the best

 

[DM1982]

Nadal is great to watch, and is in with a shot of beating Federer's GS total,

BUT

to true connoisseurs of tennis, Federer is an artist that mastered every aspect of the game and is breathtaking to watch.

Nadal's brutal game is it's own pleasure, but from a spectator POV, there is only one GOAT.


Roger Federer.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Nadal is great to watch, and is in with a shot of beating Federer's GS total,

BUT

to true connoisseurs of tennis, Federer is an artist that mastered every aspect of the game and is breathtaking to watch.

Nadal's brutal game is it's own pleasure, but from a spectator POV, there is only one GOAT.


Roger Federer.

See, I just totally disagree with that... but I'm not a tennis connoisseur, I'm a competitor-connoisseur -- I love watching fierce competition, I love watching will-power on display, I love watching fire and passion, I love effort, I love all of that. Rafa's matches are the best watch in all of sports, period, for me.

But I understand that's just my own preference.

 

[DM1982]

See, I just totally disagree with that... but I'm not a tennis connoisseur, I'm a competitor-connoisseur -- I love watching fierce competition, I love watching will-power on display, I love watching fire and passion, I love effort, I love all of that. Rafa's matches are the best watch in all of sports, period, for me.

But I understand that's just my own preference.

Fair enough.

Not just yours though, I'm sure others will agree with you.

But you'll be in a minority; most will say Federer is the best watch in tennis.

 

[Madmick]

You keep saying 4 surfaces... there are 3 surfaces, 2 hard-court majors. If there were 2 clay court majors or 2 grass court majors, it would change things dramatically in this argument.

It was explained to me some time ago-- here on Sherdog-- that it's actually four distinct surfaces. For the longest time I thought it was two. I was always able to reference Wiki, but I disregarded the difference in hard courts to be inconsequential, but some tennis guy on here insisted that these differences mattered. There's quite a few more than four total surface variations and gradings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_court#Surfaces

The US Open is played on DecoTurf while the Australian Open is played on Plexicushion, both acrylic-topped hard court surfaces.

Either way, it doesn't change the truth that Nadal is utterly dependent on his wins from a single surface for the volume of his major wins.

 

[Madmick]

TTT.

 

[Hagler]

Fed just keeps winning. At 36.

 

[Graves The Elder]

didnt nadal walk off the court in the semis or something?
missed it, injured I'm assuming

 

[Madmick]

Roger Federer: Rod Laver makes HUGE claim which will hurt Rafael Nadal

 

[Mga223]

Fed is the king and the goat.

 

[iwhoopedbatman]

Nadal's only advantage on Federer is on clay, where he is simply God-tier. Federer has the advantage on every other surface. Their H2H record would be a lot closer if Nadal could consistently get deep into the tourneys on the other surfaces like Federer does (since they're always seeded to meet in the Semis or Finals). I guess Nadal might still catch him in GS's, with the French being all but automatic, but I'll still consider Federer GOAT personally. Everything but Nadal's complete and total dominance of the clay court points to Federer.