And yet, the paradox: If Roger Federer is the all-around GOAT, why can't he beat Nadal?
Well, first of all, he can, he has, and he does.
There are many other answers to this question, each of which proves that while Nadal is the greatest clay court player of his generation and of all time, Federer is the greatest all-around player of his generation, as well as the greatest player of all time.
Federer rarely beats Nadal on clay. They are even on hard courts, however, and Federer leads 2-1 on grass. Thus, when you hear commentators saying, "Geez, how can Federer be the best ever if he can't beat Nadal?," they should be saying, "How impressive that Federer continues to make clay court finals and have the opportunity to play Nadal!"
Also, despite the fact that Federer and Nadal have already played 25 times, we should be wondering, "Why haven't they played more?" Even if we look only at Grand Slams, we have to ask: Where was Nadal in the '04, '06, '07, and '10 Australian Open final? Where was Nadal in the '03, '04, '05, and '09 Wimbledon final? Where was Nadal in the '04, '05, '06, '07, and '08 U.S. Open final? That's 13 Grand Slam finals in which Federer simply didn't have the opportunity to play Nadal. On the flip side, Nadal didn't get to play Federer in only three of the Grand Slams he won, the '10 French Open, '10 Wimbledon, and '10 U.S. Open. These numbers don't include all of the other tournaments Federer won without getting to play Nadal. To simplify: Yes, Nadal beats Federer on clay consistently and has had two fantastic wins against him at the '08 Wimbledon and '09 Australian, but Federer has not had the opportunity to play Nadal in many other grass and hard court tournaments.
Nadal has proven his greatness not just on clay, but also at all the other majors, and thus he is rightfully considered one of the greatest of all time. Federer has done him one better: He has not only won 16 majors, but he has lost in the finals seven other times. Seven. Four of them on clay. So, should we condemn him for making all those French Open finals and losing to the clay court GOAT or should we celebrate the fact that he has been the second best player on clay for the last seven years? Second best on clay, by the way, not to Kuerten, Muster, or Courier, but instead to the clay court GOAT. If Federer sucked on clay and thus never got to play and lose to Nadal, he would have 15 Grand Slams instead of 16. How ironic he ends up getting a bad rap for being so good on clay.
To be the greatest ever, you don't have to dominate on every surface; you just have to dominate overall. 16 Grand Slams is dominating overall. Did anyone care that Sampras couldn't beat countless clay courters? No, and we shouldn't care that Federer rarely beats Nadal on clay.
Head-to-heads are important, but not that important. If we make the argument that Federer is not the GOAT because of his head-to-head versus Nadal, then we have to include Murray in the conversation, as he also has a winning head-to-head versus Federer. That would be flat-out stupid.
Nadal is five years younger, and age matters. In 2006 and 2007, when Federer was in his prime, he beat Nadal in five out of seven matches, twice on hard, twice on grass, and once on clay.
We are unfair: We want Federer, at age 29, to beat Nadal, already the clay court GOAT at age 25, in the finals of the French Open, the slowest clay on the planet. Tough. Very tough.
Had Federer won the 2011 French Open this past Sunday, he wouldn't have proven he's the GOAT. He's already proven that. All he would have done is made me cry for having witnessed something that transcends everything I know.
Good points all. The H-to-H is definitely skewed. During Fed's peak of 2005-07, Rafa held a 7-6 advantage (6-1 on the soft stuff) but during that three year span - when Fed was dominant #1 and Rafa was firm #2 - they played in 27 common non-clay events. Fed reached 22 finals and won an amazing 19 titles. Rafa reached only 7 finals and won 2 titles ... in fact, in those 27 events, Fed "outperformed" Rafa in 22. So obviously, Rafa was in the early reign as King of Clay but was far from a sure-thing (as he is today) on other surfaces ... and this cost Fed many potential H-to-H wins on the speedier hardcourt, grass, and indoor surfaces. As you mentioned, as weird as it sounds, Fed's GOAT status would be much more secure if he had underachieved just a tad bit more on clay - so dropping out in the semis instead of reaching the finals. The guy is 2-12 against Rafa on clay but before this year (and Nole's incredible streak), Fed was the only player to have more than a single win over Rafa since 2005! The GOAT argument is always fun but whenever people place too much emphasis on the H-to-H, I use Safin v. Fabrice Santoro as an example of why H-to-H cannot be an end-all. Santoro on 8 of 10 H-to-H v. Safin (and one of the Safin wins was an injury walk-over).
ReplyDeleteSorry, Pal. Your argument doesn't hold water when the head to head advantage is as vast as 18-7 in Nadal's favor.
ReplyDeleteI love how you don't mention those numbers. Federer in his prime against Nadal in his prime. Nadal wins.
No, Brianb, he's exactly right. The head-to-head is skewed by how good both are on clay. Nadal's dominance likely exceeds Martina Navratilova or Pete Sampras on grass. There are 90 tournaments that Federer and Nadal have both played. Each has had the better result 42 times with 6 times losing in the same round. Surface breakdown is 61 hard, 24 clay, 5 grass. However, their head-to-head match-ups are 8 hard, 14 clay, 3 grass. So, it's easy to understand why the HTH is in Nadal's favor.
ReplyDeleteNadal has a better tour winning percentage and has accomplished much more than Federer had by the same age. He's also won Olympic singles gold and several Davis cups. Also, "where was Nadal in '03, '04, '05", etc.? Are you seriously trying to make that sound like a good point? Nadal was still just a teenager at that time, whereas Federer was in his early prime. You can't have it both ways on the age argument. Further weakening that point is its gross oversimplification of the match-up in general. Nadal was already really stretching Federer in their early matches on all surfaces, and was clearly going to be a nightmare for him to handle in the future. You might want to go back and actually watch them to refresh your memory. So the assumption (hope?) that going forward, as Nadal has entered his prime, that "if only" they'd played more on fast surfaces Federer would somehow win more of their matches is a fatally flawed argument. In any case, the lopsided head-to-head is indeed only one factor to consider, but I'm afraid not everything else cuts so clearly in Federer's favour, as you seem to imply. In the end, I go by simple, honest observation, which is that the better player generally wins. It this case, that player is Nadal. Parse it any way you wish if it makes you feel better, but results are results. This "GOAT" fixation is a complete fallacy in general, by the way, and myopically slanted towards the current players. I wonder what Pancho Gonzalez would say...
ReplyDeleteBrilliantly put! Federer is definitely THE GOAT in my opinion and Nadal is like the Rocky Balboa of tennis. Man is thoroughly relentless. Both of them are utter CLASS.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo, Fed is the greatest of all-time for sure because he dominated this particular era, and is so good on clay in the era of homogenized surfaces, when week two at Wimbledon plays like RG? When did the 25 year old Federer compete regularly against the 25 year old versions of Laver or Sampras or Borg or Emerson? When did Federer win on the same grass that Sampras dominated in the 90s? Any GOAT debate is fatally flawed, as there is no reliable method with which to compare players across eras. And as for the Federer vs. Nadal debate (which is what you should be having), you cherry pick years from Fed's prime. What about 2008? Was Fed, the guy who's never had a serious injury, not in his prime in the 2008 Wimbledon Final? And of course, you fail to mention that Roger's most recent 3 GS titles came in tournaments that Nadal either didn't enter or was hampered by injury (might want to be thankful he didn't meet Nadal in 09 Wimbledon final). Also, Fed at 29 isn't Pete at 29. The guy moves like a guy who can play into his mid-thirties. He's fine, and his continued dominance only further demonstrates the fact that this era of tennis is loaded with super-talented players, aided by advancements in fitness (read: PEDs) and technology, who are mostly mental midgets. No heart, no guts, no will to beat, much less be #1, with the exception of the one guy who continually dominates Federer.
ReplyDeleteHow can Federer be the GOAT when 2 people have better head to head records against him? Both Rafa and Andy Murray have positive records against Federer. Also Djokovic is 3 wins away from joining rafa and murray with a positive federer.
ReplyDeleteThe GOAT cannot let anyone have a positive record against them, let alone 2 people. To be the GOAT means you are the greatest player on all surfaces, but Federer has only one French Open title. Federer is totally over rated!
Isn't the fact that Roger doesn't miss events due to injury part of the GOAT argument? If Rafa is out of a tournament due to injury, he's still out and Roger is building points
ReplyDeleteAlso, Rafa and Djoker are merely passing through the Fed era. The H/H is only one stat during a confined moment, wheras the GOAT is not. Fed set a performance level that has taken these guys 4 years to compete with
DeleteWhy everybody is concerned about statistics so much? Just look at Rafa and RF service, look at versatility, look at how ugly Nadal's shot between the legs looks... Don't get me wrong - Nadal is a great tennis player, but by is not as complete as Federer is. Yes, Roger definitely had some mental problems in recent years, but compare pure tennis skills he is really far and away from anybody.
ReplyDelete