That's actually in Nadal's favour 9-4. Though overall H2H is in Novak's 26-23.1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
From my lifetime. Djokovic over Nadal due to Slam H2H, versatility and the fact that he's likely to catch up or win even more Slams than Rafa. No problem if order is flipped.
I was thinking more about when Nole started winning Slams consistently. He also had sth like a 3-18 H2H with Fed pre-09.That's actually in Nadal's favour 9-4. Though overall H2H is in Novak's 26-23.
I don't think that's the truth to be honest. Federer has had competition as good as the peers of Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic and so forth IMO. Nadal's competition on clay was literally Federer's worst surface and then Djokovic's worst surface. There aren't clay specialists nowadays when 90% of the tour plays on HC's.I'm not denying Fed is top of the GOAT debate but you just can't deny the fact that he picked up a lot of majors when he had no competition. I'd kill to have seen Nadal for a year or two with one shot wonders like Roddick as his greatest rival.
As for Stan, he's beaten peak Djokovic for each of his slams so he's not had it easy either. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic just genuinely have had to battle far harder for their slams as compared to Fed steamrolling it against poor opposition for 2 years. Fed is still GOAT though and I won't deny that.
Likewise you can also argue that Rafa picked up a lot of his slams at Roland Garros at a time when he didn't have any clay court competition. Although Rafa gets a lot of credit for his head to head record with Roger - and justifiably so - few ever question the lack of any great clay court players who played during Rafa's time. Five of his French Opens came from beating Federer - a non clay court specialist and the remaining ones came from Mariano Puerta, Robin Soderling, David Ferrer, and one from Djokovic - again a mix of vaguely anonymous one/two year wonder players who disappeared and Novak who wasn't a clay court specialist. There was no Gustavo Kuerten, Carlos Moya, or Sergi Bruguera - all former world number one clay courters who played in preceding eras, to give Nadal a serious challenge on clayI'm not denying Fed is top of the GOAT debate but you just can't deny the fact that he picked up a lot of majors when he had no competition. I'd kill to have seen Nadal for a year or two with one shot wonders like Roddick as his greatest rival.
As for Stan, he's beaten peak Djokovic for each of his slams so he's not had it easy either. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic just genuinely have had to battle far harder for their slams as compared to Fed steamrolling it against poor opposition for 2 years. Fed is still GOAT though and I won't deny that.
Would be interesting to see a poll.This keeps changing for me, but for now:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Borg
1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Navratilova
4. Court
5. Evert
Why Nadal 2? Is it because of his play style?After reading up on Pancho, pre 70's he's got to go down as the best.. seems like he absolutely had no real rivals and was able to dismiss them all (including Rosewall etc). He was 40+ and still able to give Laver something to think about at his prime and most of the players of that era reckon Pancho would do Laver in his prime. That said, he was very much like a Sampras.. very serve and volley orientated but invincible in doing so, lacking Laver's all round game (who still looks pretty brilliant even to the modern eye).
Modern era (70's onwards).. right now (subject to change over next few years depending on how Djoko/Nadal react to this Federer comeback)
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Borg
5. Sampras
Dominating the greatest player of all time by that degree is a big factor for me.Is it because of his play style?
I like his style too, but every player has bogey player they always struggle against. Don't know if it was his style or just a mental thing why Fed struggled against him. Due to his record outside Roland Garros Nadal is just below those top class players imo.Dominating the greatest player of all time by that degree is a big factor for me.
I agree with this.I like his style too, but every player has bogey player they always struggle against. Don't know if it was his style or just a mental thing why Fed struggled against him. Due to his record outside Roland Garros Nadal is just below those top class players imo.
The clay track bully is such a disrespectful thing to say about a player like Nadal who has come extremely close to almost having 3 Aussie open triumphs on his resume.Why Nadal 2? Is it because of his play style?
Bit too much of a clay track bully for me.
Bingo.This keeps changing for me, but for now:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Djokovic
5. Borg
1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Navratilova
4. Court
5. Evert
I'm not taking any credit or disrespecting him, yes he's the greatest clay court player off all time, that's the best he goes for me and if he wasn't around Fed would have 5+ more slams in France.The clay track bully is such a disrespectful thing to say about a player like Nadal who has come extremely close to almost having 3 Aussie open triumphs on his resume.
I hate how guys like Sampras and Federer are not seen as grass-court bullies? why does one surface get devalued when it forms such an important part of the calendar.
He's won those french titles against some of the greatest of all time from day one, he deserves credit for it.
Even if you took clay out of the equation, if you look at slams won since he arrived on the scene (2006 onwards) and also took away Fed and Djokovic's favourite surface (Grass for Fed and Aussie open for Djoko).
Federer
8 Slams
Nadal
5 slams
Djokovic
6 slams
Now considering hard courts still come into play here which favours Federer and Djokovic (i.e. US Open), and they're both considered all time greats on this surface and in theory Nadal finds both grass and hard courts ill suited to his natural game and he has suffered far more with injuries than either the other two.. it is a very respectable total.
He is more competitive on their best surfaces than they are on his.
Sampras should make that list instead if Murray1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
That's it. The rest don't compare. The standard was nowhere near as high.
I made a post yesterday about it. Federer has won 11 grand slams outside of Wimbledon, which would have put him in any list for GOAT by itself. Nadal on the other hand has won just 5 GS outside of French Open. So, he is far more a clay track bully than Federer is a hrass track bully (or Samprass for that matter, who has won 7 GS outside of Wimbledon).The clay track bully is such a disrespectful thing to say about a player like Nadal who has come extremely close to almost having 3 Aussie open triumphs on his resume.
I hate how guys like Sampras and Federer are not seen as grass-court bullies? why does one surface get devalued when it forms such an important part of the calendar.
Safin was a top talent, but he always looked to me that he didn't bother that much. He defeated Federer in a grand slam final though, and he played very well there.@Revan
Don't know about you but peak Safin for me is a much more difficult, more clutch opponent than a Murray. He was a beast when on form.. Hewitt too to be fair though not sure if he's better than Murray. Both were terrific baseliners.
Nalbandian was a very tough opponent too, but I remember Murray nearly schooling him as a lil kid, so we should underestimate what a talent Murray is in his own right.
The trouble with Safin was he never really peaked. He did reach number 1 for a short while but never (imo) realized his full potential.@Revan
Don't know about you but peak Safin for me is a much more difficult, more clutch opponent than a Murray. He was a beast when on form.. Hewitt too to be fair though not sure if he's better than Murray. Both were terrific baseliners.
Nalbandian was a very tough opponent too, but I remember Murray nearly schooling him as a lil kid, so we should underestimate what a talent Murray is in his own right.
Mainly on Clay. If you remove clay from the equation they are 10-10 career.Dominating the greatest player of all time by that degree is a big factor for me.
Eh? He reached the French Open final 5 times.beating Federer - a non clay court specialist
How many slams would Nadal have if Federer and Djokovic weren't around? How many slams would have Nadal have if he didn't have to contend with the greatest hard-courters the game has ever seen? It is not a good argument.I'm not taking any credit or disrespecting him, yes he's the greatest clay court player off all time, that's the best he goes for me and if he wasn't around Fed would have 5+ more slams in France.
But all ifs and buts, still doesn't change the fact 9 out of 14 slams have come on one surface. Fed has won 5 slams in 3 out of the 4 slams, that imo has far more value.
Then you are not really comparing their entire careers. No reason to do that whatsoever.If you remove clay from the equation
By the same token Federer's dominated on indoor courts...take that away and Nadal's comfortably ahead again.Mainly on Clay. If you remove clay from the equation they are 10-10 career.
That's because he was such a dominant player at the time. He bullied his way into many clay finals despite being on a completely foreign surface. It speaks to how good he was, despite the fact that he eventually lost to clay court specialists. You would be hard pressed denying Nadal wasn't a clay court specialist as many Spanish players grow up exclusively on clay and of course Rafa is known as the best clay court player ever.Eh? He reached the French Open final 5 times.
More than the 'specialists' you mentioned (Moya 1, Kuerten 3).
The reason Federer doesn't have many RG titles is because he had to play against the greatest clay courter ever, but that doesn't make him a poor clay court player by any stretch of imagination as his record shows.
Its not a big deal, just making a point that the so called domination was only restricted to Nadal's best surface.By the same token Federer's dominated on indoor courts...take that away and Nadal's comfortably ahead again.
If you've followed Tennis for a while then you will know that there is a massive disparity between clay and other surfaces. For years, there was a controversy about European based clay court specialists staying on the European tour and racking up ATP points to where they were suddenly in the world top 5 despite not many people knowing much about them, as opposed to the more known players who played a more comprehensive schedule on all surfaces.Then you are not really comparing their entire careers. No reason to do that whatsoever.
There's no such thing as bullying in tennis, you cannot reach the final of the most important tournament of the said surface a huge amount of times beating all kinds of players if you aren't comfortable on it. Nadal wasn't the only player who had grown playing on clay courts and Federer faced and defeated everyone but him. It simply shows that he was better on clay than most other players who have played tennis, including those who grew up playing on clay and beating him on that surface at a time he was dominating the sport against absolutely everyone is all credit to Nadal.He bullied his way into many clay finals despite being in a completely foreign surface.
This snobbery over surfaces makes no sense to me. It's the same when it comes to people's record on the subcontinent in cricketing terms.. they all count. Its like only surfaces which are 'western' in nature count.Then you are not really comparing their entire careers. No reason to do that whatsoever.
You are now basically at the point of questioning the place of clay surfaces in the sport of tennis. Entirely different discussion (and a rubbish one as far as I'm concerned.)If you've followed Tennis for a while then you will know that there is a massive disparity between clay and other surfaces. For years, there was a controversy about European based clay court specialists staying on the European tour and racking up ATP points to where they were suddenly in the world top 5 despite not many people knowing much about them, as opposed to the more known players who played a more comprehensive schedule on all surfaces.
We're not discrediting, we're contextualizing. No one with half a brain thinks Federer was a clay court specialist. Federer is notoriously good on grass and indoor hard courts (where he is 7-3 against Nadal). Rafa, impressively has him on outdoor hard courts and then is 13-2 against him on clay.There's no such thing as bullying in tennis, you cannot reach the final of the most important tournament of the said surface a huge amount of times beating all kinds of players if you aren't comfortable on it. Nadal wasn't the only player who had grown playing on clay courts and Federer faced and defeated everyone but him. It simply shows that he was better on clay than most other players who have played tennis, including those who grew up playing on clay and beating him on that surface at a time he was dominating the sport against absolutely everyone is all credit to Nadal.
As a comparison, a player you would actually call a poor clay courter amongst the GOATs is Sampras. He only ever managed the semi final once and beating someone like him for a specialist would have been considered ordinary. But beating Federer during his peak is anything but.
Beyond me why some try so hard to discredit one's achievements.
Nah he just magically reached the final 5 times and is worse than those who only managed it once.No one with half a brain thinks Federer was a clay court specialist.
Surfaces obviously matter, otherwise there wouldn't be different ones. Some are slower, some are faster, some make the ball bounce higher, some are better for serve and volley, others benefit baseline rallies. There is nothing wrong with including surfaces into the debate.You are now basically at the point of questioning the place of clay surfaces in the sport of tennis. Entirely different discussion (and a rubbish one as far as I'm concerned.)
Do you think Federer is a clay court specialist ?Nah he just magically reached the final 5 times and is worse than those who only managed it once.
