What does Nadal need to do to overtake Federer as the GOAT?

[benchmark00]

Only good thing about clay is Pingu.

 

[Spikey]

what does goat need to do to overtake clay as the nadir

 

[benchmark00]

Just t-boned this thread.

 

[the big bambino]

Well I'll be bumswizzled.

 

[Jono]

Hey Jono, can't we be friends or at least friendly? I don't want our exchange degenerate to antagonism. First up I'll correct the record. I didn't say Nadal's hth v Fed is lucky. You said I did and that's the distinction and its not appreciated.

So if you want to take issue with anything I've said you can use the following instead. Its true I don't rate clay. My opinion is influenced by the no. of champions there who didn't win (much if at all) anywhere else. So I came to think of RG as the no name slam. Whereas the other surfaces reflected quality any kind of journey man could win on clay. So I never held it against the likes of Sampras failing there. At Garros everyone was a potential Sampras or Agassi. Alternatively those 2 fell to the level of the journeymen.

It may appear a contradiction but while I don't rate French open winners the exception is Nadal. The reason being that since everyone is a potential winner at Garros imo, then Nadal's consistency there is meritorious. I also rate Fed on account of his consistency there and second only to his frequent conqueror.

If you think I'm running down Nadal then you have misread what I've said. I'm neither a die hard for one or the other. I just rate Fed higher as I think he's better over all surfaces, Nadal's dominance on clay notwithstanding. It is on the record that the discrepancy in the HTH can be explained on the bias towards clay in their contests. That is why I don't rate the HTH as definitive in separating the 2. It is a reasonable conclusion whether you agree with it or not but it isn't fair to say it is uninformed if you don't agree.

I didn't think we had a problem. Heated debates happen on here, no issue.

I strongly disagree with your view on clay, and two of Feds greatest achievements that will be part of his legacy were on clay. His 2009 French win and his win over Novak in 2011 to end his unbeaten run when Novak was bitchslapping Rafa on clay in the Madrid and Rome masters 1000.

It's not the 90s anymore. America doesn't run or dominate the sport. It's a global game, primarily supported year-round in Europe. Clay tennis matters. Most tennis is played on it and the best players want to win on it. Discounting it nowadays is wrong.

 

[the big bambino]

I don't doubt the European influence and that it may extend to slowing down hard courts too. But it doesn't change the character of the surface and I generally don't rate it. Much the same if test wickets around the world became slower and lower due to the BCCI's influence. A concession to the power of the time but no recommendation for the surface itself.

 

[Jono]

Europe aren't telling Tennis Australia or the US Open to slow down hard courts.

The fastest hard court in the world is in Paris.

 

[benchmark00]

Tennis won't be a proper sport until they have a Persian Open as a grand slam which is played on carpet.

 

[uvelocity]

p00l tennis still the premium version - the rock and roll version of the sport even

 

[the big bambino]

Europe aren't telling Tennis Australia or the US Open to slow down hard courts.

The fastest hard court in the world is in Paris.

Hewitt often complained about the surface at the Oz. The point being that European players didn't want to make the trip if they had no chance of advancing into the tournament. Want to attract the strongest field? Then make them a surface the majority of them like.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Tennis won't be a proper sport until they have a Persian Open as a grand slam which is played on carpet.

Carlos Moya was a genius on carpet in Virtua Tennis, had to knock off the guy wearing pants to clock the game.

 

[Jono]

Druing the Aust vs. France Davis Cup tie Channel 7 showed footage of Phillipousis beating Pioline back in 99.

Made me want to play Virtua Tennis so much.

 

[Muloghonto]

Unless Nadal wins Wimbledon a few more times and destroys some more serve & volley players at wimbledon or the indoor hard courts, he won't go down as the GOAT.
Being a GOAT is not just about records, especially in a sport like Tennis where the records are a lot more about who you play against as well as how good you are yourself.
Nadal could have more GS than Federer, I still won't consider him GOAT worthy and infact, will rate him behind Federer, Borg & Sampras because I don't think Nadal has the game to challenge bonafide big-serving serve and volley players on the faster courts of pre-2000s with smaller tennis balls than today's.

Nadal is the greatest claycourter in history IMO but he has more GS on the other surfaces than he would've had in the 80s or 90s due to the slower courts & death of good serve & volleyers in tennis.

For eg, except for Nadal and maybe Borg, at his peak, i'd back Federer to win the French Open against any other player- Lendl, Muster, Kuerten, Costa, Bruguera, Wilander, etc.
But i don't see Nadal having any hope in hell beating Federer or Sampras, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe or Borg at Wimbledon in the pre-2000s court.

I consider Federer as the GOAT because his game has no weakness. His serve is not freakish like Sampras's, Ivanisevic or Roddick's but he is competetive with almost any other top serve & volley/serve dominant player. His forehand is the greatest forehand i've ever seen (though Sampras had a better running forehand) and his singlehanded backhand is the best singlehanded backhand I've ever seen too. His return of serve is just a notch below that of 'freakish' category that Agassi, Djokovic and Ferrer occupy, his defence is just a shade below that of Nadal & Djokovic's.
Federer's shot selection is exquisite, has every shot mastery in the book and like geniuses, invents shots.

Nadal on the other hand, at his peak had the best court-coverage ever, he is the epitome of a clutch performer (Federer is a bit of a choker IMO) and has amazing defence. But his serve is simply not dominant enough to be GOAT category on the faster courts, his forehand is stronger than most pure clay-courters but not the sheer 'point ender' that Federer, Sampras, Magnus whatzizname, etc. were. Same about his backhand.


Oh and that he is a leftie with the leftie's advantage in tennis, i don't think he can be considered GOAT (Sorry Laver fans!).

 

[Riggins]

Unless Nadal wins Wimbledon a few more times and destroys some more serve & volley players at wimbledon or the indoor hard courts, he won't go down as the GOAT.
Being a GOAT is not just about records, especially in a sport like Tennis where the records are a lot more about who you play against as well as how good you are yourself.
Nadal could have more GS than Federer, I still won't consider him GOAT worthy and infact, will rate him behind Federer, Borg & Sampras because I don't think Nadal has the game to challenge bonafide big-serving serve and volley players on the faster courts of pre-2000s with smaller tennis balls than today's.

is this actually a thing?

 

[Jono]

Classic argument of "player would not have succeeded in previous era despite the fact he didn't play in the previous era and therefore never had to adapt his game - but I'll hold it against him anyway."

 

[Muloghonto]

Classic argument of "player would not have succeeded in previous era despite the fact he didn't play in the previous era and therefore never had to adapt his game - but I'll hold it against him anyway."

It is what it is. The two huge facts that differentiate tennis of 2000s from tennis of all earlier periods is: a) Wimbledon replaced their grass, which slowed the courts down from 2002 all the way through to 2006. Wimbledon is significantly slower today than it was in the past. Same goes with the OZ and US opens.
Tennis is played with bigger balls of same mass than it was- i think this change came around in 2008, which obviously favours the slower players ( a smaller ball of same mass travells faster than a bigger ball of same mass).

I do not believe in the magic of adaptability argument. Adaptation is not a garantee, or a benifit of the doubt, adaptation is a shot in the dark. Some adapt, some don't. Just because you were great at doing ABC, doesnt mean you'd be equally good at adapting to doing XYZ.

Nadal does not have the game to challenge the top serve & volleyers of the yesteryears on the faster surfaces. That is a fact. Could he have adapted ? maybe, maybe not. We shall never know. As is, he does not have the game to win against the likes of Becker/Sampras of the 90s. Federer does. he wouldn't steamroll them but he'd win consistently enough against them to be a factor in the non-clay majors in any era.

It is the same way i apply the argument to cricket. The likes of Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, etc. never actually faced 90mph bowlers intent on beheading them, like the way Gavaskar, Boycott,Gooch, Greenidge, etc. did. Would Hammond/Hobbs/Sutcliffe adjusted to facing 90mph men bowling bouncers all day long to their heads ? Maybe, maybe not.But as is, they made hay against spinners and fast/fast-medium bowlers bowling to the stumps or outside the stumps but not intent on bowling to the batsmen's heads. So they do not qualify, in my opinion, to be considered greats of the game. As is, their game was lacking, so is Nadal's. Adjustement across the eras is just a speculation. Its not a sure-shot.
As is, ie, what their games stood empirically as, is what deserves to be compared.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You saying Hobbs, Hutton and Sutcliffe are not greats of the game makes you lose credibility completely. And you yourself are saying era adjustment is not a sure shot and that there's no guarantee they would have succeeded. But how can you guarantee they wouldn't?

And if Nadal doesn't have the game to counter Sampras, then guess what, Federer hasn't shown he had the game to succeed against nadal consistently either.
Bit of a shame that I have to counter you as I consider Nadal to be inferior to Federer and Sampras as you do, but your reasons are dumb

 

[Jono]

It is the same way i apply the argument to cricket. The likes of Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, etc..

Oh this makes me happy. Genuine fist pump moment.

 

[Uppercut]

It is what it is. The two huge facts that differentiate tennis of 2000s from tennis of all earlier periods is: a) Wimbledon replaced their grass, which slowed the courts down from 2002 all the way through to 2006. Wimbledon is significantly slower today than it was in the past. Same goes with the OZ and US opens.
Tennis is played with bigger balls of same mass than it was- i think this change came around in 2008, which obviously favours the slower players ( a smaller ball of same mass travells faster than a bigger ball of same mass).

I do not believe in the magic of adaptability argument. Adaptation is not a garantee, or a benifit of the doubt, adaptation is a shot in the dark. Some adapt, some don't. Just because you were great at doing ABC, doesnt mean you'd be equally good at adapting to doing XYZ.

Nadal does not have the game to challenge the top serve & volleyers of the yesteryears on the faster surfaces. That is a fact. Could he have adapted ? maybe, maybe not. We shall never know. As is, he does not have the game to win against the likes of Becker/Sampras of the 90s. Federer does. he wouldn't steamroll them but he'd win consistently enough against them to be a factor in the non-clay majors in any era.

It is the same way i apply the argument to cricket. The likes of Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, etc. never actually faced 90mph bowlers intent on beheading them, like the way Gavaskar, Boycott,Gooch, Greenidge, etc. did. Would Hammond/Hobbs/Sutcliffe adjusted to facing 90mph men bowling bouncers all day long to their heads ? Maybe, maybe not.But as is, they made hay against spinners and fast/fast-medium bowlers bowling to the stumps or outside the stumps but not intent on bowling to the batsmen's heads. So they do not qualify, in my opinion, to be considered greats of the game. As is, their game was lacking, so is Nadal's. Adjustement across the eras is just a speculation. Its not a sure-shot.
As is, ie, what their games stood empirically as, is what deserves to be compared.

The implications of this logic are pretty spectacular. As it stands, Federer is a great. But if, fifty years after Federer's retirement, tennis changes in a way that would have made Federer's game much less effective, he goes back to being not-a-great. To remain a great he would have to have anticipated these changes 50 years in advance, and developed a game that could deal with them.

 

[sledger]

I can't wait till cricket develops rules that state the only shot you're allowed to score runs from is the square cut and you can no longer be out bowled/stumped/caught behind square. Geraint Jones will finally be recognised as the all-time great batsman I always knew he was!