Federer, Nadal, and the question of GOATness in general...

[brokenshoelace]

In the thread about the Monte Carlo Masters, things unexpectedly and uncharacteristically turned into a Fedal conversation, which usually never ever happens...

A set of very interesting questions were asked by @El Dude that I'd like to have everyone's opinion on:

But here's a question. In your mind, what would Rafa have to do to surpass Roger in terms of historical greatness? Would one more Slam than Roger be enough? What if all five (or more) of those needed Slams were RG only? Or would he need to narrow the gap of weeks at #1? Win at least one WTF? Etc. I'm guessing it isn't one thing in particular, just wondering what his resume would have to look like--relative to Roger's--for you to give him the historical edge.

This to me, was very relevant because it's an issue I've been thinking a lot about lately and not just in tennis. The issue of GOAT has really become a very topical thing nowadays in sport, especially in the age of reactionary media, twitter, social-media in general, etc...

No doubt, if you watch Basketball, you've heard of Jordan/Lebron debate, if you watch soccer, you've heard of Messi/Ronaldo and Pele/Maradona (unless you're @mrzz then you've only heard of Pele).

What's more unique about tennis than most other sports, is that fairly or unfairly, it seems like everyone has set a very clear quantifiable, tangible, which ultimately determines the GOAT: The number of major wins.

I understand why. It's easy. It makes things less open to interpretation, more "objective," less gray, etc...

But does this reflect reality? And if so, what happens if two people are tied in number of majors? Do we go to tie-breakers and look at other accomplishments? Does Rafa equaling Roger's major tally make him a Co-GOAT?

 

[britbox]

I'll have more to say about this... but the first thing that I'll say is that if Nadal wins another 4 majors and Federer doesn't add to his tally then Nadal will be the GOAT in the media's eyes... because currency counts for a lot and then they'll throw the H2H in, the longevity etc... It won't be a debate (from a media perspective)

 

[10isfan]

Exactly. I’ve been thinking this for a while. If they equal each other in slam count, Nadal becomes GOAT.

 

[brokenshoelace]

In order to avoid the OP being 3 pages long, I'll post my reply to @El Dude here, as well as a general take on the issue of GOATness.

Let me start off by saying that my stance on this has actually changed throughout the years, and has been influenced by watching other sports significantly, and the GOAT debates that entailed in those sports.

I used to think it simply boils down to major wins, which is something relatively unique about tennis (I guess this also applies in golf? I don't follow that sport so I'm not sure). It's easy to understand why: Players put more emphasis on slams. So naturally, they're trying more in majors, they're more focused, give it their all, etc... it's what separates the men from the boys. Yes, it's a cliche, but it's true. There's a reason why the same guys have dominated them over the past 13 years (which is insane).

This however, raises a number of other issues, some valid, some less so:

1) Majors weren't considered the end-all be all until maybe the mid-80's (post-Borg). Players used to skip the Australian Open, for example.
2) If we're looking exclusively at majors, and look at no other thing as long as there is no tie, then are we saying all these other tournaments don't matter?
3) Say two players are separated by one major, but the one with one fewer major is much more accomplished in almost every other category, is the one with more majors really greater? Is that ONE major really THIS valuable? I'm not talking about what the media will say, or the general consensus, but I'm asking what YOU, the fine folks of tennis.com/tennisdigital/tennisfrontier/tennis-prose/TennisFrontierAgain think... In other words, how to quantify a major in terms of currency: 1 major = how many Masters 1000 events/weeks at number 1/WTF's/etc...?

What I don't like about majors being the one and only factor (unless there's a tie) is that I think it's a fairly rigid concept, that detracts from what should be a much more interesting and rich debate. Because we're simply boiling it down to numbers. Now, just to be clear, this is not a Nadal fan's attempt at downplaying major wins just to give Rafa a chance at GOATness. I consider Roger Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time, but it goes beyond the number of Grand Slam wins (more on that in a second).

And this is where other sports' influences have shifted my views on this debate. Though I always considered Roger to be the GOAT, I have a major bombshell to drop on you fine folks:

I think Roger Federer will be the GOAT even if Nadal does tie him (I mean in my eyes, not what the media will say), or surpasses him by a single major win (for the record neither event will happen, but this is to answer @El Dude's question, and to explain my stance on the GOAT issue).

For starters, and this will sound very subjective and vague (and it is), but I just think Federer is simply...better at tennis. I don't know how else to explain this, but I've watched them their entire careers, and have seen a combined hundreds of matches of each player, and in my mind, one is just better at his craft than the other. This is the dreaded "eye-test." I fully understand how subjective this is, but I can't get past this. I've watched their respective peaks, and Federer was just more dominant, more in control, less vulnerable, and played at an even higher level on average (though I agree with something that @GameSetAndMath stated in the other thread: Nadal is better on clay than Federer is anywhere else and I don't think it's particularly close).

I think a major part in determining who a better player is (which I understand may not exactly be the same as who the "GREATER" player is), is looking at how they perform at their peaks. To me, that's why Messi is the best football (soccer) player ever (he played at a higher level over 4 seasons between 2009-2012 than anyone did in history), that's why Jordan is the best basketball player ever despite not winning the most rings, and why Federer is the best tennis player ever.

Of course, team sports are different, because wins are not completely in one player's hand (which is why I think it's stupid to claim a player can't be the GOAT b/c they haven't won an event that occurs once every 4 years and there are like 295 other variables in play that affect the result). Tennis is simpler: Two guys square off and the better player usually wins (yes I realize the irony of this statement since Nadal holds the h2h edge over Roger).

As such, yes, longevity matters, especially when assessing greatness, and you can't just look at peaks (for instance Djokovic, to me, had a better peak than Nadal and played a higher level of tennis. But there's no doubt Rafa's been the greater player so far). So if Nadal were to surpass Roger in terms of major count, it would mean he's been even better than Roger has been in the tail end of his career, which would be HUGELY impressive given that they're separated by 4 slams at the moment. And while there is no denying the impressiveness of guys dominating in their 30's, there are just so many factors determining who wins a major, that just using them as the sole barometer takes away from the nuances and interesting variables of tennis.

Doesn't it seem silly to someone that we can claim one player to be better than the other for winning ONE more major? I've become a firm believer in diminishing marginal returns. As stupid as this may sound, the more majors you win, the less the difference one major makes in terms of greatness. Yes, I realize how counter-intuitive this sounds but let me explain.

20 slams and 21 slams are both INSANE numbers. Isn't it nuts to claim player A is unequivocally greater than player B for winning 1 more slam, without taking into account all the factors that may have contributed to that slam (or any other slam that they may have won). Injuries, draws, level of competition, injuries to rivals, surfaces, etc... are all factors that may come into play. I know many of these issues are taboo around here because they're equated to excuse making, but are we really pretending they don't influence outcome of matches and tournaments? Keep in mind, a player who wins 3 slams being considered better than a player with only 2, makes some sense, but once we've reached obscene double digit amounts, it becomes less clear.

Also, what if as @El Dude pointed out, all of Nadal's upcoming slam wins are at the FO? Now, I've always thought saying "yeah but he's mainly only won on clay" is silly. Yeah, and Djokovic has mainly won on hards (not to mention Nadal has a great non-clay resume). It's just more accepted because more majors are played on hards, which is a complete arbitrary happenstance. The powers that be decided that the majority of tennis is played on hards so it is. It's not like hards are a better surface or more indicative of tennis skills. Hell, there used to be no majors played on hards at one point in the past. What if two majors were played on clay all along? So that argument to me doesn't hold up in general. However, for the purposes of this debate, it would matter a little, as there is very clear evidence that Roger's game is more suited for all surface play than Nadal's. And that deserves recognition and reward. The results have come accordingly anyway.

Hell, maybe it's none of the factors above, maybe the player with 20 slams had one bad day at the office in a final of a major he was expected to win (or any other round), and they didn't win it. OK, they only have themselves to blame to be sure, as they weren't good enough on the day, but it's absolutely bonkers that ONE match essentially ends up being the reason some consider one to be better than the other in a career in which they've played a thousand match or so. For example, do you remember Nadal's missed backhand against Novak at the 2012 AO final? The one that would have put him 4-2 40-15 up on serve in the final set? He makes that and he's likely 5-2 up, one game away from the championship. Imagine if that ends up being a reason he doesn't tie Roger in the slam tally. If you're in the "majors are the only deciding factor" camp, isn't it crazy that literally a few inches are deciding the debate? I understand that's how tennis works, and it is a game of inches. But it's a game of inches on the micro level, ie who wins a point or a match...not who's the better player between two players who've won a combined 40 majors (which would be the case in case Rafa ties Roger or surpasses him).

Now, the gap between Roger and Rafa at the moment is 4 slams. That's significant. You don't win 4 slams simply due to external factors, injuries, luck, etc... Therefore, if someone were to claim Roger is better because of those 4 extra slams, I get it. You don't need to go through all the other factors when there's a clear gap that's indicative of one player simply being better than the other over his career so far. But, my point is, if the numbers end up being closer, it's simply not black and white anymore.

 

[El Dude]

Good ramble, @brokenshoelace. Nothing really I disagree with - in fact, I think we're pretty much in agreement across the board, which also means that nothing you said shifted my perspective on the matter . And my perspective remains that the whole topic is and will continue to be debatable...lots of gray, not much black and white.

To address a few points...

A good example of how one Slam doesn't determine relative greatness is comparing Wilander to Edberg and Becker. Wilander has 7 Slam titles, the other two have six. Most view Edberg and Becker as overall greater players, and if you look at their accomplishments the issue becomes pretty straightforward. The only people I've heard speak of Wilander as greater are coming from a purely subjective viewpoint, and one based on 20+ year old memories. Nothing wrong with that, but let us also look at the actual record.

As far as the record goes, I think you have three general categories, in order of importance: 1) Slam titles, 2) rankings, 3) everything else (titles, Slam results that aren't wins, h2hs, win %, etc). You start with Slam titles, adjust for rankings, and then further adjust for everything else. Now how you weigh those factors is even more subjective, but I think that gives a good starting point.

But the biggest mistake people make is starting and ending with Slam count. Start with it, but don't end there - otherwise Wilander is better than Edberg and Becker, and Thomas Johansson is better than Marcelo Rios. This is even more important before the Open Era, when the best players spent their prime years on the pro tour, which left us with some pretty wacky amateur Slam counts. See "Emerson, Roy." I think the closest comp to a Roy Emerson today would be imagining if the Big Four and maybe half of the twenty or so best players of the last decade played on a separate tour, and David Ferrer was left to rule the roost. Maybe we can be kind to Emerson and compare him to Andy Murray...but that's the point: relative to his peers, he was somewhere between Ferrer and Murray, certainly not as good as Laver, Rosewall, even an aging Gonzales.

I also like your point about diminishing returns, which is why I have said that if Rafa wants to claim the GOAT crown then he probably has to win at least another Slam or two that aren't RG. If he wins four more RGs and Roger doesn't win any more Slams, then I'd still give Roger the edge in terms of Slam resume.

In the end, I think there's always going to be debate. Maybe if tennis catches up with baseball in terms of analytics we'll be able to better answer these questions, but even then you'll have disagreement, if only between the traditionalists and the stat-nerds. I wrote a blog article a year or two ago--can't remember if I actually published it--which was titled the "Herd of GOATs." The basic premise was that there are 8-10ish players in tennis history who all have some degree of GOAT credibility, each with pros and cons. Might as well honor them all, then argue the details later on. The Herd includes Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic. Now it is easy to say that Laver was better than Rosewall, so why is Rosewall there? Or Borg's short career, or Novak being slightly below Rafa, etc. But the point is, all nine players have some aspect of "GOATness." Even Rosewall's great longevity and highest major count (pro, amateur, Open). Or the mystique of Borg and the "What if" question (this is what separates him from McEnroe more than the +4 SLams, imo, which are largely offset by Mac's other accomplishments...we don't have the same degree of What If with Mac, except "What if he hadn't marriaged Tatum O'Neal and become a party animal, and also adapted to modern tennis?" We saw Mac's second half and it wasn't so pretty, while we never saw Borg's).

Anyhow, that's enough for now.

 

[Moxie]

A lot of good stuff, @brokenshoelace. Thanks for the thread. I especially respond to your point that using only Majors as the final assessment discounts the richer conversation. And, as you say, not just because I'm a Nadal fan. I think this conversation vis-a-vis tennis has evolved, at least for me, in particular because of where Roger...and yes, Nadal...is, this many years later. They've both gone beyond expectations, even if we expected a lot. I used to always say you can't really compare across eras. While that remains true, I think that anyone with eyes can see that there has never been a tennis player like Roger Federer. We can talk about what it might take for Nadal or Djokovic to disrupt that, but I don't think it's reachable in their careers. For the sake of the exercise, I would say that IF Nadal were to win another AO (for the double-career Slam,) pass Roger by 2 Majors, with some spread beyond RG, get at least 1 WTF, and stretch the H2H v. Roger, then the debate would be on. But I'll be honest: while I do think that there are clearly 3 all-time greats playing in this era (which is a different thing...the "era,") I mostly push the co-GOAT thing to tweek @DarthFed and @Federberg, and keep them honest about inconsistencies. That's just the fun of battling on the forum.

@britbox : I don't agree that, should Rafa pass Roger by a Major, the media would crown him the GOAT. There's a lot of stupid and facile out there, in the commies, but I think it would just keep the debate alive.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I hate any formulae that people use to determine GOATness. A typical formulae would be like, for example, let us add GS and 60% of WTF titles, 40% of Masters titles etc. People often keep debating over the details of whether one should use 60% or 50% etc. I am of the opinion, that you cannot combine these things in any sensible fashion and get a single numeric score and then use it to say someone is a GOAT.

This does not mean that I think other items are not important. Only thing that I am saying is that we should resist the urge to reduce players accomplishments into a single number by a formula and instead consider their resume holistically.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think a major part in determining who a better player is (which I understand may not exactly be the same as who the "GREATER" player is), is looking at how they perform at their peaks. To me, that's why Messi is the best football (soccer) player ever (he played at a higher level over 4 seasons between 2009-2012 than anyone did in history), that's why Jordan is the best basketball player ever despite not winning the most rings, and why Federer is the best tennis player ever.

This is exactly the approach taken by the author of the article on "Most Dominant Player". I have created a thread with that title with a
link to the article. I will bump that up in case anyone wants to refresh their memory about their methodology.

However, their methodology has the drawback of not considering anything other than performance in GS events.

 

[Moxie]

I hate any formulae that people use to determine GOATness. A typical formulae would be like, for example, let us add GS and 60% of WTF titles, 40% of Masters titles etc. People often keep debating over the details of whether one should use 60% or 50% etc. I am of the opinion, that you cannot combine these things in any sensible fashion and get a single numeric score and then use it to say someone is a GOAT.

This does not mean that I think other items are not important. Only thing that I am saying is that we should resist the urge to reduce players accomplishments into a single number by a formula and instead consider their resume holistically.

I agree with you on this. El Dude said something about "tennis catching up to baseball on analytics...." I don't like that, either. The argument should stay within the eye-ball test, the subjective, the prose-discussion. It suits the game. And otherwise, how would we have Borg in El Dude's "Herd of Greats," as he basically said. OK, 11 Majors is a lot, but he includes the romantic "what-if's" that waft around his career.

Plus, we'd have to stop arguing and THAT wouldn't be any fun.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree with you on this. El Dude said something about "tennis catching up to baseball on analytics...." I don't like that, either. The argument should stay within the eye-ball test, the subjective, the prose-discussion. It suits the game. And otherwise, how would we have Borg in El Dude's "Herd of Greats," as he basically said. OK, 11 Majors is a lot, but he includes the romantic "what-if's" that waft around his career.

Plus, we'd have to stop arguing and THAT wouldn't be any fun.

No, you mistook my position. All that I am saying is that all the data should not be combined in some fashion into a single number and then that number used to determine GOATness. I am not saying we should throw away all the data. We should consider them holistically.

Eyeball test is also important and that should be another component in the data set and not exclusive item either.

 

[Moxie]

No, you mistook my position. All that I am saying is that all the data should not be combined in some fashion into a single number and then that number used to determine GOATness. I am not saying we should throw away all the data. We should consider them holistically.

Eyeball test is also important and that should be another component in the data set and not exclusive item either.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that other tournaments can't be reliably turned into quantifiable numbers. But I wasn't saying we should throw them away, either. I'm saying that there is a prose version, within the numbers. I thought that's what you were saying, too. I don't mean to throw out stats completely. This is sports, after all.

 

[mrzz]

Not bad for a Maradona troll.

 

[El Dude]

I really like and agree with your point, @GameSetAndMath. I think the problem with the singular number is that it always ends up over-emphasizing longevity and accumulative stats, so players like Connors and Lendl end up being overrated. Both of those players--while great in their own right--have a lot of title padding in their resumes. Take, for example, Ultimate Tennis Statistics GOAT metric. There's just something wrong about Sampras being behind Lendl and Connors.

 

[Horsa]

In the thread about the Monte Carlo Masters, things unexpectedly and uncharacteristically turned into a Fedal conversation, which usually never ever happens...

A set of very interesting questions were asked by @El Dude that I'd like to have everyone's opinion on:



This to me, was very relevant because it's an issue I've been thinking a lot about lately and not just in tennis. The issue of GOAT has really become a very topical thing nowadays in sport, especially in the age of reactionary media, twitter, social-media in general, etc...

No doubt, if you watch Basketball, you've heard of Jordan/Lebron debate, if you watch soccer, you've heard of Messi/Ronaldo and Pele/Maradona (unless you're @mrzz then you've only heard of Pele).

What's more unique about tennis than most other sports, is that fairly or unfairly, it seems like everyone has set a very clear quantifiable, tangible, which ultimately determines the GOAT: The number of major wins.

I understand why. It's easy. It makes things less open to interpretation, more "objective," less gray, etc...

But does this reflect reality? And if so, what happens if two people are tied in number of majors? Do we go to tie-breakers and look at other accomplishments? Does Rafa equaling Roger's major tally make him a Co-GOAT?

I think I'll sit this 1 out if that's o.k. The reasons for this are:

1. I don't often get a chance to watch as Dad hogs the T.V. remote so we watch what he wants unless he's out or rather I read, type, paint or sew instead. I got a chance to watch in the 90's when I wasn't playing, reading, doing choir practice or homework & I get the chance to watch games where British players are playing & that's it so I haven't really had chance to see Nadal & Federer in action.
2. You haven't left your questions open to generalisation.
3. You haven't left your questions open for me to turn words around so I can use word-play to have a laugh & some fun.
4. My circumstances make your questions too hard for me to answer. In fact your questions would be easier if you wrote them in French or Spanish so I could translate them into English.

 

[mrzz]

But it's a game of inches on the micro level, ie who wins a point or a match...not who's the better player between two players who've won a combined 40 majors (which would be the case in case Rafa ties Roger or surpasses him).

The OP and the post from where this excerpt is from are pretty reasonable and well thought. This part, though, is particularly well spot. This, combined with other arguments made before -- for example, that there are 245 different variables all playing their part -- shows that not only we need to take our own conclusions with a grain of salt, sometimes we need to look at results with a grain of salt.

For example, let's say a guy won a match 8-6 in a tie-breaker in the third. People in general analyze the entire match and say, "oh, he won because his forehand this, his movement that, etc etc". Hell, all this was true when both guys were tied at 6-6 in the tie-breaker, so what actually decided the match was how they played those two last points. Sometimes the whole history of the match has a bearing on this, sometimes it is just who is fitter, who is cooler, or who is luckier. What we know for sure is that no one had an enough margin to win sooner.

What if for some reason there were just clay courts in tennis? Or just hard courts? Or if someone decided that they would make the net one inch shorter? We all know how those small details could impact results, so -- just to agree with everyone else on this -- the numbers do not tell the whole story (and I am a physicist...).

Regarding specifically Fedal, I agree with @Moxie that history unfolded in a way that tied them up. Even if you call one of them GOAT, in the next phrase you will mention the other. On the other hand, I understand (and agree) with Broken's argument that Federer is the GOAT -- basically because my eye-test tells me exactly this. But GOATness is on the eye of the beholder... if I would favor just a bit more some things instead of others, maybe I could end up thinking Nadal is the GOAT -- but, yes, I do believe that the would need a little better resume outside clay to really have his foot in this conversation. Obviously he doesn't have a bad one, just not a GOAT one.

Anyway, both of them have shown one thing that no one else could, which is the ability to stay on top -- and I mean the very top -- for such a long stretch. I already know that Federer has the greatest time span between two major wins, and probably Nadal is not far behind. But let's see another stat, the interval between years were the player won TWO majors (so he has some dominance). Sampras is one of the best on this, for example, and had four years (93 to 97). Agassi only won two majors in the same year once. Borg has two years (78 to 80), Mac has three (81 to 84). Even Laver has "only" seven (62 to 69).

Now Nadal has 9 (2008 to 2017) and Federer an absurd thirteen (2004 to 2017). Even without 2017 Federer and Nadal would only be behind Laver with 5 years each, and tied with Djokovic, by the way. So this is one way to see things that puts them completely on their own.

Ugh, in the end I just dug out some more numbers... but at least I got some different ones.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The OP and the post from where this excerpt is from are pretty reasonable and well thought. This part, though, is particularly well spot. This, combined with other arguments made before -- for example, that there are 245 different variables all playing their part -- shows that not only we need to take our own conclusions with a grain of salt, sometimes we need to look at results with a grain of salt.

For example, let's say a guy won a match 8-6 in a tie-breaker in the third. People in general analyze the entire match and say, "oh, he won because his forehand this, his movement that, etc etc". Hell, all this was true when both guys were tied at 6-6 in the tie-breaker, so what actually decided the match was how they played those two last points. Sometimes the whole history of the match has a bearing on this, sometimes it is just who is fitter, who is cooler, or who is luckier. What we know for sure is that no one had an enough margin to win sooner.

What if for some reason there were just clay courts in tennis? Or just hard courts? Or if someone decided that they would make the net one inch shorter? We all know how those small details could impact results, so -- just to agree with everyone else on this -- the numbers do not tell the whole story (and I am a physicist...).

Regarding specifically Fedal, I agree with @Moxie that history unfolded in a way that tied them up. Even if you call one of them GOAT, in the next phrase you will mention the other. On the other hand, I understand (and agree) with Broken's argument that Federer is the GOAT -- basically because my eye-test tells me exactly this. But GOATness is on the eye of the beholder... if I would favor just a bit more some things instead of others, maybe I could end up thinking Nadal is the GOAT -- but, yes, I do believe that the would need a little better resume outside clay to really have his foot in this conversation. Obviously he doesn't have a bad one, just not a GOAT one.

Anyway, both of them have shown one thing that no one else could, which is the ability to stay on top -- and I mean the very top -- for such a long stretch. I already know that Federer has the greatest time span between two major wins, and probably Nadal is not far behind. But let's see another stat, the interval between years were the player won TWO majors (so he has some dominance). Sampras is one of the best on this, for example, and had four years (93 to 97). Agassi only won two majors in the same year once. Borg has two years (78 to 80), Mac has three (81 to 84). Even Laver has "only" seven (62 to 69).

Now Nadal has 9 (2008 to 2017) and Federer an absurd thirteen (2004 to 2017). Even without 2017 Federer and Nadal would only be behind Laver with 5 years each, and tied with Djokovic, by the way. So this is one way to see things that puts them completely on their own.

Ugh, in the end I just dug out some more numbers... but at least I got some different ones.

Not bad for a Pele troll.

 

[brokenshoelace]

For example, let's say a guy won a match 8-6 in a tie-breaker in the third. People in general analyze the entire match and say, "oh, he won because his forehand this, his movement that, etc etc". Hell, all this was true when both guys were tied at 6-6 in the tie-breaker, so what actually decided the match was how they played those two last points. Sometimes the whole history of the match has a bearing on this, sometimes it is just who is fitter, who is cooler, or who is luckier. What we know for sure is that no one had an enough margin to win sooner.

In all seriousness, this is a very, very good point.

 

[mrzz]

Not bad for a Pele troll.

With honor, sir.

By the way it is Pelé. The ´ diacritic, the acute accent, makes you pronounce it very openly, like the e in "egg". So, repeat, "Pelé, the king of football".

 

[Horsa]

The OP and the post from where this excerpt is from are pretty reasonable and well thought. This part, though, is particularly well spot. This, combined with other arguments made before -- for example, that there are 245 different variables all playing their part -- shows that not only we need to take our own conclusions with a grain of salt, sometimes we need to look at results with a grain of salt.

For example, let's say a guy won a match 8-6 in a tie-breaker in the third. People in general analyze the entire match and say, "oh, he won because his forehand this, his movement that, etc etc". Hell, all this was true when both guys were tied at 6-6 in the tie-breaker, so what actually decided the match was how they played those two last points. Sometimes the whole history of the match has a bearing on this, sometimes it is just who is fitter, who is cooler, or who is luckier. What we know for sure is that no one had an enough margin to win sooner.

What if for some reason there were just clay courts in tennis? Or just hard courts? Or if someone decided that they would make the net one inch shorter? We all know how those small details could impact results, so -- just to agree with everyone else on this -- the numbers do not tell the whole story (and I am a physicist...).

Regarding specifically Fedal, I agree with @Moxie that history unfolded in a way that tied them up. Even if you call one of them GOAT, in the next phrase you will mention the other. On the other hand, I understand (and agree) with Broken's argument that Federer is the GOAT -- basically because my eye-test tells me exactly this. But GOATness is on the eye of the beholder... if I would favor just a bit more some things instead of others, maybe I could end up thinking Nadal is the GOAT -- but, yes, I do believe that the would need a little better resume outside clay to really have his foot in this conversation. Obviously he doesn't have a bad one, just not a GOAT one.

Anyway, both of them have shown one thing that no one else could, which is the ability to stay on top -- and I mean the very top -- for such a long stretch. I already know that Federer has the greatest time span between two major wins, and probably Nadal is not far behind. But let's see another stat, the interval between years were the player won TWO majors (so he has some dominance). Sampras is one of the best on this, for example, and had four years (93 to 97). Agassi only won two majors in the same year once. Borg has two years (78 to 80), Mac has three (81 to 84). Even Laver has "only" seven (62 to 69).

Now Nadal has 9 (2008 to 2017) and Federer an absurd thirteen (2004 to 2017). Even without 2017 Federer and Nadal would only be behind Laver with 5 years each, and tied with Djokovic, by the way. So this is one way to see things that puts them completely on their own.

Ugh, in the end I just dug out some more numbers... but at least I got some different ones.

I am now going to give you my opinion on your piece here, if you don't mind. I think it's very well-written. It's when you write as good as this that you make me forget that your Mother-tongue isn't a variation of English, i.e. American, Australian, British or Canadian English then sometimes I get carried away with myself. I think you're English is very good & I'm the type of person who mentally proof-reads everything I read & corrects spelling mistakes & typos even when I'm reading normal books. I read normal books not only getting from it what I can & enjoying the story/poem or whatever but also mentally proof-reading it. If books have a lot of spelling mistakes or typographical errors I end up thinking to myself I thought this was supposed to have been proof-read, I could do a better job myself. I'm not pretending to be Little Miss Perfect. My use of paragraphs can be inconsistent at times & I can be a little inarticulate & misunderstood when I'm flustered or have 3 different ways of saying the same thing floating about in my head at the same time at once & I start by saying what I have to say 1 way then forget how I was going to say it as 1 of the other ways of saying it pops in my head so I end up saying what I had to say in a mixture of all 3 ways. Lol. I agree with what you're saying technically because it makes sense as you're asking what makes someone the best & in what way does this make them the best, is that true, are there any better ways of determining who the best are or will it always be a matter of opinion, are these tests to find out the best fair & fool-proof, etc. though when it comes to specific players I've no idea & I like your questioning stance. I guess if I wanted to be pedantic I could say a goat is a member of the caprine family of animals. Lol.

 

[mrzz]

I am now going to give you my opinion on your piece here, if you don't mind. I think it's very well-written. It's when you write as good as this that you make me forget that your Mother-tongue isn't a variation of English, i.e. American, Australian, British or Canadian English then sometimes I get carried away with myself. I think you're English is very good & I'm the type of person who mentally proof-reads everything I read & corrects spelling mistakes & typos even when I'm reading normal books. I read normal books not only getting from it what I can & enjoying the story/poem or whatever but also mentally proof-reading it. If books have a lot of spelling mistakes or typographical errors I end up thinking to myself I thought this was supposed to have been proof-read, I could do a better job myself. I'm not pretending to be Little Miss Perfect. My use of paragraphs can be inconsistent at times & I can be a little inarticulate & misunderstood when I'm flustered or have 3 different ways of saying the same thing floating about in my head at the same time at once & I start by saying what I have to say 1 way then forget how I was going to say it as 1 of the other ways of saying it pops in my head so I end up saying what I had to say in a mixture of all 3 ways. Lol. I agree with what you're saying technically because it makes sense as you're asking what makes someone the best & in what way does this make them the best, is that true, are there any better ways of determining who the best are or will it always be a matter of opinion, are these tests to find out the best fair & fool-proof, etc. though when it comes to specific players I've no idea & I like your questioning stance. I guess if I wanted to be pedantic I could say a goat is a member of the caprine family of animals. Lol.

Thanks for the nice words, EquineAnn. Anyway I basically went along the lines of the OP. And yes, it goes down to a matter of opinion, but there are results out there for one to be based on... but people can always chose what they give more emphasis too, as posters were discussing above. So they eye-test is on one hand should be the ultimate criteria -- but, again, if the "eyes" are not trained... we get nowhere.