In the early 1990s, a prime Steffi Graf had to rough it out with Monica Seles. Had it not been for the stabbing incident, Seles would have gone on to dominate the sport as her game was still evolving back then and she was entering her prime years.
A little more than a decade later we saw a similar rivalry taking shape – this time between two men, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.
Pete Sampras barely retired after winning his the US Open in 2002 when there was a talk of this wonder – Roger Federer, who the pandits declared as the best in the history of the game.
What more could you say with the kind of elegance he brought into the game, especially considering Sampras and his contemporaries were boring.
It was all about who hit the hardest serve. But here was a different type of player; a throwback to the ages whose endless range of shots was simply mind-blowing.
Opponent after opponent were blown away, and it wasn’t that the opposition was in any way inferior. Federer’s other worldly talent left players like Roddick, Hewitt and Safin mesmerised.
These players in any other era would have won more slams. It just looked like Federer would go on winning many more and dominate for years.
However, this was to be short-lived. The mid 2000s saw the emergence of a muscular man, wearing clam digger pants and sleeveless shirts, his long hair tied by a bandana.
Rafael Nadal was an accomplished clay-courter, but clay was not where Federer and Nadal met for the first time. It was the hard courts of America back in 2004, when few had even even heard of Nadal.
Yet he beat the numero uno in straight sets, displaying great attacking skills. The final score was 6-3, 6-3 in favour of Nadal. The pair would meet again the next year and again Federer found the going tough winning from two sets down, the only time he did so against Nadal, winning 2-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1.
The seeds of doubt had been planted. Federer would never again have it easy. The writing was clear. The rival had come at last, and what a rival he would shape out to be.
Beginning with clay courts, he improved upon his skills and closed in on the grass in London. These two would face each other in six finals over three years at the French Open and Wimbledon.
Federer could never beat him at the French, going from bad to worse in his three finals there in losing 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6 (2006), 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 (2007), and 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 (2008).
Nadal was initially worsted at the lawns of Wimbledon in 2006 (Federer winning 6-0,7-6,6-7,6-3), then narrowed the gap in the subsequent encounter (Federer again won 7-6,4-6,7-6,2-6,6-2) before finally taking over as the champion in what was the greatest of finals in the year 2008. The final score was 6-4,6-4,6-7,6-7,9-7 in favour of Nadal.
The mantle had passed and it was reaffirmed a few months later at the 2009 Australian Open. Nadal was the victor once again in five sets, and this after a long and exhausting semi-final encounter encounter with Verdasco. A well-rested Federer was beaten 7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2 in the final, leaving him shattered and in tears.
Nadal’s absence for the rest of the year would help Federer regain the No.1 spot, with victories including his lone French Open (over Robin Soderling, the only player to beat Nadal at the French) and another Wimbledon title, where he won a classic final encounter with Andy Roddick by a wafer-thin margin of 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14.
In the early 1990s, Steffi Graf had it easy. Her deadly rival was gone and she could bulldoze her way to more Grand Slams and trophies against an ageing Martina Navratilova, a washed out Gabriela Sabatini, a not so confident Jana Novotna, and Arantxa Sanchez.
The tears that flowed from Federer’s eyes would have been the same for Graf had Seles not been stabbed.
Federer, however, had to face stiffer opposition to add to his tally. In the latter half of his career he’s had to contend not only with Nadal, but also with Novak Djokovic, Andrew Murray and Juan Martin Del Potro, other champions of repute.
Federer has done a commendable job to increase his tally of slams to 17 (the highest in the world as of now), winning everything in the process.
Pete Sampras never came close to wresting the trophy on the red clay, let alone winning it. He never even reached the final in Paris, with his best finish a straight sets semi-final defeat to Yevgeny Kafelnikov.
The main rival to Sampras throughout his career was an inconsistent Andre Agassi, who was often clueless against him at the faster courts in Wimbledon and the US Open.
Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and Ivan Lendl were finished, while Jim Courier was burnt out by 1993 – the year Sampras began his dominance.
Others like Goran Ivanisevic, Patrick Rafter, Michael Stich and Richard Krajicek were far too inconsistent to challenge Sampras on a regular basis.
It is sadly on the records that Nadal has Federer’s number and has got the better of him on most occasions, including the most crucial encounters.
Still, greatness cannot be measured just by the fact of the wins in head-to-head encounters. Even Nadal himself has dismissed the talks of him being greater than Federer, arguing that people who say so don’t know tennis.
Federer’s greatness also lies in the fact that he never walked away from the game, like Bjorn Borg did when faced by the genius John McEnroe. Instead, he kept on fighting and continued honing his skills.
Greatest or not, there is no denying the fact that in terms of consistency, shot making, talent and the simple creativity of shot selection, we see a craftsman creating a piece of art when we watch Federer play his matches.
The skill set that he has brought to the game of tennis is what makes him great. Whether he’s the greatest or not is up to the viewer. The debate can go on.
Dumbbell matt
Guest
Ummm, Excuse me but Borg won 6 french opens in the open era. Get your facts straight.....Borg is 2nd to Nadal.
john
Guest
Or we can decide GOAT another way: make a list of what one has to achieve to be considered the GOAT. Here would be my list: 1. Total grand slams. 2. Total weeks @ number 1. 3. Total Master series titles. 4. World Tour finals titles. 5. Head to head over peers. 6. Consistency in slams over years. 7. Variety of game/shot selection 8. Favorite of the fans 9. Total number of records held. 10. Success on different surfaces. Nadal only has 2 of 10 in my list. Is it possible to make a list of 5 or more categories where Nadal holds the edge over Federer? It just goes to show that those who consider Nadal the GOAT are not very realistic about this debate. They prefer or love Nadal and/or hate Federer and no one is going to convince them that Nadal is not the GOAT, all evidence to the contrary.
john
Guest
GOAT is synonymous with FOAT (favorite of all time). Who do the fans and the majority of tennis professionals consider the FOAT? Folks, its not even close.
Dumbbell Matt
Guest
Funny how head 2 head matchups don't count in tennis but in every other sport they do......Only Federer biased fans believe this. I used to believe Federer was the best of all time too but facts are facts, Nadal is closing the gap slowly. He already is the best player of all time on clay. He has reached the finals of Wimbledon on grass 5 times with 2 victories and one over Federer.....So Nadal is pretty darn good on the green stuff too. Nadal has also reached the final of the U.S open 3 times with two victories. Won an Australian open title over Federer. He has an Olympic gold medal. Davis cup victories.....Federer has none. Nadal has the master series 1000 record titles on both hard, indoor and clay surfaces. Nadal's only bad marks come on the indoor surfaces late in the season where Federer's is supreme. They did play the final in London a couple years ago and again Federer had to struggle to win in 3 sets over Nadal. he did win but just barely. Overall if I had to bet my life on who would win a tennis match between Nadal and Federer.....I would bet on Nadal every time. In my opinion, while Federer may have the most variety and elegance of any player Nadal is the more solid tennis player from top to bottom of any player starting from heavy ground strokes, movement, return of serve, and volley skills....Yes IMO Nadal is even a better volleyer than Federer along with a better over head. It's hard for people to wrap their heads around a clay courter who has such awesome ground strokes also having the best volleying skills,.....But in Nadal we do. Look at some of Nadal's matches, when is the last time you saw Nadal make an error on a volley. It rarely ever happens, but in Federer's case he makes more errors at net. So in the end, I believe history will record Rafael Nadal as the greatest player of all time as he slowly whittles away at the Federer numbers. Tick Tock.
gurusenth
Guest
it is not nadal's or Djokovic fault.both these players are great players they would have adapted and developed their games according to the courts and conditions. the only thing which matters the most is the final result ( wining). though federer is great player , he never tries to modify or develop his game according to current conditions. age is not a matter at all. though nadal was a clay court specialist he developed his game throughout his carrier to win in all surfaces. if courts are really slow than many spanish , french, south american players would have won multiple slams.(post 2000). it is because of rise of players like nadal,Djokovic,murray,delpotro tennis looks competetive. (die hard federer fans could not digest their hero's downfall).i am not a big fan of nadal or tennis , but the arrival of nadal made me to watch tennis, it was really boring before that. I WILL REALLY CONSIDER FEDERER THE G.O.A.T IF HE WIN ANOTHER 2 OR 3 SLAMS DEFEATING NOVAK,NADAL OR MURRAY ON THEIR FAVOURITE SURFACE. NADAL IS ALSO NOT GOAT.
Harris Muhammed
Guest
It's amazing to see how many of the Nadal fans are just plain bullies while Nadal himself remains a symbol of humility. And these pseudo-fans thriving on the macho-nonsense seem to be clinging on to the myth that numbers mean everything. For once try to be more interested in the 'WHY' than the 'WHAT'. Faster courts suit big servers and hard-hitters while slower courts favour players with endurance, stamina and athleticism because the court neutralizes ball-speed. Many years earlier Nadal would've been limited as a Clay court specialist simply because he wouldn't get opportunities for longer rallies on the fast hard and grass courts. Sure Nadal has become a great volleyer over the course of his career but his serve simply doesn't have the firepower to make serve-and-volley work. And thus Nadal unlike Federer is not a candidate for GOAT because the GOAT should be able to perform in all conditions especially in conditions out of his comfort zone. Nadal couldn't make it past 3rd round in Wimbledon when the courts were fast till 2006. And his pre-2006 results were so very below par at the US and Australian open too. Conclusion is that Nadal became the all-court phenomenon he is now because of slower courts and the beautiful thing about this whole scenario is that we got to watch the most remarkable of rallies and some of the best tennis in history.
hobbs
Guest
humph....erhhhh.... its a known fact that the courts are slower than yesteryears...
gurusenth
Guest
Nadal wouldn’t have won any slams other than French had all the grand slam courts not been slowed down ! another rubbish statement. all excuses. it is nadal who makes the court look slow.
Harris Muhammed
Guest
Nadal wouldn't have won any slams other than French had all the grand slam courts not been slowed down !
Harris Muhammed
Guest
Tennis courts varied greatly in speed and bounce before the mid 2000s. No.1 players of the 60s and later decades had the biggest of challenges to face court-specialist players in grand slams. Adapting quickly to different courts and thus becoming an all court player was a tough job and winning a calender year slam, a Herculean task. So Rod Laver's feat of completing a double calender year slam belongs right up there with Nadal's eight French open titles, Federer and Sampras' seven Wimbledon titles and Borg's five consecutive wins at Wimbledon following victories at Roland Garros. All the gland slam courts have been slowed down since the mid 2000s to encourage longer rallies and engage audiences. Wimbledon which used to be have the fastest courts in the world is now similar to the clay court of Roland Garros. Courts have been slowed down at the other Grand Slams too. The surfaces apparently evoke more bounce now, making it easier for players like Djokovic and Nadal to keep balls in play through their immaculate defence. All the four gland slam courts now have relatively slower speeds, rendering tennis homogeneous. The current condtion of the courts is favourable to defensive baseliners endowed with power and stamina. This situation in modern day tennis is a little biased and similar to the pre modern era when three of the slams were played on extremely fast grass courts. I say tennis is biased since the mid 2000s because what we've witnessed since then is defensive play and unmatched athleticism dominating over the accuracy and speed of the serve and winners because the surfaces are slow. I'm not saying either is a superior quality, I'm just saying that players like Andy Roddick, John Isner and now Jerzy Janowicz would have had much more success had the courts been surfaced in a balanced fashion. All these facts when put into perspective gives a clearer picture of Roger Federer's greatness because he is the only player to have won multiple grand slams in both eras conquering fast, slow and medium paced courts. Now a few words about the Federer-Nadal rivalry and proof that numbers don't always give the correct picture: Nadal leads their head-to-head tally simply because 15 of their 32 meetings have been on slow clay courts where Nadal is the undisputed king. They met consistently on French open semi finals and finals because Federer was able to get out of his comfort zone and play his best to reach the final rounds. Why did they not meet enough on the fast Wimbledon courts (Pre 2007)? Because Nadal simply couldn't perform well outside of his comfort zone to reach the later rounds and thus meet Federer. Fortunately for Nadal he never had to get out of his comfort zone again, thanks to the ATP's decision to slow down all the grand slam courts, which of course has been a good move for the overall popularity of tennis but it's not a coincidence that the likes of Nadal and Djokovic have dominated Men's tennis ever since.
Mahesh S
Guest
@ Frankie - That's a perverted analysis. You don't have to be a Federer fan, but your criticism of Federer is not only unfair but sounds like deep hatred. Any nameless person, I would show respect to him and his talent who could reach five finals in slam (on any surface). That's an exotic achievement, man. You have to play seven rounds of five setters in two weeks to win a slam. So, according to you reaching a final is no big deal. Winning the final is commendable and losing the final is shameful. (Will you stop talking to your son if he comes second in his class?). And yet you rally behind someone who consistently drops off at first round and second rounds at Wimbledon in consecutive years! Fabulous mate! I wish you could change your attitude. I have no interest in furthering this debate with someone like this.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
So by beating a 19 year old Del Potro, who wasn't a major winner at 2009 French Open and Haas who's never really reached the levels his talent deserved, even from 2 sets to 1 down mean Federer achieved the holy grail? Not on your life. Federer had 5 attempts be challenge Nadal at the French Open. Every time he wasn't a threat. The year Nadal comes in unfit and gets taken out by a one in a lifetime performance by Soderling. Federer's French Open was a fluke nothing. Getting to 5 finals means nothing. Had he drawn Nadal in earlier, he'd have reached only the 2009 final. Sums it up.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Laver played when 3 majors where played on grass. In modern tennis all the majors are different surfaces.
R
Guest
Did Steffi and Seles play in us open in 91/92? Seles didn't beat Steffi on grass or fast courts. Then how can you say that Steffi can't win other than wimbledon? Off the courts, they have respect each other, but some other tried to create false stories, but they didn't lose that.
R
Guest
I think you blindly believe what Seles wrote in her book. Even some Seles fans commented it was modified by a business writer and actually she never talk agaist Steffi before. OK! consider this info. About their rivalry: Steffi leads 6-4 before stabbing. 3-1 in 91/92. Yes, she lost to Seles in 93 ao, yo may think same would repeat in fo(in fact, we can't say she lost at close in 92), and you agreed to give winmbledon to Graf, but how we can say about us open. Because Seles never met Graf in us open before. Even if you don't agree that Graf gain her form to beat Seles, Seles even suffers from eating disorder problems and she was not natural player, She can't play without grunting, two hand backhand. I too think if stabbing not happened how great we would have seen many more great matches between them. When you look after 93 ao, Seles lost 2 matches and didn't participate like before years. She was stabbed in Hamburg and Steffi was the champion for 6 years and ready to win 7th time. But because of stabbing Steffi played the final just for name. If you have any doubt, read newspapers. Reporters clearly mentioned Steffi played for name, even Arantxa(the winner of that tournamnet) said she was mentally strong than Steffi. And remember Italian Open in Seles's shedule and she lost to Sabatini in 91 and 92. If stabbing not happened, and Steffi won Hamburg title as last 6 years. And Seles lost in Italian Open as last 2 years(Graf didn't play Italian Open since 1987 to 96), Steffi could have become No. 1 even before french open. But because of stabbing, she had to wait until french open ending. Believe it or not. It was true, but Steffi didn't say herself as many others. About Rank Freeze Voting: The voting for freezing Seles rank was conducted in Rome(Italian Open). Steffi didn't participate in Rome after 1987 to until 1996.Then how she can vote? Only 17 out of 25 top players were asked whether freeze the rank or not. Except Sabatini, all other voted against to freeze. But here, no Graf in the voting. Believe it or not, the freezing option applied just because everybody believed Seles backs after french open. But Seles didn't back even she recovred completely. If wta knew Seles won't come even after the year, asking for freezing was a joke. If you still think it was also right, then what if Seles never back again even in 95? May be she's still on Rank No. 1 today if you say yes. Again I said there was no Graf's involvement in that matter. Interestingly, Martina voted agianst in voting, but acted differently after her retiremnet in 94. Just think? About the endorsement: Can you name it please, what was that endorsement? Steffi and Monica earned $6 million each in 1991(only endorsements), Steffi earned more than Seles in 1992(Steffi $6.2million, Monica $6million), even she was No. 2 in rankings. Here you can understand stars(not only Graf, Seles too) do treat as top without taking No.1 or 2. Sponsors need people attention, I doubt any sponsor thought Seles stabbing changed their mind to ask another player to sign instead who first they wished to. I think that endorsement story was not a true story. Steffi rejected so many endorsements some of they were not good to promote and some were able to reduce her tennis time. Another clear example is why Steffi didn't sign IMG sponsorship if you think Steffi was like that kind? Even the IMG official said that Steffi's income became 4/5 times more if she agreed to sign with IMG. But Steffi never signed. BTW, Seles was IMG client. IMG always backs their clients and throws wrong ideas on non-clients. Interesting even if she rejected IMG, she was highest paid athlete in 92(when don't count tennis prize money). If Seles statement was true about the sponsorship deal, she should have agree to sign IMG, because it said to pay 4 times more. If stabbing wasn't happen, Steffi's count 19/20 while Seles's 14/15. In fact, nobody knows.
hobbs
Guest
H2H or not, Federer is simply more talented than everyone including Nadal. Full-stop! That alone makes him the GOAT...its not just the records...its the play.
Peter
Guest
your IQ is way below my 135, probably lower than 80 i guess. its simple maths that just couldnt be understood.
Peter
Guest
yeah those slam wins (except the ferrer one which he beat djokovic on the way) are worth less because he beat easier competition. the wins dont really show his true ability. you cant gauge how good a player is by his wins over subpar opponents. you can only compare the greatest players by how often they beat the other greatest players. to me slams are only worth as much as whom the player beat on the way to winning it. every slam are not the same.
Peter
Guest
laver wasnt allowed to play slams for 6 years during his prime. he played in professional majors and won 8 out of 16 of these. if he were allowed to play slams then probably he would have won another 12 out of 24 slams, giving him a total of 23 slams. regardless, his calendar slam shows true dominance over his competition that nobody else has equaled in the past 5 decades.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Some fluke. He had to come from two sets down against Haas and then Del Potro took him to five sets in the semis. That was one of Federer's toughest Grand Slam wins. Nadal and Djokovic have never had the pressure of expectation that Federer faced in that tournament. Federer is (or was) an excellent clay court player. To dismiss him as the best of the rest or that five RG finals mean nothing is shallow.