Legendary allrounder Kapil Dev maintains that there is no such thing as the “greatest of all time” (GOAT). He says one can always be best of a generation and it is not fair to compare across generations.
However, whatever Kapil says, there will always be such debates as these are an integral part of sport.
In tennis, Roger Federer is popularly regarded as the GOAT but there remains one major question mark on such claim – his record against Rafael Nadal.
Federer has an enviable record versus most players. However versus Rafa, the stats are clearly in the Spaniard’s favour.
23-12 record in Rafa’s favour
6-3 Grand Slam final record.
9-3 overall in Grand Slams
Let us look at how their career has progressed. Since the two maestros have played 35 matches, let us break it into five sets of seven matches each.
Set 1. 2004-06
Nadal won six of the first seven matches they played. This was unprecedented as Rafa was a 17-year-old ranked 34 in the world while Federer was already world Number 1. This set of seven includes two Grand Slam matches, both on French Open clay and won by Nadal.
Set 2 2006-2007
Federer won five and Rafa two. This included both Wimbledon finals (won by Federer) and the French Open final, won inevitably by Rafa. The head to head now was 8-6 in Rafa’s favour which was still respectable.
However after this Rafa would simply keep on increasing it. This too was the last Grand Slam win for Federer versus Rafa for the next ten years
Set 3 2008-2010
Rafa won six of this set. He won all four matches they played in 2008 including Wimbledon for the first time in what many call as one of the best matches of all time. Rafa broke Federer’s 65-match winning streak on grass.
2008 also saw one of the most one-sided Grand Slam Finals in the French Open with Federer winning just four games in three sets. The 2009 Australian Open win of Rafa in the fifth set was also important as it broke Federer’s run of eight consecutive Grand Slam finals wins on hardcourts.
Overall head to head was now 14-7 and comfortably in Rafa’s favour.
Set 4 2010-12
This set of seven once again goes in Rafa’s favour with his wining four to make overall head to head 18-10. This included the French Open final yet again and a semi-final at the Australian Open
Set 5 2013 to present
Rafa won the first five matches in this set to make his career head to head an embarrassing 23-10. It seemed as if he had the complete measure of Federer. The Swiss wizard did defeat Rafa in three sets in the 2015 Swiss Indoors Final and many thought they would never meet again.
However then Australian Open 2017 happened. It still seems unreal that Fed-Rafa met in final. After all Federer was seeded 17 which meant that he would face tough opponents from the third round onwards.
He did but won one match after another, including two five setters. Rafa too won two five setters en route reaching the final where Federer prevailed after being a break down in the final set.
What is it about Federer? After all, even with Djokovic he has a good record. Why is it embarrassingly poor versus Rafa?
I can identify the following reasons.
The first is Rafa’s dominance on clay. The two legends have met 35 times. Out of that 15 times is on clay where Rafa has won 13.
Otherwise its 10-10. In Grand Slams too, out of the 12 times they have met Rafa has won nine times out of which five times are at the French Open where Rafa is unbeatable.
Otherwise it is 4-3 in Rafa’s favour which looks more reasonable than 9-3. Ironically the fact that Federer is a wonderful clay court player itself resulted in his reaching the final stages as many as five times where he came up against the unbeatable Rafa.
Then there’s Nadal’s mental toughness. Over and over again it has been seen that in matches between them, Rafa has proved mentally tougher. It started with the 2006 Rome Final, Federer held two championship points on Rafa’s serve, but Rafa held serve, and in the tiebreaker too Federer was 5-3 ahead but Rafa won it.
This continued again and again with Rafa winning from seemingly un-winnable positions. So much so that it was almost as if there is a mental block of Federer versus Rafa.
Rafa’s game is peculiarly suited to neutralise Federer’s game. His heavy topspin is something which Federer just cannot tackle, especially on clay and hardcourt . On grass and indoor courts Federer does make a match of it
Two bad years. In 2008 and 2013, Rafa won all four matches each versus Federer. These eight matches versus zero by Federer further accentuates the gap. Otherwise its 15-12 in favour of Rafa which, while still being in the favour of Rafa seems much better than 23-12.
What does the above mean? Can someone who is not the best in his generation be the best of all time? For certainly as seen above Rafa is one to one better than Federer. The answer is not that simple, for tennis is not a game of one versus one but one versus 200.
Number of Grand Slam wins is one significant factor in deciding who is the GOAT and another is number of weeks at the top. Federer at 18 Grand Slam wins and 302 weeks is way ahead of all contenders.
But with the French Open around the corner, Rafa can continue to add to the debate.
Jean Sober
Guest
"Fact: You will not see any of the current players on tour doing what Federer is doing, at the age of 35!". This is not a fact, it is a prediction. What is a fact, is that in 2012, when Federer, not yet 31, won Wimbledon, the red carpet was rolled out. Winning Wimbledon at age 30, a 17th major, oh my god, it was described as so incredible, press did not stop writing about it for months. Age 30 in other sports is not considered old. Nadal is now 31 and 3 months and won 2 majors at that age. His age (31) is hardly considered as special, five years after Federer won one major at age 30. The fact that Roger won two majors at 35 of course has to do with that. The point I make is, don't assume that just because Roger does something now, Nadal or Djokovic is not going to do that too. The Federer records are not so safe and his fans always claim. The behaviour of the press in 2012, in all fairness, was a joke.
Jean Sober
Guest
GOAT debate always starts with number of majors won. It seems like a golden rule in this debate and it makes sense: as a tennis player, winning majors is the main goal. So on that basis, Federer is leading in the GOAT title race. However, he is still playing and so is Nadal and so is Djokovic. This race is not over. Number of majors is for me the leading stat. But winning them all is very important, therefore, Sampras is a 100% out of the GOAT debate (it is for a reason that almost everyone mentions the huge miss - RG - on his resume within the first minute his career is discussed). Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, they are all clearly allround enough and they won them all. With that as the base point, pointing out that Federer has too many on grass, or Nadal has too many on clay, or Djokovic leans on Aussie Open (the unbalanced division argument) is creating unreasonable criteria. Clay is not less than grass and a hard court major is not less impressive than a clay or grass major. If one argues that 'without clay, Nadal would have won only 6', one could also argue that 'without grass Federer would have only won 11, without hard court only 9'. Similarly, a player who would win Wimbledon 17 times and all other majors only once, e.g. in the last year of his career, would be the clear GOAT. The point made is, getting to a record number of majors, while 'leaning' on a preferred surface that is only available once a year, is a testimony to greatness in itself. There is nothing wrong with being a specialist, as long as the rest of the majors are covered too. A double, or triple career grand slam does count. Just like there is the need to have won all of them, there is the argument that a double or triple career grand slam, shows sheer greatness. Federer and Djokovic are light in RG titles, Nadal has only one Aussie Open so far. No one has a double career grand slam, yet. Personally, I believe that Federer has earned all his 19 majors fair and square and they make him lead in the race. If he is going to win the race, that is another question. Should he and Rafa end up with the same number of majors, then double or triple career grand slam, calendar slam, personal slam (example is the 2015-2016 Djoko slam), H2H, H2H in major meetings are important decisive measures. And then there is of course the point of competition, but I rank it after all the aforementioned. I will spend some words on it though. We all know that Federer did not have a Djokovic or a Nadal in his age group. Hence, the key statistic of the ranking of his opponents in the major finals he won: average rank of 15.9 (while Djoko and Rafa faced a number 6 ranked on average in the major finals they won). In 2003-2007, his competition was a large group in which nobody really stood out, and a result, lower ranked players, could get far in majors (because the difference in level between a top 20 player and a top 10 player, was small). This is in short the Weak Era argument and it exists and it is real (here a couple of pictures that Fed fans better not look at http://theultimatetennisblog.com/the-goat-debate-is-a-fairytale-used-to-promote-tennis/), sorry guys, these are facts. But it should only be a side argument, in case Federer and Nadal end up with the same amount of majors. Nadal fans for years saw Nadal 'closing the gap', from at some point 16-6 (Jan 2010) to 17-14 (June 2014). But then Rafa stopped for 3 years. And then 2017 happened. Yes, Rafa finally won some majors again (with Djokovic and others mostly sidelined...). While few Fed fans believed that Rafa would ever come close to 17, he is now almost there, at 16. Mind you, thousands of trolls on spitted hate at eachother over this. 17 was out of the question. Now it is something that might happen for real (Nadal can decline quickly though, we've seen it many times). But there is one issue. Roger out of the blue (with Djokovic and others sidelined...) also won majors again in 2017 (he actually started the revival, of course). And now the gap is still at three. We wil have to wait and see if Nadal can win at least 3 majors in the years ahead and we will have to wait and see if Roger will not win any more majors (if you'd ask me, I believe he can win Wimbledon at age 40 still). There is no reason at this stage to put more money on Nadal adding more titles to his tally, than on Fed. What they did in 2017 is of comparable value (2-2). The GOAT debate is not over, the race not done, but we have a clear leader in the slam count. Djokovic can come back strong and win 4 majors in the next 18 months. It would make things even more exciting. The gap is still at three. No changes there. Except the two main subjects, have come alive again.
Syd Harland
Roar Rookie
I'm sorry to disappoint you all but the age-long argument as to who is the Greatest Of All Time, when it comes to tennis, was won by Federer long before his 18th Grand Slam title was secured at the Australian Open earlier this year. Federer is easily the G.O.A.T and could retire today and still be that for years and years to come - possibly forever. For you see, Federer is way past his prime and is defeating players who are still in theirs. Can you see Djokovic or Nadal doing the same at age 35? I think not. In fact, I know not. Djokovic has benefited from Federer's woes and Federer's transition to a larger head racquet but now that Federer has found his game again, and with that his confidence, I have no doubt that the tables will be turned with regards to that match-up. Just as the tables have started to turn between he and Nadal. For a player to be able to re-invent his game at his age is an absolutely, monumental achievement and, in doing so, has cemented him as the Greatest Of All Time! Federer is already the best tennis player the world has ever seen, and will probably ever see. Anything he achieves from this point on will just be and exclamation mark on an already phenomonal career. In saying this, though, it is only fair that I point out a few things....some which not every one will have considered thus far. Fact: You will not see any of the current players on tour doing what Federer is doing, at the age of 35! Fact: At no time in his playing life would Djokovic have been able to beat the Federer we've been watching in 2017! Fact: Perception is everything. And no other player, past or current, has been perceived by the world in general as being the greatest player of all time. Federer is tennis and his is the most recognisable name in the world. People who know zip about tennis know his name and that in itself speaks volumes about how he is perceived. As stated, the argument has already been won. Disagree with that if you will but history will show exactly that which I have foretold.
cp
Guest
To be more specific. Between 2005 - first Grand Slam for Nadal and 2009, Nadal did not play one single match against Federer in North America - Indian Wells, Miami, Cincinnati, Toronto, US Open - 25 possible matches on hard court that did not take place because Nadal always lost early in quarterfinal against players who were beaten by Federer easily. Sometimes Nadal was in very good shape but still he lost on weaker players. I had the feeling that he did it on purpose to have a better H2H against Federer knowing that he will not be able to beat Federer on number of GS
cp
Guest
This is the problem of all this Nadal's fans. When Nadal lose, he was tired or injury. Who care? If you are tired this means you were not good enough or smart enough to play in such way to win the points easily. I watched Federer very carefully. He knows how to build the point to make him running less then his opponent. For many years Nadal did not have a real backhand shot and he needed to run around the ball to hit a forehand. In AO 2017 Federer had the toughest draw and he managed to beat Nadal. Let's not forget: Federer is 35 years old , Nadal is 30. I would like to see if Nadal is capable of winning a Grand Slam at 35 . He won his last grand slam in 2014 when he was 28. Since then he won only small tournaments and for a period of almost 2 years he was not capable to beat one single top 10 player
clipper
Guest
All good points, I was going to mention Borg, it would indeed be an interesting match up. Think Nadal would have the upper hand, but he was a very crafty player and may have been able to negate some of Nadal's strengths. Retired really early as well, could've easily added more to his GS tally.
express34texas
Guest
Meant Fed leads 17-5 in non-clay GS and 23-5 counting the Year-End Final.
express34texas
Guest
Justin, you have to choose somebody. Who is it then? As I've mentioned in my first post on this thread, H2H isn't that important in tennis. It's the end result, which is winning the tournament. Nadal benefits from all the clay matches and only 3 grass matches vs Fed. If reversed and they played 15 grass matches and only 3 clay matches, Fed only needs to go 10-5 on grass(likely) even if he went 0-3 on clay(likely) to hold the H2H advantage. I think H2H should only come into play when rating players is when everything else is equal, which isn't the case with Fed vs Nadal. Fed's overall career is much better than Nadal's even if we count all of Nadal's clay top-heavy results as equal, which we shouldn't as clay is the least important surface and a specialty surface. It's much easier when you look at the top 5 tourneys on tour. Nadal holds a huge advantage at the FO. But, Fed holds huge advantages at the AO, USO, Wimby, and Year-End Final. Another thing to consider is that Nadal's best season would only be Fed's 4th best season. Clipper, you're right about Sampras, and Sampras might match up better vs Nadal, too, who knows for sure. It's about matchups in tennis more than anything else sometimes. Krajicek/Hewitt have a better H2H vs Sampras. Murray held the H2H advantage vs Fed until just recently; obviously, Murray has had a much worse career(though still great) than Fed. Nadal is 10-10 vs Fed on non-clay. He's just a bad matchup for Fed. If H2H was truly as important as many claim, then they have to explain why Fed holds a 17-5 advantage combined at the AO, USO, Wimby, and Year-End Final. It doesn't add up. I dispute that Nadal is the king of clay indisputably though. Borg would have a lot to say on this matter. Nadal might very well be, and gets the nod from me since he won more titles, but in their primes? Too hard to say. But, you're right, Fed might have 3-5 more GS just at the FO only if he didn't play in Nadal's era. The other greats in different eras all have of their cases, too, but I think we're seeing the top 3 players ever currently playing.
clipper
Guest
There is no dispute that Nadal is the GOAT of clay. If Nadal had been around in any other period, he would still be King there. If he was around in the Sampras years though, the H2H would not be so skewered in his favour as Sampras would probably never got to meet him, especially at the French. The only reason the figures are so skewed is that Federer always got to the pointy end of clay contests. If he had not, like Sampras, would you then say he was GOAT because he avoided Nadal. Put this another way. If Nadal wasn't around, Federer would probably have won 4-6 more GS, if Federer wasn't around would Nadal have won that many more?
Justin Ahrns
Roar Guru
As much as I love Federer, I have trouble calling him the GOAT when he has a 23-12 losing record to Rafa. But for Rafa's losing record to Novak, and the fact he has 4 less slams that Fed, you can't call Nadal the GOAT either. It's a complex issue, but for me, if Djokovic can win a few more slams (currently on 12) he is the closest thing to a GOAT in tennis.
express34texas
Guest
Fed wouldn't have been tired after playing Dimitrov if he had, and he wouldn't have needed almost 5 hours to beat him. Dimitrov would've also been the only 5th highest seeded player Fed would've faced in the draw(beat #4, #5, #9, #10).
express34texas
Guest
Not saying Laver wasn't strong, but I'm failing to miss the point. Almost every tennis player today can crush the ball, look at small Noah Rubin vs Fed in 2nd round, for example. Yes, it's been a long time since a short player, and Laver was very short, has won a GS. I'm not saying Laver couldn't, just saying t I have a hard time seeing him winning any today. And yes, he could win all surfaces, but it's obvious he was better on grass and having 3 GS on grass greatly benefited him.
Dilip
Guest
impossible,federer has to defeat nadal at french open then only he can be goat, he defeated a very tired nadal at australian open ,that too at a very fast court at nitht time ,federer was lucky. nadal defeated federer at wimbeldon grass,various hard courts so federer has to defeat him at french,novak proved he is better than both rafa and roger ,he has defeated both federer and nadal at their fort so he is the best.
Guru
Guest
No nadal was tired due to that brutal match against dimitrov , otherwise nadal would have won,his service is pathetic ,moya should try to improve nadal's service game.
Johnno
Guest
Andres Gomez was from Ecuador.
clipper
Guest
Not to mention that lefty serve!
BrainsTrust
Guest
"Rod Laver: in 1968, at Laver's first US Open, his (hitting) left wrist was measured to be 7 inches around, and his left forearm was 12 inches around. Holy Popeye! Ken Rosewall back then described Laver's thick left wrist as "iron clad" adding that it enabled him to hit a topspin background like no one else in that era. Laver's left forearm back then was the same size as heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano. Back in 1968, Bill Talbert, the US David Cup captain, said that "Laver can wait until the last second and flick the ball." Who wouldn't envy that kind of strength?. " The last time a shorter player won a grand slam was the French, that Argentinian and before him Chang. Wimbledon on grass the last short player was Laver himself. Laver could play all courts.Because Rosewall his main rival was better on clay so because of him Laver got the reputation of being better on grass. I would say the best chance against Laver for the tall players of today would be the grass of Wimbledon.
Johnno
Guest
Bjorg beat Mcernoe at the end of year ATP masters tour finals indoors and on carpet.
Johnno
Guest
Ah sorry Brains trust, Bjorg was hardly past his peak when he was playing Mcenroe, he was in his prime. Bjorg was born in 56 Mcneroe 59, from 1980-81 they had some epic battles.
Remo Shankar
Roar Pro
I would love to see a fantasy match between Borg and Nadal at the French Open. All things being equal, I don't think it would be the foregone conclusion in Nadal's favour that a lot of the pundits would predict. They both are brutal on clay and I think Borg at the end of his career Borg just got bored with winning the French Open. If you've ever seen Borg's last French Open win in 1981 against a young Ivan Lendl, it is one of the most boring and turgid Grand Slam finals I've ever seen.