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

[Jassy]

Best players always dominate on clay? What?! Jokers like Ferrer consistently make the last rounds of the RG. I think Nadal's dominance on clay is to his credit but to suggest it is more important than grass is preposterous. You ask most players, they will all rate grass court wins and hard court wins higher than clay court wins. In recent years the surfaces of the courts have been relaid and the balls have been changed in order to make the courts slower and the game more ''spectator friendly'' (meaning more rallies). Serve and volley specialists have almost disappeared for this reason.

In any case we are digressing, Samuel said Federer's slam count was as a result of a)grass and b)weak competition. A has already been addressed, take away Nadal's and Federer's best surfaces and come back to me with the slam count. I did a little stats digging wrt b. Since the Australian Open in 2005(French Open 05 was Nadal's. first GS win) both Nadal and Federer have won 13 slams . I also find it amusing that the fact that a young Federer took it to Sampras on grass and Aggasi on hard courts is conveniently ignored.

 

[Cabinet96]

2006 was the last time someone not named Federer, Nadal or Djockovic won a major clay tittle. 28 tittles since then, all won by the best three players in that time. I call that the best players dominating.

 

[Jassy]

How many major titles have been won by someone not named Djo, Federer, Nadal in this time period? I think the big 4 have won pretty much everything there is to win in that period. These 3(and to a lesser extent Murray) have dominated pretty much everywhere. To single out their dominance on clay is rather misleading. A better way would be to look at the quarterfinalists in each GS over the last few years. See the names that consistently make the RG last rounds and compare them to the names that consistently make the last rounds of the other GS and you will have your answer.

 

[Jono]

Best players always dominate on clay? What?! Jokers like Ferrer consistently make the last rounds of the RG. I think Nadal's dominance on clay is to his credit but to suggest it is more important than grass is preposterous. You ask most players, they will all rate grass court wins and hard court wins higher than clay court wins. In recent years the surfaces of the courts have been relaid and the balls have been changed in order to make the courts slower and the game more ''spectator friendly'' (meaning more rallies). Serve and volley specialists have almost disappeared for this reason.

In any case we are digressing, Samuel said Federer's slam count was as a result of a)grass and b)weak competition. A has already been addressed, take away Nadal's and Federer's best surfaces and come back to me with the slam count. I did a little stats digging wrt b. Since the Australian Open in 2005(French Open 05 was Nadal's. first GS win) both Nadal and Federer have won 13 slams . I also find it amusing that the fact that a young Federer took it to Sampras on grass and Aggasi on hard courts is conveniently ignored.

Ferrer has never made the semi final of the Australian Open, or the US Open. Oh wait, yes he has. Quarters at Wimbledon too.

Oh and guess how many times Ferrer has made it to the semis or beyond at the French Open? Only twice. And that was only in the last two years. He has been a constant underachiever there.

Guess how many times Ferrer has made it to the semis or beyond at the US Open? Twice. Australian Open? Twice.

Don't let the facts get in the way though.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

But have you asked most players like Jassy has?!

 

[Jono]

I noticed that too.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I only asked Lukas Kubot, but he told me that if I contact him again he was gonna call the cops.

 

[dermo]

Clay is the subcontinental Bunsen burner of surfaces. Second rate, slow and less manly. The players see it this way too. It's why Nadal has dominated at Roland Garros.

i came here specifically to post this

 

[Jono]

I only asked Lukas Kubot, but he told me that if I contact him again he was gonna call the cops.

Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Thought of you when he won the Aus Open doubles!

 

[Jassy]

But have you asked most players like Jassy has?!

good one,sir bloody idiot.

Ferrer's best result on any surface has been on clay...final. He has never crossed the quarterfinals at Wimbledon. Make what of it you will. Robin Soderling is another one who is competitive on clay and does bugger all elsewhere.

 

[Jono]

What a shock, certain players have a preferred surface.

 

[Cabinet96]

good one,sir bloody idiot.

Ferrer's best result on any surface has been on clay...final. He has never crossed the quarterfinals at Wimbledon. Make what of it you will. Robin Soderling is another one who is competitive on clay and does bugger all elsewhere.

Conversely Tomas Berdych has done the complete opposite, final and two quarters at Wimbledon but just one SF. What is it that makes Ferrer a joke and why is it that Berdych doing well at Wimbledon doesn't count the same way Ferrer doing well at RG does? And no, you're not allowed to say Berdych is much better because he's done well on grass.

Btw, Soderling has never got beyond the QF of a clay court masters series. He's won Paris and got to the semi's at Miami and Indian Wells. Maybe it's just a Paris thing rather than a clay thing

 

[Riggins]

2006 was the last time someone not named Federer, Nadal or Djockovic won a major clay tittle. 28 tittles since then, all won by the best three players in that time. I call that the best players dominating.

where are all these clay court majors?

 

[Ikki]

If Nadal had won the Aus open, he'd have won all 4 grand slams twice. And he eventually will. In fact, unless he totally breaks down, he'll probably do it 3 times, maybe even 4. Federer's only done it once. The 'Clay' argument doesn't wash.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

That's a decent argument for Federer, actually. He's very clearly ahead at three of the four majors, even when taking account standard of opposition.

 

[Jassy]

If Nadal had won the Aus Open? What, now we're going to use ifs and buts? If Nadal hadn't won the Aus Open in 09 he wouldn't even have a career slam...two can play this game. I don't think Nadal is a clay bully or any such thing but you can't deny Federer's distribution of slams is much more even. If you combine all of Nadal's slams outside of clay, they equal Federer's tally at the US Open! Or to look at it another way, grass 7-2 in favour of Fed, hard 9-3 in favour of Fed, clay 8-1 in favour of Nadal.

Yeah Federer had crap competition...the same competition that kept knocking Nadal out of grand slams in those years...seriously, that is such a desperate argument. It's not like Nadal made his debut 2 years back, he played his first Wimby in 2003 and won his first GS in 2005 (after which Federer won 13 slams). Even if you want to overlook that, we can talk about speed of courts etc which has no doubt benefitted Nadal.

And the whole 2 slams everywhere is just a random stat anyway. Might as well say Federer is the only player with 4+ slams in 3 out of 4 majors etc. You could make a number of such stats. In the end it is the final tally that counts

 

[Ikki]

I'm not a fanboy of either guy. In fact, it might be the first rivalry that I honestly, equally, like both guys. But Nadal perhaps doesn't get his due. Unless he totally breaks down, he will win more grand slams. He is too good.

 

[Jassy]

It is possible/probable(delete as appropriate) that he will end up with the GS record. I'd learn towards ''he should'' more than ''he will'' personally, semantics yeah...

The biggest factor will be how long he can keep going the way he is. As everyone knows he puts so much into his game that it is hard to see him sustaining it for too long, human body has its limits. In 2009 - when he was more or less as old as Nadal is now (give or take a year) Federer had won his 15th slam and people were predicting 20+ slams for him. We all know what happened next. He declined, a couple of others stepped up and as a result he could only add two more slams in 4 years! And Federer's game is nowhere near as punishing on the body as Nadal's. It really is difficult to see him playing at this level for too long...I certainly don't see him playing like this for too much beyond 30. By a generous estimate that is around 3 years or 12 possible slams. He needs to win 1/3 or thereabouts. Not impossible certainly, but not as simple as it seems either. His dominance at RG will be the biggest factor IMO. I am not saying he can't or he won't win elsewhere but if he can keep racking up French Opens, he'll not need to do too much to break the record. If someone manages to beat him there then it definitely makes it a lot harder. Djokovic nearly got it done last time.

Of course all this is assuming Federer doesn't win another slam. He showed at the AO that he's still got it, that loss to Nadal notwithstanding. He's a chance at Wimbledon and the US Open for sure. Not top favourite obviously but I wouldn't be surprised if he wins one of those two.

 

[Anil]

^That's the other point and I was about to say. Nadal really has had a lot of luck against Fed getting him an inordinate number of times on clay and being younger able to exploit Fed's comparative decline. Just don't rate the Nad/Fed head to head as a deciding factor.

you can also argue that roger was in his prime when he was winning against rafa on non-clay surfaces and rafa was not yet in his prime...i am the a huge federer fan but that h2h disparity is just too big to ignore at this point...also it is a mental edge (has been for a long time now) and it is almost a guarantee now that if nadal is fit enough to play, he will beat federer all the time, every time...that is an unspoken admission by federer that he can't beat his biggest rival and is a humongous negative in his GOAT rating...

 

[Jassy]

you can also argue that roger was in his prime when he was winning against rafa on non-clay surfaces and rafa was not yet in his prime...i am the a huge federer fan but that h2h disparity is just too big to ignore at this point...also it is a mental edge (has been for a long time now) and it is almost a guarantee now that if nadal is fit enough to play, he will beat federer all the time, every time...that is an unspoken admission by federer that he can't beat his biggest rival and is a humongous negative in his GOAT rating...

Yeah, the difference in HTH is too big for my liking. I think in 2008-2009 Federer's mental issues against Nadal started and he could never overcome then. Till 2008 Wimbledon, Nadal was beating Federer on clay and Federer was returning the favour on grass. But a 5 set loss on his preferred surface (which followed a loss on clay as usual) broke him a little mentally I guess. The Australian Open final in 2009(which was again a 5 set affair) pretty much hit the final nail in the coffin wrt to the mental battles. At that point he probably started doubting if he could ever get past Nadal. Federer never really recovered from there and even more shocking he never managed to do anything to try and counter Nadal. Nadal had a similar problem with Djokovic circa 2011 but he worked on it, came back and worked out a way to get past him. Granted Nadal's game is totally "anti-Fed" if you will...that ridiculous topspin is a killer...I don't think anyone with a one-handed backhand can play that consistently but it still doesn't explain a 13 match disparity over 33 games! Even accounting for the fact that they've played only 3 times on Federer's best surface and 15 times on Nadal's best, that is still a hell lot.

Personally, if Nadal were to retire with say, the same number of titles or even one less or something, then the HTH could definitely be used as a tie-breaker to separate them. However I don't think it should on its own matter too much. There was a point in 2011-2012 when Federer beat Djo but lost to Nadal and Nadal beat Fed but lost to Djo. Winning slams is definitely more important than beating one particular player.