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

[Moxie]

MartyB, I love ya, but that is spoken like a true Federer fan. All good, except the idea that you see Rafa as less of a natural born tennis talent with great tennis IQ. Roger didn't just drop onto the court playing or thinking like that, either. Talent still has to be coached and burnished. Rafa, despite popular myth, is part lefty. He plays soccer with his left. His uncle says he could see early that his power was on his left side. In any case, I'm not sure why people seem to take points off because he plays tennis left and writes right. But it's incorrect to think that he wasn't born with a prodigious talent. And if you could be bothered to watch the clay season, you'd likewise watch a genius at work and a "religious experience." You're really talking more about style than quantity of god-given talent.

 

[Fiero425]

Here's how I view the greatness of Fed/Nadal and which I think defines GOAT. Fed's talent even though I'm not a religious person is otherworldly or god given. It's innate and beautiful to watch. There has never been a more perfect tennis player. If one has had the privilege to see him play in person no matter what row I have I always sit up behind the baseline at the US Open and at times just watch him move without hitting the ball first and then I see the court sense and how he analyzes and strategizes his game towards his opponent with guile and computer like wizardry. He is astounding. The greatest athlete the sport has produced. And there have been great ones. Nadal is a "man made" or created tennis player who has honed his skills with his energy and tenacity. He is not left handed but right handed. His coach knew that the only way to beat Fed was to play the relentless style he does. He is a physical specimen but I would not call him a genius on the court. I admire his tennis achievements but watching Fed play as a far more eloquent writer stated it is watching a genius and a religious experience. As McEnroe always states Fed is the Barishnikov of tennis plus his greatness competitiveness and heart make him the GOAT. I don't know what the future brings for either of them in terms of victories into the future but they are astounding in different ways.

That image of "genius" compared to an "artisan" has gone on for as long as I can remember! When the styles are so different, but one being more "artistic" like a serve/vol'r rivaling a player who worked a lot harder to be a physical specimen! In my day the consummate rivalry in style at the top of the their games had to be McEnroe going up against Lendl! If McEnroe was on his game and serving well, there just wasn't a lot Lendl could do, but as John got older, he lost a little "stick" on his serve and Ivan punished him in their waning years! After them would be Sampras and Agassi; shortened rivalry due to Andre's apathy to the game at times! Now the greatest rivalry of them all in some circles have that same dynamics! If Fed's on his game with an aggressive style, he can overwhelm Rafa even this late in their careers! IMO, Fedal is more PR hype than reality with many others being more competitive like Novak and Rafa who've played about 50 matches! Nole had a late surge with 2 "seven match" winning streaks to catch up and surpass H2H leading 26-24! Only Laver and Rosewall can say they have a more substantial rivalry! Unfortunately, most of the contests occurred "Pre-Open" era with their 2 major encounters occurring in the final of the WCT Championship final in cons. years; '71 & '72! :whistle:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Talking about "religious experience", only recently I checked on the author David Foster Wallace of that article. He sounds like a character. His field is creative writing and no wonder that the article was so good. He himself is quite accomplished including being a recipient of MacArthur Fellowship commonly known as "Genius Award". But, seems like he had tragic personal life with long bout of depression which eventually made him commit suicide in 2008.

 

[Moxie]

Talking about "religious experience", only recently I checked on the author David Foster Wallace of that article. He sounds like a character. His field is creative writing and no wonder that the article was so good. He himself is quite accomplished including being a recipient of MacArthur Fellowship commonly known as "Genius Award". But, seems like he had tragic personal life with long bout of depression which eventually made him commit suicide in 2008.

I'm stunned you've only just now read that piece. DFW was one of the great writers of his time. "Infinite Jest" is his Great American Novel. He was also a creditable tennis player. And a Federer admirer. The piece is a bit of a bane for Nadal fans, because it often gets used to confirm for Federer fans what they chose to believe about him. It's very glowing. And not wrong. But it was written in 2006, so DFW really had no notion that he'd have to compare him to Nadal, of which many similar things could be said. And yes, tragically, David Foster Wallace left us too soon.

 

[MartyB]

MartyB, I love ya, but that is spoken like a true Federer fan. All good, except the idea that you see Rafa as less of a natural born tennis talent with great tennis IQ. Roger didn't just drop onto the court playing or thinking like that, either. Talent still has to be coached and burnished. Rafa, despite popular myth, is part lefty. He plays soccer with his left. His uncle says he could see early that his power was on his left side. In any case, I'm not sure why people seem to take points off because he plays tennis left and writes right. But it's incorrect to think that he wasn't born with a prodigious talent. And if you could be bothered to watch the clay season, you'd likewise watch a genius at work and a "religious experience." You're really talking more about style than quantity of god-given talent.

Well of course I'm a Fed fan but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's not esthetic or bias towards Nadal's play. All one has to do is ask the greatest players of all time who is the GOAT it is Fed. Plus genius is tossed around rather flippantly these days. Fed is that and he has altered the sport forever.

 

[Carol]

I can't understand why some people confuse the style with the talent and to be a genius, nothing to do with it.

 

[Moxie]

Well of course I'm a Fed fan but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's not esthetic or bias towards Nadal's play. All one has to do is ask the greatest players of all time who is the GOAT it is Fed. Plus genius is tossed around rather flippantly these days. Fed is that and he has altered the sport forever.

I'm not saying that you're wrong about Roger, only that you're a bit blinkered when it comes to Rafa, and the talent and genius that is there, too. @DarthFed has lately taken to calling Nadal "Mr. Blue Collar." His notion is that Nadal's style and talents are work-a-day, put in the hard yards and grunt enough and you'll get to 16 Majors. We all know that that can't possibly explain Nadal. You use the word "genius," and then you call it over-worked. Because Roger's a genius and Rafa isn't? I'm not trying to make little of Roger's brilliance, but I think those of you who make little of Rafa's are missing something about what's going on in tennis, and by a mile. It really doesn't make less of Roger to acknowledge that Nadal is an amazing tennis player, a great talent, and has a great court IQ. To acknowledge one thing doesn't negate the other.

 

[Carol]

I can't understand either why some people thinks that Federer doesn't work a lot. He does and taking a lot more care about his body than anyone else and that's one of the reason that he doesn't play the clay season two years in a row, pity, first because he wants to arrive to the grass season very fresh and more to Wimbledon where he thinks he has more probabilities to win than the RG or any of the clay tournaments. Yep, he is a genius but with his calendar
Hope Nadal never will skip any season (only Asia) but he needs to be more careful with his calendar for sure

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm stunned you've only just now read that piece. DFW was one of the great writers of his time. "Infinite Jest" is his Great American Novel. He was also a creditable tennis player. And a Federer admirer. The piece is a bit of a bane for Nadal fans, because it often gets used to confirm for Federer fans what they chose to believe about him. It's very glowing. And not wrong. But it was written in 2006, so DFW really had no notion that he'd have to compare him to Nadal, of which many similar things could be said. And yes, tragically, David Foster Wallace left us too soon.

Oh, no. I have read that article long time ago. I just stopped with the content of that article and never bothered to investigate the story of the author.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well of course I'm a Fed fan but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's not esthetic or bias towards Nadal's play. All one has to do is ask the greatest players of all time who is the GOAT it is Fed. Plus genius is tossed around rather flippantly these days. Fed is that and he has altered the sport forever.

I agree with some of the points in your initial post, but disagree with others.

Federer's game is more aesthetically pleasing. Yeah, yeah, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all, but most would agree on that so there seems to be a consensus in that regard.

However, the part about "god given talent" and all that stuff is a bit too simplistic. I hate that term anyway, but let's call it "natural talent" for argument's sake (which undoubtedly exists). Federer might be more "naturally talented" (I'm inclined to think he is), but to seriously boil it down to Federer being a product of said talent while Nadal is a product of hard work is the part I find nonsensical. These are two players who between them, have won 36 majors. 20 to 16. That's insane. I am willing to bet a year long's salary that Roger's worth ethic is out of this world. The same way I'm willing to bet a year long's salary that a player who could have played tennis with either hand and possesses one of the greatest shots in the history of the game has out of this world talent. Nadal's appearance (especially early on) and physical style (again, early on) helps the stereotype that he's all about physical athleticism and hard work, and I guess his relatively limited game early on would lend credence to that, but I am of the belief that just because you work a lot at something doesn't mean you'll get better at it. Yeah, you'll get marginally better, but to get as good as Nadal did at say, hitting the backhand, when it was so pedestrian early on (I think it's undeniable he now has one of the best backhands on tour), you have to be supremely talented.

Also, what is genius? Nadal is accepted to have one of the highest tennis IQ's in tennis, if not the highest (to me he's the best problem solver in tennis). Does that not count as genius? Or are we going with genius = touch? Because that's generally where commentators use that term the most: When a player makes some improvised shot, or a particularly optically pleasing one. In that sense, yes, Roger does this more. I think in this case, and I know I'm debating semantics, but you're talking about artistry rather than genius. Roger is definitely a better shot-maker and that's not even debatable. But to simply boil down Nadal's game to pure strength or just hitting good ground strokes is silly, and again purely stereotypical. He's much, much more than that, and this is from someone who believes Nadal's volleys for example, are grossly overrated. When you factor in shot selection, hand-eye coordination, shot-making, etc...then Nadal is a "genius," whatever that means.

 

[Federberg]

I agree with some of the points in your initial post, but disagree with others.

Federer's game is more aesthetically pleasing. Yeah, yeah, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all, but most would agree on that so there seems to be a consensus in that regard.

However, the part about "god given talent" and all that stuff is a bit too simplistic. I hate that term anyway, but let's call it "natural talent" for argument's sake (which undoubtedly exists). Federer might be more "naturally talented" (I'm inclined to think he is), but to seriously boil it down to Federer being a product of said talent while Nadal is a product of hard work is the part I find nonsensical. These are two players who between them, have won 36 majors. 20 to 16. That's insane. I am willing to bet a year long's salary that Roger's worth ethic is out of this world. The same way I'm willing to bet a year long's salary that a player who could have played tennis with either hand and possesses one of the greatest shots in the history of the game has out of this world talent. Nadal's appearance (especially early on) and physical style (again, early on) helps the stereotype that he's all about physical athleticism and hard work, and I guess his relatively limited game early on would lend credence to that, but I am of the belief that just because you work a lot at something doesn't mean you'll get better at it. Yeah, you'll get marginally better, but to get as good as Nadal did at say, hitting the backhand, when it was so pedestrian early on (I think it's undeniable he now has one of the best backhands on tour), you have to be supremely talented.

Also, what is genius? Nadal is accepted to have one of the highest tennis IQ's in tennis, if not the highest (to me he's the best problem solver in tennis). Does that not count as genius? Or are we going with genius = touch? Because that's generally where commentators use that term the most: When a player makes some improvised shot, or a particularly optically pleasing one. In that sense, yes, Roger does this more. I think in this case, and I know I'm debating semantics, but you're talking about artistry rather than genius. Roger is definitely a better shot-maker and that's not even debatable. But to simply boil down Nadal's game to pure strength or just hitting good ground strokes is silly, and again purely stereotypical. He's much, much more than that, and this is from someone who believes Nadal's volleys for example, are grossly overrated. When you factor in shot selection, hand-eye coordination, shot-making, etc...then Nadal is a "genius," whatever that means.

I completely agree with this. The idea that a guy who plays with his non-dominant hand is not insanely talented has never made sense to me. The differential between Rafa and Roger isn't talent it's creativity. Roger has mad creativity and he presents a unique problem to the opposition. But Rafa also presents a nearly insurmountable problem as well. It's a different problem, it's less about creativity and more about requiring the opposition to play at a ridiculously high level to even compete. Roger can beat you and make you look stupid, Rafa just breaks your spirit. You'll probably enjoy your match against Roger more even though deep down you won't feel like you have a chance. With Rafa you probably don't even want to step out on the court in the first place. A really strong player will probably feel that they can beat Rafa if they play at their very best and get into the zone - a la Rosol/Brown. Against Roger you'll probably forget you're there to win until it's too late. That's how I see it anyway

 

[britbox]

Talking about "religious experience", only recently I checked on the author David Foster Wallace of that article. He sounds like a character. His field is creative writing and no wonder that the article was so good. He himself is quite accomplished including being a recipient of MacArthur Fellowship commonly known as "Genius Award". But, seems like he had tragic personal life with long bout of depression which eventually made him commit suicide in 2008.

Was it just after Wimbledon?

 

[mrzz]

Post of the year, @brokenshoelace .

 

[MartyB]

I'm not saying that you're wrong about Roger, only that you're a bit blinkered when it comes to Rafa, and the talent and genius that is there, too. @DarthFed has lately taken to calling Nadal "Mr. Blue Collar." His notion is that Nadal's style and talents are work-a-day, put in the hard yards and grunt enough and you'll get to 16 Majors. We all know that that can't possibly explain Nadal. You use the word "genius," and then you call it over-worked. Because Roger's a genius and Rafa isn't? I'm not trying to make little of Roger's brilliance, but I think those of you who make little of Rafa's are missing something about what's going on in tennis, and by a mile. It really doesn't make less of Roger to acknowledge that Nadal is an amazing tennis player, a great talent, and has a great court IQ. To acknowledge one thing doesn't negate the other.

Your points are well spoken here. I'm not and never have not been aware of Nadal's talent or his "genius" on court. In my very humble opinion grace beauty of shot court movement all around brilliance innovation all make Fed the GOAT. What I will also give kudos to Nadal is how he made Fed even greater. That's actually as great a complement that I can give.

 

[monfed]

Finding a GOAT is not a fault finding mission, rather it is to see who has the best resume of them all. And in that regard it's either between Fed or Laver and perhaps Borg.
I think Fed's the overall GOAT but to play the devil's advocate, the Wim 08 and AO 09 losses hurt him. It was explainable to lose to Wafa at RG, the lopsided conditions in the latter's favour , but to lose in your best slam and then not being able to get one back at AO 09 specially when Fed was the better player in that match and then crying infront of the tennis watching world doesn't speak highly of a GOAT. I don't think GOATs of other sports like Jordan embarassed themselves in front of the whole world at any point in their career.

Fortunately, AO 17 recovered most of the damage from the Wim 08 and AO 09 losses but he could've nailed Nadal to the wall if he had beaten him at RG 11 thereby beating Wafa at his best slam.

I just feel Fed constantly leaves the door slightly ajar for Wafa to blast through. He won Wimbledon last year but then laid an egg at USO due to dumb scheduling decision of playing Canada instead of Cincy and pretty much calling it a season after winning Wimby claiming winning 3 slams would be too much. Next thing you know Nadal wins USO, almost predictably and Fed's made to look like a fool even losing YE#1 in the process. This year again he had a great chance to seal YE#1 by winning IW when he had 3 MPs on his own serve and he blows it and concedes #1 right back to Wafa in the best part of his season.

So as you can see, he keeps leaving the door open for Nadal to enter. I hope he's learnt his lesson by this point and slams the door on Nadal once and for all this year.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Borg is definitely no GOAT, he's arguably not even top 5 of Open Era at this point. I hear you about those losses, especially Wimbledon 08 which I think is what truly led to AO 09 debacle.

It was still arguably the most costly loss of Fed's career and the only reason there is still a legit slam chase going on. And yes, an inexcusable loss. I honestly don't know if he can slam the door anytime soon, if Rafa is healthy he could be winning RG's for 5-6 more years. Yes, his spin is that deadly on that surface.

 

[monfed]

^ Borg is definitely no GOAT, he's arguably not even top 5 of Open Era at this point. I hear you about those losses, especially Wimbledon 08 which I think is what truly led to AO 09 debacle.

It was still arguably the most costly loss of Fed's career and the only reason there is still a legit slam chase going on. And yes, an inexcusable loss. I honestly don't know if he can slam the door anytime soon, if Rafa is healthy he could be winning RG's for 5-6 more years. Yes, his spin is that deadly on that surface.

Borg revolutionized tennis and his 3 channel slams are still highly regarded to this day. In Borg's time you had to go from pure baseline play to S&V at Wimbledon. Also Borg skipped AO so had he played it he could've finished with 15-16 slams.

Yes agreed with the rest. But I feel there will be a tipping point on clay where Nadal will just stop winning because he can't hit a proper FH anymore. We saw glimpses of that in 2015 and 2016 where he was completely out of it. Nobody expected a comeback in 2017 but if this is his last comeback then it's inevitable.

IMO the key is to deny Wafa from winning non-clay slams cause even if he wins RG, he's only skewing up his resume with clay. The non-clay slams are the really damaging ones. Hope USO is sped up this year, last year was a farce.

 

[Carol]

Borg revolutionized tennis and his 3 channel slams are still highly regarded to this day. In Borg's time you had to go from pure baseline play to S&V at Wimbledon. Also Borg skipped AO so had he played it he could've finished with 15-16 slams.

Yes agreed with the rest. But I feel there will be a tipping point on clay where Nadal will just stop winning because he can't hit a proper FH anymore. We saw glimpses of that in 2015 and 2016 where he was completely out of it. Nobody expected a comeback in 2017 but if this is his last comeback then it's inevitable.

IMO the key is to deny Wafa from winning non-clay slams cause even if he wins RG, he's only skewing up his resume with clay. The non-clay slams are the really damaging ones. Hope USO is sped up this year, last year was a farce.

When Rafa will can’t hit a proper FH and BH then we will talk about it or do you think that Woger is going to hit a proper BH for ever and ever? well, at least he has a great serve because without that ......and did you expect that comeback of Roger in 2017 after the four previous years not winning a single GS?
And if the last USO was a farce the last AO was even more farce.And I wish Nadal would skip one clay tournament and getting the grass season more rested, he could do it a lot much better

 

[MartyB]

When Rafa will can’t hit a proper FH and BH then we will talk about it or do you think that Woger is going to hit a proper BH for ever and ever? well, at least he has a great serve because without that ......and did you expect that comeback of Roger in 2017 after the four previous years not winning a single GS?
And if the last USO was a farce the last AO was even more farce.And I wish Nadal would skip one clay tournament and getting the grass season more rested, he could do it a lot much better

I think Fed's backhand looked awfully good against Nadal the last 5 times they've met...

 

[Carol]

I think Fed's backhand looked awfully good against Nadal the last 5 times they've met...

Yes he did but you don’t know next time, Nadal is a good student