Pour Agassi, Nadal est peut etre le GOAT

“Pete was the best of his time. I think Federer’s a class above. Pete was off the hook on the faster courts but during the clay season players wanted to play against him. You didn’t have that luxury against Fed. Until Nadal, you would say Fed was probably the best of all time.”

Agassi also gave his take on the raging “Roger vs. Rafa” debate.

“I personally think that Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time. If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says I’m the best ever, my first question would be, ‘How come you didn’t beat me?’ I beat you twice as many times and by the way, I won everything including the gold medal and Davis Cup.”

“But at same token Federer has separated himself for a few years like nobody else and he’s done it more consistent. To be able to make the argument for both guys playing in the same generation is pretty remarkable.”

Dans le même ordre d'idée, une analyse sur le sujet, ci dessous.
Pour Wilanders et Mc Enroe, nadal a juste besoin de 2 grands chelems de plus pour avoir une meilleure carrière que Federer :

Roger Federer earned near unanimous acclaim as the greatest tennis player of all time (GOAT) when he passed Pete Sampras (14) for the most grand slam titles. But Rafael Nadal's second U.S. Open title, and 13th grand slam championship, gave him one more than Federer at the same age. But this isn't about what Nadal, 27, may yet do; what Rafael Nadal has already accomplished is also more impressive than what Federer has done. Consider:

Nadal also has won an Olympic Gold Medal and spear-headed Spain to four Davis Cup titles. Federer has zero and zero.

Nadal's uncle told "The Australian" that "Federer is still the best" but added "it is getting very, very close for Rafa to be level with Roger or more." He also said:

"Is 17 grand slams more important than everything else? Is it more important than Davis Cups? Is it more important than Olympic Games? Olympic Games is big thing thing for our sport. Rafa has won 26 Masters series titles and that is more than Roger." ~Toni Nadal


Nadal doesn't have to win 18 grand slam titles to pass Federer. John McEnroe and Mats Wilander just said winning two more to get to 15 would mean Nadal had a better career than Federer.

I say that's about right.

Just two more and Nadal is CLEARLY better.

But he's already at least just as good.

Here's why:

For starters, he has those 26 Masters series titles to Federer's 21.

He is also 20-1 in Davis Cup matches, with his only loss coming in his first try at age 17.

Those four Davis Cup titles and one Olympic gold medal equal at least one more grand slam title, if not two. Make it two, and Nadal has 15 titles to Federer's 17.

Nadal has also missed three grand slam events with injuries in the midst of his prime.

In the last four years, he, in order, won the U.S. Open by beating Novak Djokovic in four sets, lost in the finals to Djokovic the year Djokovic won three grand slams and had one of the greatest years of all time, missed the U.S. Open with injury and then won it again this year by beating Djokovic again in four sets. ... It's quite likely that if Nadal had played last year, he, not Andy Murray, would have won the U.S. Open.

But let's leave that title to Murray.

And we'll leave this year's Australian Open to Djokovic, with Nadal missing the first grand slam in a year that he is 60-3 overall and 22-0 on hard courts.

How about we just give Nadal the title in the other tourney he missed completely, Wimbledon in 2009. Nadal won Wimbledon the year before and the year after; he certainly would have been favored in 2009 also, the year Roger Federer won his sixth Wimbledon.

Give that Wimbledon title to Nadal in a theoretically healthy world, and Nadal would have 14 slams to Federer's 16, and it would be a 16-all tie if you counted the Olympics and Davis Cups as even half as important as the Australian Open.

And now look at HOW they have won their titles.

Federer is 2-6 vs. Nadal in grand slam finals and 15-1 against everyone else.

Nadal is 13-5 in finals -- against far tougher competition.

Federer won his first seven grand slam finals until he ran into Nadal. Sorry Roger Federer fans, but it is a heck of a lot easier to win against Mark Philippoussis and Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt and Marcos Baghdatis and Fernando González than against Nadal or Djokovic. Federer is only 10-7 in grand slam finals, after that 7-0 start, since meeting Nadal in his first final in 2006, when he was in his absolute prime at age 25.

Now look at who Rafael Nadal has had to beat. After beating Mariano Puerta to win his first grand slam title at age 18, Nadal played Federer in his next seven grand slam finals. Federer fans like to complain that Nadal caught him on the downside of his career. Not so; in the last of these seven matches, Nadal had just turned 23 while Federer was 28.

Nadal, now 27, is having perhaps the greatest season of his career. Federer actually had the age edge in most of their title matches. The only time Nadal and Federer squared off in a grand slam final when Federer wasn't at the height of his career came two years ago in the French Open, on a surface and a tournament where Federer could never beat Nadal, a record eight-time champ.

Now, after facing Federer in seven of his first eight grand slam finals, he has played Federer (once) and Djokovic (six times) in seven of his LAST eight finals, going 3-3 vs. Djokovic, another all-time great who is the same age as Nadal.

Federer only played Djokovic once in a grand slam final.

If these were race horses, Federer would have been racing against whoever Seattle Slew beat and Nadal would be Affirmed edging an almost equally great Alydar every time.

Nadal is the only tennis player to win at least one grand slam title nine years in a row.

Critics call him the "King of Clay" and make him out to be a one-court specialist, but Nadal and Mats Wilander are the only two players to win two grand slams each on all three surfaces.

It was Rafael Nadal that ended Roger Federer's record 56-match winning streak on hard courts. And it was Nadal that ended Federer's record 65-match winning streak on grass courts. And Federer ended Nadal's record 81-match win streak on clay.

But Nadal has had an even longer rivalry with Djokovic, which has become the longest running rivalry in tennis history.

Tennis commentator Mary Carillo said yesterday that the greatest matches she has ever seen on all three surfaces involved Rafael Nadal: When he beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2008, when he lost last year to Djokovic at the Australian Open and when he beat Djokovic this year at the French Open.

Nadal is also 22-15 lifetime against Djokovic, 21-10 against Federer (21-6 outdoors) and 13-5 vs. Andy Murray. That's a 56-30 record involving the Big Four of his career.

Federer is 10-21 vs. Nadal, 16-13 vs. Djokovic and 9-11 vs. Murray for a 35-45 record.

Le tonton lui même commence à le dire :

FINALLY, Uncle Toni has admitted it. Rafael Nadal is so close to topping Roger Federer's career that he can taste it.

"It is not too far way," Toni Nadal told The Australian after Nadal collected the 13th major of his career by mowing down Novak Djokovic in an electrifying final of the US Open.

"It is getting very, very close for Rafa to be level with Roger or more. Rafa has won an Olympic gold medal for the singles. Roger has not done this.

"Rafa has won Davis Cup four times, and Roger has not won Davis Cup at all. Roger has 17 major wins but we need to see what is important.

"Is 17 grand slams more important than everything else? Is it more important than Davis Cups? Is it more important than Olympic Games?

"Olympic Games is big thing for our sport. Rafa has won 26 Masters series tournaments and this is more than Roger.

"Rafa has a good record against Roger. Federer is still the best, but it is not far away. For us, this is unbelievable to see him here."

Pour ma part j'ai toujours été contre l'idée d'un GOAT, car on ne peut pas comparer les époques.
Juste le palmares. Federer est/était ? le meilleur palmares de tout les temps, c'est indéniable.
Avec l'année, on peut commencer à débattre sur le meilleur palmares de tous les temps entre Nadal et Federer.

Je pense que si Rafa ne connait pas de trop gros problème physique d'ici à sa fin de carrière, je pense qu'il dépassera Federer au niveau palmares du grand chelem.

Nadal est déjà devant, sur tout ce qui est palmares hormis le nombre de GC et sur le nombre de semaine en tant que n°1. Enfin sur tout ce qui touche au n°1 d'ailleurs.

Certains vont sortir qu'il manque à Nadal de gagner le masters, c'est vrai.
Mais quand on y pense, et d'ailleurs Rafa le dit lui même, ce n'est pas très fairplay de toujours jouer le masters sur la meme surface en indoor.
Il aurait été logique vu que ce titre est censé couronné le meilleur, de changer chaque année de surface, afin que cela soit équitable pour tout le monde. Et là nadal aurait surement gagné au moins un masters.

Donc d'ici à sa fin de carrière, je vois bien Nadal dépasser Federer sur le nombre de titres du GC, eventuellement gagner un masters. Par contre je pense qu'il aura du mal à dépasser Federer sur toutes les stats qui touche à la place de n°1.

Dieu sait si j ai été un fed-hater, pour moi il faudrait que Nadal dépasse énormément Fed en titres du GC pour être considéré comme le GOAT.

Fed a été numéro de 2004 à 2007 sur 4 saisons ENTIERES, sans compter la moitié de 2008.Puis il revient numéro en 2009.Le tout avec un sentiment d invincibilité et une aura d intouchable quasi mystique sur les GC.

Nadal a été numéro 1 une moitié de 2008 et une moitié de 2010.Il n a pas dominé le jeu sur une ou des saisons entières.Leurs dominations ne peut être comparables.Alors même si Nadal a autant voir quelques GC de plus que Fed, ça ne changera pas grand chose à mes yeux.Fed est pour moi le GOAT avec une domination quasi samprassienne mais si Pete reste 6 années de suite numéro un encore mieux que fed mais avec moins de GC et une longévité moindre, et un jeu sur terre battue nettement moins bon.

Oui c'est pas faux mais après on peut débattre sur l'opposition qu'avait fédérer au moment ou il était ultra dominant

Federer avait une opposition directe moins élevée, certes.Par contre fed a mis la barre tellement haut que cela a indirectement obligé de nadal, murray et djoko a émerger.Enfin c est aussi Nadal qui a provoqué l émergence de djoke et de murray.Pour battre Nadal il fallait être de plus en plus fort physiquement et c est à cause de Nadal que djoko et murray sont devenus si attentistes,si défensif.Mais je déteste moins Nadal que les jeux de Murray et djoko... 

Pour moi dans la notion de GOAT intervient la capacité à jouer tous les coups du tennis et je trouve Federer plus complet notamment au filet. Donc en plus de tout ce qui a été dit, je le place GOAT !
Mais c'est monstrueux ce que font ces deux gars. Djokovic et Murray ne reviendront pas sur eux, ni Gasquet d'ailleurs   et ils font oublier les gars qui se baladent dans l'histoire avec 5 ou 6 GC et un ou deux ans à la tête du classement !

Ah pas pour moi, s'il devait y avoir un GOAT, ça serait le palmares, les head 2 head etc...
Mais pas celui qui posséde tous les coups du tennis. Ou alors faut faire plusieurs catégories de GOAT , genre le GOAT niveau palmares, le GOAT niveau beauté du jeu, le GOAT niveau guerrier ou je ne sais quoi lol

Déjà que pour moi le GOAT ça veut rien dire, alors s'il commençait a y avoir plusieurs type de GOAT on s'en sortirait plus.

Là où je te rejoins par contre, c'est que djoko et murray sont largement des classes en dessous du duo Rafa/Fed, et donc ils reviendront pas sur eux.
Et c'est pas avec la génération des jeunes que je vois quelqu'un succeptible d'y arriver. Va falloir attendre une autre (ou plusieurs) génération avant de revoir cela.

Par contre Gasquet peut etre que... bah rien
C'est déjà bien il est arrivé en demie, ce qui est surement son maximum. Ou alors il faudrait un sacré concours de circonstance, genre un cul bordé de nouille comme bartoli à wimbledon, pour qu'il en gagne un , un jour

C'est vrai que le HtoH joue aussi, c'est vrai que Federer serait GOAT incontestable si il dominait Nadal, donc Nadal pourrait passer devant avec ce critère mais c'est un joueur qui attaque peu, un GOAT pour moi c'est un joueur qui a tout gagné sur toutes les surfaces avec un tennis total, ce n'est pas le cas de Nadal.
En ce qui concerne le Masters, remember Corretja ! 
Sampras, non, pas assez terrien.
Ne parlons plus des Edberg, Becker, Lendl ou Borg qui n'ont pas assez de victoires en GC.
Oui, ça se jouera entre Fed et Nadal, que Nadal fasse évoluer son jeu et il fera oublier Federer !

Par contre pour les HtoH, à relativiser quand même
l'exemple qui tue : Agenor remporte ses 3 matchs contre Agassi et ce dernier ne sauve que 12 jeux lors de ces trois rencontres !!

Oui c'est important quand meme le H2H surtout quand il y a eu beaucoup de confrontations, pas juste 2 ou 3.

Ce qui m'épate avec Nadal, c'est qu'il a un H2H positif sur tout le monde, hormis davydenko