The Case Against Federer’s GOAT Status
I thought we could have a break from basketball to expand on the debate of Federer’s GOAT status.
The best case for Federer’s GOAT status is not his dwindling Grand Slam (GS) lead over Nadal and Djoker. Rather, it is the fact that he holds a substantive lead over both in terms of “weeks-at-number-1.” I think this is a great stat given how brutal ATP point system is (to maintain your points, you have to meet or exceed performance at each tournament… in a way penalizing excellence and only rewarding the ability to exceed one’s performance).
Weeks at Number 1 – ATP MEN
Rodger Federer – 310
Pete Sampras – 286
Novak Djokovic – 276
Ivan Lendl – 270
Jimmy Connors – 268
Rafael Nadal – 209
It is highly unlikely that Nadal will be able to reach Federer on this stat given that he is injury-prone and 33. Djokovic, 32, may. However, we are starting to see young guns like Medvedev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, and Zverev start to get results. So, I think it is a 50-50 whether even Djokovic catches Federer (although he will definitely pass Sampras soon by the end of Q1).
So, is that it? Does Federer remain the GOAT if he remains at the top of this stat? Maybe.
The main criticism I have against Federer’s 310 weeks is that 237 of the 310 (76%) came in the February 2, 2004 to August 17, 2008 stretch, a stretch during which Federer also won 12 of his 20 Grand Slam titles. Let’s recount the illustrious tennis greats that Fed defeated in this epoch of greatness:
Federer’s Epoch of Greatness
2004 Australia: Safin (total GS titles at that point in his career: 1)
2004 US Open: Hewitt (2)
2004 Wimbledon: Roddick (1)
2005 US Open: Super old, 35-year-old, Agassi (8)
2005 Wimbledon: Roddick (1)
2006 Australia: Baghdatis (0)
2006 US Open: Roddick (1)
2006 Wimbledon: Nadal (2)
2007 Australia: Gonzales (0)
2007 US Open: Djokovic (0)
2007 Wimbledon: Nadal (3)
2008 US Open: Murray (0)
To be clear, Federer feasted during this stretch of dominance on Safin, Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzales, a thirty-five year old Agassi, and 21 , 22, and 22 year old Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Federer and Murray were as green as some of the young kids today. Nadal’s three GS wins all came from the French Open. Think of the three of them like Thiem, Medvedev, and Tsisipras at this point in their career.
Now, wins are wins. Period. If Federer was a flaky player (like an early-career Novak), he would have lowered his guard and had a much weaker track record. He would have played to the level of his competition (a great criticism against Djokovic, by the way). And for that I respect him. Federer is, indeed, a machine. As his country’s greatest contribution to humanity, he is a finely tuned mechanical piece of art. He does not skip or delay. He just tics. Without a flaw and without a hitch. And we should all give him respect for that.
But I cannot look at that 76% of his weeks at number 1 any other way. It is feasting on children and scrubs (and an Agassi so hopped up on cortisone he probably will have liver damage thanks to that 2005 US Open final). The combined number of Grand Slams held by his opposition in those finals over a FIVE-YEAR STRETCH (2004-2008) – and the most important stretch of his life in terms of records – is EIGHT. EIGHT GRAND SLAMS. That is the combined total of Grand Slam titles of ALL the opponents that he faced during that time (number of GS they held under their belt).
Now this is actually not true. I exclude Agassi from the calculation because he was 35 and thus his actual skill level in 2005 was not equivalent to his record of eight GS titles. But let’s add him to the list. Agassi himself had eight and thus doubles the number of GS titles Federer’s opponents had during this all-important stretch of GS titles to 16. Literally one guy. Doubles. The total. One guy who Federer defeated in his prime, nine years younger, for one of the 12 titles. The other 11 finalists? Eight. Titles. In. Grand. Slam. Finals.
WOW.
The only player that Federer faced in those finals with any serious chops was Hewitt, with two GS titles. But he was already hurting and would never reach another GS quarter final from Q1 2005 onwards.
Still, maintaining excellence is impressive and thus Federer’s 310 weeks at number one is an amazing, GOAT, feat. There is no argument that Federer’s 310 weeks make him one of the top-5 tennis players ever. He is, by far, the most consistent tennis great. Much like Kareem Abdul Jabbar sits at the top of the point-scored mountain in the NBA. Federer is Kareem. And anyone who says that Kareem is not a top-5 player, and in the conversation for the GOAT, is crazy.
What about the 20 Grand Slam titles? Why not focus on that stat? Is it not the most relevant stat in picking a tennis great?
Well, first, obviously Nadal and Djokovic are nearing it. If Djokovic ends up winning 21 Grand Slam titles, but does not get to 310 weeks-at-number-one, is the debate over? Of course not! Grand Slams are not everything. And I would not give Djoker undisputed GOAT status purely because of a 21-win total (especially when half of them will be, bizarrely, from Oz).
What makes GS special? The three sets? The pressure? Sure… but Masters tournaments are just as competitive given the attendance of all top-32 players at each (barring injuries). Just to be clear, I am talking only about the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 (every year, there are nine of these, here is the list). For some very strange reason, Federer only has 28 titles over his career. Despite a stretch of his career in which he could have feasted on sub-par and young competition (2004-2008), Federer has six less titles than Djokovic (34) and seven less than Nadal (35).
If we combine their GS + ATP 1000 totals, Nadal is suddenly the top dog, by a substantive margin over Federer.
GS + ATP 1000 career wins
Nadal – 54
Djokovic – 51
Federer – 48
This is a really weird stat. How do we explain Federer’s amazing, clockwork, dominance between 2004-2008 in terms of Grand Slams (12) and his rather poor effort at ATP 1000 tournaments (only 13 wins in those five years)? Just to be clear, during this stretch, Federer won 12 out of 20 possible GS titles (60%) and just 13 out of 45 possible ATP 1000 titles (29%). Given the number of years under examination (2004-2008) and the number of tournaments contested, the percentage drop is fairly statistically representative. In fact, in 2006 and 2007, Federer only won 6 out of possible 18 Masters titles, but still won 6 out of 8 Grand Slams.
Why the massive decline in Master performance in those two years?
Because Federer is as contrived as Djoker. But whereas Djokovic cannot help it (it is his personality), Federer is a result of C-Suite planning. He is a product of careful PR manufacturing that his loyal fans have fallen for.
While Djoker wears his emotion on his sleeves and does not know how to adopt proper Western social cues (he grew up while being bombed by NATO people!), Federer is polished. He is well coached by the Nike-Rolex PR machine that ensures he says the right things at the right time. But that machine also forced him to favor Grand Slams over overall excellence. It is what explains his mental absences and dubious performances at ATP 1000 tournaments. A more than 30% points lower win percentage in ATP 1000 tournaments relative to the glitzy Grand Slams? This doesn’t happen by accident.
Now look, we cannot say that ATP 1000 tournaments are equal to Grand Slams. But ATP already adjusts for this fact given that Grand Slams are worth 2,000 ATP points to just 1,000 for Masters tournaments. Is Australia really worth two times the prestige of Indian Wells? Personally, I would argue HELL NO. But hey, let’s go with that – overstated – measure of GS importance. Let’s adjust the career win total by the awarded ATP points. So, each Grand Slam gives you 2,000 points and each ATP 1000 title gives you 1,000. When adjusted for ATP point totals, Nadal still comes out on top:
Career Totals: Grand Slam + Masters ATP Points:
Nadal – 73,000
Federer – 68,000
Djokovic – 68,000
I generally agree with Nadal detractors that claim his early career dominance of clay made him a one-trick pony. So, I am perfectly fine saying that Federer remains the GOAT in this moment, right now. But we all know that Djokovic will obviously overtake him in career ATP point totals won in GS and Masters tournaments given that he already matched his career record at 32.
Furthermore, both Nadal and Djokovic reached their point and title totals while playing against each other and Federer in their prime. I won’t recount the “GS titles won by opponents” from above that I did for Federer as obviously the numbers for both Novak and Djokovic are immensely greater than for Federer. Let’s also not forget Andy Murray, the much maligned and hated pro who nonetheless won three Grand Slams and spent 41 weeks at number 1. Those are not numbers to scoff at and certainly are better than anyone Rodger Federer faced in that 2004-2008 stretch that so much of his dominance is based on.
Finally, two non-empirical, personal, issues with Federer.
First, I have a bias against dominance. I cheered against MJ, against the Patriots, against Michael Schumacher, and against the Austrian ski team. So, I personally was not sitting around in 2004-2008 and getting excited for someone beating scrubs and youth to 60% of their Grand Slam title total. I don’t understand how anyone else could have sat there and admired Federer destroying Safin in multiple GS finals. I obviously respect Federer, but I don’t respect frontrunner fans who became his zealots in that particular stretch.
While Federer was destroying Roddick and Baghdatis, I longed for the days when Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Lendl, Chang, and Rafter could at any one time win a Grand Slam final. That was the golden era of men’s tennis. The 1990-1997 stretch that stands out as viciously competitive era during which being in the top-10 on the ATP list meant something (I’m looking at you Monfils!).
And yet, despite the number of greats who played in that era, Sampras somehow still managed to win 14 Grand Slam finals. To me, Pete has a very strong claim to GOAT status as result of this era. The one (major) black mark is that he never managed to win Roland Garros (his best was a semifinal appearance in the clay Grand Slam), a fact that begs the question of whether he would have been as successful in this baseline-dominant era of tennis.
My second personal, non-empirical, problem with Federer is his arrogance. I don’t mind arrogance in athletes when it comes from hard work. Kobe was arrogant, but he also worked harder than anyone else around him. And I don’t have a problem with arrogance in victory. There should be a level of arrogance in victory.
But Federer has been arrogant in losses. It is easy to be a gracious winner. You won! It is not difficult to be magnanimous in success. But being gracious in losses is super tough. When frustrated, Federer’s true nature comes out, like this epic, purely passive-aggressive, bullshit comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Istcd6U_J9s
First, he opens with “I should be doing the other press conference…” LOL. Mmmmkay. But you’re not because Djoker did this to you (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk7EQ2Uebag) (By the way, as an aside, that return is the most Serby thing that Djkovic has ever done… if he only stopped trying to be loved and played like a villain – channel your inner Milan Lucic man! – he would have the respect of crowds everywhere). Then, at the 2:25 minute mark comes this from Federer:
“I mean, please. Some players grow up and play like that – being down 5-2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots. I never played that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. For me, this is very hard to understand. How can you play a shot like that on match point? Maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him.”
This Guardian article went on to expand on that amazing press conference.
I lost a lot of respect for Federer after that loss. Sure, Djokovic took a gamble on that return and admitted later as much. But that is what sports is about!! It’s about playing with heart and going for gold (again, if Novak played like that in every match, he would already be the GOAT and would not be reviled!).
The entire match turned on that match point. “How can you play a shot like that on match point?” Are you seriously asking this question Rodger?! HOW CAN YOU NOT!!!!
Why didn’t Federer finish off Djokovic after that shot? He was still winning, had another match point, and had a 5-3 lead! Because, he was rattled. Because, deep down, he knows that he is too mechanical, too manicured, too clean to be the GOAT. He lost that title because he got scared. He saw the Serb rage across the net and wanted none of it. So, he packed it in and then, in the press conference, he lowered his Nike-Rolex PR, study-group, fabricated guard just enough for us to see his true self. Rodger was shook because he knew that the bulk of his dominance was garnered against players who could never dig that deep, into the recesses of their muse-cage, and whip back a return across the net to the gasps of both their opponent and the crowd. The stunned reaction from the crowd and Rodger was telling. In that one shot, they saw their bronze, Alpine, God crumble to the earth.
Anyways, Federer is still a top-5 of all time and this post is not meant to argue that Djokovic is better. Maybe. Time will tell. I think that for Djokovic to be the best ever he has to A) beat Fed’s “weeks-at-number-1” record and B) win two more Grand Slams. He also, in my view, has to be relevant until 35. Not necessarily win as many GS as Fed – he already has a better head-to-head record against Federer and has more combined GS/Masters titles – but remain relevant as the young guns grow up. He needs to win an occasional Paris Masters against Thiem or Medvedev in 2022 and 2023. That kind of stuff.
My point is that the cult-of-Federer is manufactured and packaged to casual tennis fans like any other product. The majority of his Grand Slam titles (60%) and weeks-at-number-1 (76%) came at a time when he faced no competition, when tennis was desperate for a star to ensure that the post-Pete era did not suffer from a lack of interest. But that same machine that polished his… uhm, bronze statue, also focused his career so exclusively on Grand Slams that his Masters record brings up a lot of questions. Grand Slams are not NBA Finals.
Bottom Line: Federer has shown his greatness by standing toe-to-toe with Nadal and Djokovic and by remaining in the top-5 of ATP well into his late-30s. However, both Nadal and Djokovic eclipsed Federer much sooner than they really should have were he an undisputed GOAT. Nadal in 2010 at 24 (when Roger was 29) and Djokovic in 2011 at 24 (when Roger was 30). It’s not like they were 10 years younger than him (as in, it is not like when a 24-year-old, flexing, Federer defeated a 35-year old Agassi in the 2005 US Open finals). As such, we should not be doing too much age-adjustment for either Nadal or Djokovic when measuring their head-to-head with Federer (Federer-Djokovic head-to-head was just 16-15 advantage at the end of 2013, when Fed was 32 and Djokovic was 25).
Federer is not a fraud. He will forever be in the GOAT conversation and is the most consistent tennis player ever. He is the ATP’s Kareem Abdul Jabbar. However, his GOAT status is bloated by a 2004-2008 run of dominance against scrubs, the carefully orchestrated Nike-Rolex PR machine, and a cantankerous personality that comes through when he meets his match.
1 The phrase “Let’s also not forget Andy Murray” is here uttered with great risk of losing credibility for the entire analysis!
2 As an aside… my favorite tennis player during that stretch was not Sampras. Again, I don’t cheer for dominance. I was a Michael Chang zealot!
3 Intriguingly, Federer does have the second most career wins in all tournaments, a t 103. But Jimmy Connors tops that list at 109, so I am a bit dubious to use it. Connors is a tennis great and a top-10 player for sure, but he is in nobody’s GOAT conversations. Why so many wins? Federer has a lot more wins in ATP 500 and 250 tournaments than both Djokovic and Nadal. But these tournaments have much weaker competition, with usually a steep drop after the top-10 seeds.
No comments:
Post a Comment