PDA

View Full Version : Let's theorycraft for a moment...


Falloutjr
05-29-2010, 01:54 PM
I've been thinking this question over for the last couple hours. Let's say that Roger Federer were to retire right now. After that, Nadal goes on an amazing streak and catches Fed's 16 GS titles. Given everything else Nadal has accomplished, do you think he would surpass Federer in the lore of tennis history? Maybe even be a GOAT contender? Discuss. I just ask no *******-******* arguments, though that probably won't happen.

namelessone
05-29-2010, 01:57 PM
No,Rafa cannot catch up with Fed. In fact,I don't think anyone will.

I don't know why Rafa is always compared to Fed and expected to overtake him,he is far behind.

Here is an a bit from Rafa's interview today:

"Q. I have a different question for you. Everyone in tennis loves Roger, respects Roger. He is said to be the best of all time. Yet two out of every three times you play him, you win. You've won six of the last seven times. Who's a better player?
RAFAEL NADAL: You like this. You are focused on the Roger thing, eh? (laughter.)
Yesterday with the clay. Today with the if somebody says I am better than Roger, I think this person don't know nothing about tennis. That's my answer.

Q. How so?
RAFAEL NADAL: Why?

Q. Yeah.
RAFAEL NADAL: So you don't know nothing about tennis.
You see the titles of him and you see the titles of me? It's no comparison. So that's the answer. Is difficult to compare Roger with me now, because he has 16 Grand Slams; I have 6. Masters 1000, yeah, I have more than him. But for the rest of the things the records of Roger is very, very almost impossible to improve."

Rippy
05-29-2010, 02:05 PM
I've been thinking this question over for the last couple hours. Let's say that Roger Federer were to retire right now. After that, Nadal goes on an amazing streak and catches Fed's 16 GS titles. Given everything else Nadal has accomplished, do you think he would surpass Federer in the lore of tennis history? Maybe even be a GOAT contender? Discuss. I just ask no *******-******* arguments, though that probably won't happen.

Of course if he caught 16 grand slams he'd be a GOAT contender.

Absolutely - if Nadal reached 16 slams, he'd definitely be talked about like Fed is at the moment.

GasquetGOAT
05-29-2010, 02:07 PM
I've been thinking this question over for the last couple hours. Let's say that Roger Federer were to retire right now. After that, Nadal goes on an amazing streak and catches Fed's 16 GS titles.

Let me stop you right there. Not gonna happen.

Falloutjr
05-29-2010, 02:08 PM
Let me stop you right there. Not gonna happen.

That's why its called theorycraft lol. It's all in theory.

West Coast Ace
05-29-2010, 02:43 PM
Of course if he caught 16 grand slams he'd be a GOAT contender.

Absolutely - if Nadal reached 16 slams, he'd definitely be talked about like Fed is at the moment.Except by Sampras jock sniffers - they'd talk about the lack of competition; that Federer wasn't that good; the umps let him take too long between points (and his opponents weren't allowed to breath during the extra time)...

kaleidoskope
05-29-2010, 02:57 PM
Well, as much as a Roger fan as I am, I thing Rafa has a pretty good chance to equal or beat Roger's records. Just a feeling. He's been less "do-or-die" on court, which can keep him injury free, has the mental strength, has the physical ability, has the talent, and most of all, has the will to do it. And I think that even in fast surfaces he can beat pretty much anyone out there...

And if he does, even I, a ******* will easily and gladly recognize him as the best of all time. Plain and simple.

Rhino
05-29-2010, 03:02 PM
If anyone got to 16 GS titles they'd be a contender, isn't that obvious?

Rhino
05-29-2010, 03:03 PM
Well, as much as a Roger fan as I am, I thing Rafa has a pretty good chance to equal or beat Roger's records.

History would suggest that winning 16 GS titles is actually quite difficult.

billnepill
05-29-2010, 03:10 PM
There is something that is 100 % certain. If Nadal won 16 GS, ***********s would be here and we would be hearing a lot about the weak era ..... and Davydenko.

frisco
05-29-2010, 03:13 PM
Nadal can never surpass Federer, because if Fed retires now, then all of Nadal's wins would come without beating Fed, therefore asterisked. I'm sure *********s can easily fathom that egregious argument.

sh@de
05-29-2010, 07:27 PM
Of course Nadal would then be ahead of Fed, because it'd be 16=16 and 14>7. But whether he'd be GOAT or not depends on what people think about Laver/Borg etc. compared to Nadal.

ViscaB
05-29-2010, 07:30 PM
Nadal can never surpass Federer, because if Fed retires now, then all of Nadal's wins would come without beating Fed, therefore asterisked. I'm sure *********s can easily fathom that egregious argument.

In the same vein let's discount some of Federer's past wins since they were won when Nadal was still a kid.

kishnabe
05-29-2010, 08:17 PM
I want Nadal to win a maximum of 12 slams....nothint past that!

sh@de
05-29-2010, 08:42 PM
I want Nadal to win a maximum of 12 slams....nothint past that!

Why...?

10 chars.

hoodjem
05-29-2010, 08:45 PM
I've been thinking this question over for the last couple hours. Let's say that Roger Federer were to retire right now. After that, Nadal goes on an amazing streak and catches Fed's 16 GS titles. Given everything else Nadal has accomplished, do you think he would surpass Federer in the lore of tennis history? Maybe even be a GOAT contender? Discuss. I just ask no *******-******* arguments, though that probably won't happen.You call this "theorycraft"? Don't overestimate your intellect and flatter yourself: this is neither theory, nor craft. It is called imagining.

If Nadal also gets 16 slams titles, dominates at RG, and has the record of Masters titles then, yes, he will be considered better (obviously) than Fed. (Because he will have a better record--plain and simple.) But GOAT? Not until he gets two GS.

Chezbeeno
05-29-2010, 08:46 PM
question: Is theorycraft anything like Starcraft?
statement: I don't think Nadal's body will hold up enough for him to be an actual contender for GOAT unless he stops playing hardcourt tournaments all together

frisco
05-29-2010, 08:49 PM
In the same vein let's discount some of Federer's past wins since they were won when Nadal was still a kid.

Then you'd have to throw in all of Nadal's 2008 since Fed had mono.

ViscaB
05-29-2010, 08:59 PM
Then you'd have to throw in all of Nadal's 2008 since Fed had mono.

:lol:

A broken record.

Let's not forget Rafa's success in the Olympics, Masters tournaments and Davis cup as well.

piece
05-29-2010, 09:15 PM
Well, as much as a Roger fan as I am, I thing Rafa has a pretty good chance to equal or beat Roger's records. Just a feeling. He's been less "do-or-die" on court, which can keep him injury free, has the mental strength, has the physical ability, has the talent, and most of all, has the will to do it. And I think that even in fast surfaces he can beat pretty much anyone out there...

And if he does, even I, a ******* will easily and gladly recognize him as the best of all time. Plain and simple.

I'd be happy to call him the greatest of all time if he were to break most of Fed's important records but best of all time is a whole different animal, for me.

To be the best player of all time Nadal would have to significantly improve the level of his performances on hard court (Fed has, on many occassions played better on a hardcourt than anyone else in history, IMO), as well as improve his level on grass (Fed is right up here too for best ever level, maybe right at the top).

hoodjem
05-29-2010, 09:20 PM
question: Is theorycraft anything like Starcraft?Yes, theorycraft is like starcraft, lasercraft, and atomicraft.

Love all
05-29-2010, 09:25 PM
If he does, it wouldn't b injustice to the game to regard him as one of GOAT along with Federer.

piece
05-29-2010, 09:28 PM
You call this "theorycraft"? Don't overestimate your intellect and flatter yourself: this is neither theory, nor craft. It is called imagining.

If Nadal also gets 16 slams titles, dominates at RG, and has the record of Masters titles then, yes, he will be considered better (obviously) than Fed. (Because he will have a better record--plain and simple.) But GOAT? Not until he gets two GS.

In what way would his record be better (other than the masters titles, obviously)? Would he have dominated RG more than Federer did Wimbledon? Would he have a career grand slam? Would he have the longest ever winning streaks on 2/3 surfaces? Would he have by far the most slam finals, and semi finals in a row? Would he have won 5 consecutive of any slams, let alone 5 consecutive at two separate slams? Would he ever win 3 consecutive slams? Or ever win 3 in a year (on multiple occasions)? Will he ever be ranked number 1 for 237 consecutive weeks? Will he ever win 24 straight finals?

Federer's record is a lot better than you're giving it credit for.

gold soundz
05-29-2010, 09:29 PM
Yeah if he gets as many slams then IMO he'd be the GOAT. He would have more Masters Series tournaments too. But it's very hard to see him getting there with his playing style. He'll probably end up with about 10-12 slams.

kishnabe
05-30-2010, 06:03 AM
Why...?

10 chars.

It just a good number...plus he will be equal with Emerson...if he goes past 12...It would be weird that he actually acomplished that much.
He will average 1 slam a year...or 2 if he is lucky or too good that year.
He has about 6 years left on the tour....so ya I think he could win max of 12...There will be times when he won't win anything!

joeri888
05-30-2010, 06:16 AM
I don't call anyone the GOAT, but he'd defenitely surpass Roger, if he beats his records as the most achieved player of the open era.