kiki
Banned
The number 17 must really kill you inside. Day In Day out. Like a thorn in your side.
*******s most hated number is 3, that is, the nº of true calendar GS Laver has under his belt
The number 17 must really kill you inside. Day In Day out. Like a thorn in your side.
The Tennis Channel is killing him.
And so the Lord hath spoken .
*******s most hated number is 3, that is, the nº of true calendar GS Laver has under his belt
Sorry you feel that way.
True that.I'm sorry but that's my opinion am all the stats in the world cannot change my mind . It just defies logic
Sorry you think Nadal is GOAT.
I'm not sure if he is but I just don't think that Fed can be.
Fed's more qualified than Nadal.
More majors, more YE#1, more weeks at number 1, same number of medals, career slam, more wtf's.
In fact.. what does Nadal have on Federer that ISN'T H2H and/or clay GOAT?
Not too much.. in fact.
I'm not saying it's Nadal.....I'm saying it cannot be Fed.
If tennis was about only two men, obviously that would be true.
Fortunately, tennis encompasses many thousands of players.. of whom Federer has proven the most successful at the largest events in the world.
Fed's more qualified than Nadal.
More majors, more YE#1, more weeks at number 1, same number of medals, career slam, more wtf's.
In fact.. what does Nadal have on Federer that ISN'T H2H and/or clay GOAT?
Not too much.. in fact.
There's also him having won his slams against tougher opposition.
By tougher opposition you mean Fed himself, of course. Other than that, they have generally played and lost to the same players. I see what you mean though, how can you have tougher opposition than the GOAT?
Fed himself, and Novak.
Fed was the one who had to face Novak in an unbelievable amount of semifinals (defying the odds). Don't blame Fed for the fact that you don't consider Nadal tough competition, or that you lack faith in his ability to make it past the second round.
I can't dispute your overall point though, of course Fed is the toughest competition of them all.
Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.
Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.
Pretty sure Federer beat the guy who beat rafa multiple times. Soderling, Murray, Gonzalez, etc.
It's not his fault Rafa didn't make it to him, but instead got beat by these 'lesser' players.
... When he hadn't quite yet the level on hard courts.
Lesser players indeed, no doubt (good as they are).
19 pages, considering Nadal is not even a GOAT candidate? This forum never ceases to amaze me...
not a matchup issue per se....because a matchup issue is when you get a guy like rosol who can't beat anyone else but beats Nadal. In the case of Nadal he beat everyone and has 11 slams to prove it. That's not a matchup issue....he is just that good.
Panetta is not a matchup issue.....he was an incredible player and won the FO.....rosol never really did anything. Big difference
But I do see somewhat of an analogy.
When Borg came on the scene baseline play was all the rage. Borg didn't face that many serve and volleyers and when he did he lost many times.
Mcenroe brought the serve and volley back and that was a huge problem for Borg,
Same with Nadal....he brought clay court tennis back....a style that has basically died......today's players are not used to it. And it presents a big problem for them .
Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.
Oh, I would love to know the results of the main events held during the Jeu de Pomme years.A Davis Cup jeu de Pomme contest must have been the most exciting and probably bleeding event ever held...thanks for bringing it up.
Baseline play was all the rage when Borg came? You know NOTHING. NOTHING. That's the most ignorant thing I've heard on here, and that's saying something. Borg was the one who made it popular.
Why is there always an excuse?
That's the thing, Crisstti--why does the Nadal fanbase insist on spouting absolute nonsense like, all the time?
Let's not talk about the guys Nadal didn't have to face (and Federer did) as he was too young, as this would disprove your point too fast, obviously. And we wouldn't want that, would we? Nadal faced Federer in five slams off clay and Federer faced Nadal in five slams on clay, so I would say this kind of evens things out (I won't go into the age issue, but if we went there, we would see that things aren't even--still, let's forget about that, too).
Now, Djokovic. You're right, Nadal has been awfully unlucky, he's had to face Djokovic 9 times in slams. Fed, the lucky guy who had no competition at all, had to face him... 11 times.
So I guess you learned maths in the same school Trolling Day & Knight did, ie 9 > 11 as far as you're concerned, but still...
So, even forgetting the players from the past that Federer had to face and Nadal didn't (Agassi, strong Hewitt and Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick when he was #1), even forgetting the fact that, when they started playing on surfaces that favour Federer, he was already past his prime, just using your own parameters and allowing for your usual contingent of excuses, it turns out that Federer faced stiffer competition than Nadal did at the slams (which I guess everyone knew anyway).
Nice way of owning yourself. Way to go, Crisstti!
Borg 11 slams
_____________
1) 1 GS, Manuel Orantes, 1974 French Open.....baseliner
2) 4 GS, Guillermo Vilas, 1975 French Open.......baseliner
3) 2 GS, Ilie Nastase, 1976 Wimbledon..............all courter
4) 8 GS, Jimmy Connors, 1977 Wimbledon..........baseliner
5) 4 GS, Guillermo Vilas, 1978 French Open..........baseliner
6) 8 GS, Jimmy Connors, 1978 Wimbledon.............baseliner
7) 0 GS, Victor Pecci, 1979 French Open................baseliner
8] 1 GS, Roscoe Tanner, 1979 Wimbledon................serve and volley
9) 1 GS, Vitas Gerulaitis, 1980 French Open..............serve and volley
10) 7 GS, John McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon..................serve and volley
11) 8 GS, Ivan Lendl, 1981 French Open.....................baseliner
As you will see only at the end of his career did he face Mcenroe and gerulatis , serve and volleyers. He did fave tanner....who was more of just a serve similar to Roddick....but ok .
You mean, an explanation you don't like?.
No, it wouldn't...
Yeah, right.
According to some, all it takes is a career slam.
And Nadal has on of those.
You mean, an explanation you don't like?.
No, it wouldn't...
Yeah, right.
An explanation that he doesn't like, or an explanation for a result that you don't like? :lol:
Unless Nadal starts winning more hard court slams and tournaments, he is never going to be put up there with Federer on hard courts. He isn't even going to be put up there with Djokovic.
It wasn't the point being discussed. It was what he had on his favour in goat discussions, and him having beaten tougher competition on slam finals is something he's got on his favour.
What about the excuse part?
I was just laying it out for you in general though. Your opinion of his hard court competition has nothing to do with reality, of course. Unless you mean it in the sense that we have discussed before, which boils down to the fact that Federer can't play himself.
We can just as easily say that all the good hard courters started to decline and were replaced with grinders, or that hard courts were slowed down enough to allow Nadal to grind his way to victory. Either way, records speak for themselves in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
What excuse?.
No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.
What excuse?.
No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.
... When he [Novak] hadn't quite yet the level on hard courts.
Lesser players indeed, no doubt (good as they are).
What excuse?.
No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.
Grumping about Federer not facing Nadal is ok I guess (even though it's still grumping at best, and irrelevant at worst), but Djokovic? Federer was the only player to beat him in a slam in '11, he recently beat him at Wimbledon, and Murray afterwards; I hope that's not too shabby for weak-eraists.
And of course, as always, one must marvel at how Federer is perceived to be the only player able to sustain the same "level" on all surfaces; at his best whenever and wherever, since 2004.
According to some, all it takes is a career slam.
And Nadal has on of those.
It wasn't the point being discussed. It was what he had on his favour in goat discussions, and him having beaten tougher competition on slam finals is something he's got on his favour.
There are/were also a whole bunch of threads about Nadal serving a silent ban after Wimbledon this year, about him getting cakewalk draws, about him being the biggest cheater in tennis etc. People discussing a specific topic here hardly counts that much to be honest.
What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.
This way, the player has served a "silent ban". The fact that you consider this some sort of impossibility or a joke, shows how clueless you seem to be.
What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.
This way, the player has served a "silent ban". The fact that you consider this some sort of impossibility or a joke, shows how clueless you seem to be.
Never said it was right or wrong, impossibility or a joke, I personally don't think Nadal is serving a silent ban but I'm not dismissing any possibility (including that not just Nadal but other top players/stars are doping as well, yes even Fed with his "smooth" game).
I merely used those examples I know she (Chrissti) disagrees with to illustrate a point.
Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
Sounds like someone has already made up his mind, based upon an esoteric, scientific criterion.Right, so now we can move on to the tiebreaker. Number of slams, weeks at number one, or whatever else floats your boat. Perhaps the total amount of bacteria transferred from your butt to your face throughout your career?
Sounds like someone has already made up his mind, based upon an esoteric, scientific criterion.
According to some, all it takes is a career slam.
And Nadal has one of those.
(But I disagree. A career slam is pretty much a Carilloism.)
According to some, you mean few Nadal fans like TDK. And there are Laver fans who believe a Grand Slam alone is enough for goat candidate. No so fast. Career slam or a Grand Slam is not enough because that's only 1 criteria. The full picture is the entire career achievement, which should take EVERYTHING into account.