Can Nadal complete 16 slams or more?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by jackson vile, Jul 3, 2010.

?

What it be folks

Poll closed Jul 11, 2010.
  1. It could very well happen, time will tell

    89 vote(s)
    54.3%
  2. Ain't going to happen, every year I claim his career is over

    75 vote(s)
    45.7%
  1. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Another topic would be if Nadal ends up with 4 or 5 hard court slams and if he ends up beating anyone of substances (eg- Federer, Del Potro, Djokovic, Murray, some others) would you consider him better than Agassi on hard courts despite that Agassi ended up with 6? I for one would. Agassi had joke draws to most of his hard court slams- both U.S Opens, and the 2001 and 2003 Australian Opens were the worst in history. And Sampras did not deny him as many hard court slams as people think, he was never winning the 1990 U.S Open, unlikely to win the 2001 U.S Open, and he could have been beaten at the 95 U.S Open by Courier or 2002 U.S Open by a better day Hewitt in the final too.

    Most people rate Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe above Agassi on hard courts despite that they all have fewer hard court slams.
     
    #51
  2. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    That's a tough call. IMO, if Nadal wins 1-2 USO and another 2 AO ... he'll be very close to Agassi on HC.

    No doubt that Nadal is better on HC than Agassi on clay... even without a USO.
     
    #52
  3. heninfan99

    heninfan99 Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,541
    It's up to his knees & ankles. With his will power and talent 16 is doable.
    The question I can't answer is can Federer be the GOAT is he can't beat Nadal?
     
    #53
  4. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    It's easy: You don't need to answer the question, because it is flawed (the concept of GOAT is not realistic.)
     
    #54
  5. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Federer isn't even the best of his generation with the huge lopsided H2H with Rafa.

    Federer is the most accomplished male singles player in the Open Era (so far) :twisted:

    Agreed... one would have to consider the technology (strings, racquets, etc), playing surfaces... plus how dominant a leading player was over all competition during his reign at the top.

    Federer has a huge problem... the lopsided (7-14) record across all surfaces with Nadal... with many of Federer's losses occurring during his prime.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
    #55
  6. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    That is why Laver is the GOAT though. He has no flaws:

    -versatility and success across all surfaces that were available at the time. Check.
    -dominance over all main rivals. Check.
    -longevity. Check (Rosewall and Gonzales actually have more but Laver still excellent in this area)
    -extreme dominance of the game for a period. Check
    -consistency. Check
    -all court game. Check
    -peak level of play. Check

    So he didnt have to play a hard court slam. So what, there were many hard court or indoor tournaments and he dominated those too during his better years.


    I picture Federer playing a prime Laver. Lets see a fragile backhand, not much comfort or reliability at the net, an overly defensive return game, and a fragile pysche against tough competition. Honestly I think Laver would eat Federer up most of the time. Heck if Federer fans put Nadal and his abilities down so much, well if even mediocre little Nadal (according to them) does so much damage to Federer, imagine what Grand Slammer at age 31 Laver and his near faultless all around/all court/all surface game and mental toughness would do to Federer.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
    #56
  7. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Did Laver have a winning H2H over his rivals on fast indoor/wood courts as well?
     
    #57
  8. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    Not really. Tennis is different from boxing or chess: it is a tournament-based sport, not a champion vs. contender one. A player is measured against the whole tour, not against any particular somebody who happens to be a bad or good match-up.
     
    #58
  9. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I am pretty sure he did. All the records I look up say so. The only thing I am not sure of is his head to head with Rosewall on clay. It might have been a losing one, but he still beat Rosewall alot of times on clay too, it wasnt like he was ever his pigeon on clay like Federer is to Nadal on clay (and I know Nadal is now considered greater than even the great Rosewall on clay, but still doesnt change the relevance). There are people in the Former Pro section much more versed in all the stats than I would be though.
     
    #59
  10. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    But every player is also a product of his time. Laver is lucky that Gonzalez wasn't exactly his contemporary (even though they did play some matches.)
    Similarly, if Fed and Laver had been contemporaries, they would have had to share all those trophies, making their achievements seem less spectacular individually.

    There is just no such thing as a GOAT in my opinion.
     
    #60
  11. DragonBlaze

    DragonBlaze Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,654
    But Laver got beaten by a 40 years Gonzalez.

    So 40 year old Gonzalez = GOAT
    wat u tink? :confused:
     
    #61
  12. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    Yes, Federer has that huge problem. Even if we don't talk about the GOAT, with Nadal being superior in H2H, if Nadal were to achieve close to the number of slams Fed got, it would make everyone declaring Fed as a superior player (without qualifications) to Nadal look a little silly.
     
    #62
  13. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    Pancho was The Man. I'm still waiting for Ron Howard or some Hollywood top dog to come out with a movie about him.
     
    #63
  14. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    One can speculate how Laver would have fared vs a prime Gonzales of course. However he did still face a slew of great players and dominated all available to him.

    What makes you sure Federer would even hold his own vs Laver? He cant even hold his own vs Nadal today as the lopsided head to head and mismatch of a rivalry shows. Federer doesnt have as complete a game as Laver, mentally he is nowhere near as strong, and looking at how his game is falling off drastically in his late 20s after only coming into his own at 22 his longevity is not likely to even scrape the surface either (it is starting to look like even Nadal will surpass Federer in longevity unbelievably).
     
    #64
  15. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827



    That is a damn good point, I did not think of it that way.
     
    #65
  16. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    So, he still dominated the aging Gonzales and won the vast majority of their matches, and Gonzales while older was still an amazing player. It is possible he would have had alot more trouble with a prime Gonzales but nobody can really know for sure. The point is everyone Laver DID face, rather than speculation, he did dominate, while Federer gets dominated to embarassing degrees by Nadal who is not yet even established as a first tier all time great (though he could well get there).
     
    #66
  17. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    I see a dominant - much better FH, a clearly better serve and as good movement if not better, as versatile a BH as any, more than decent enough at the net, a more complete baseline game - good enough to pass laver enough times .....

    P.S. I am dead sure you haven't watched more than 1-2 matches of laver. :)
     
    #67
  18. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    A H2H assessment of two players is not based on a single match.

    14-7 is 21 matches and enough of a sample size to determine a pattern... especially as it's across all surfaces, as well.

    Be interesting to see their H2H and the matches.
     
    #68
  19. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    Pancho also had some 27 slams
     
    #69
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    considering 12 of the 21 matches have been on clay, its very balanced and not at all skewed, no ? :rolleyes:
     
    #70
  21. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    As far as the thread question is concerned, don't think so, he'll probably end up with 12-13 slams
     
    #71
  22. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    That is a bit ironic, actually :)

    Federer turned pro in 1998... Nadal 2001 (even though they are 5 years apart in age)
     
    #72
  23. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    LOL, LOL , LMAO. Don't worry, I'll bring up this bound to be an epic failure of a post sometime in the future :)
     
    #73
  24. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    That's barely more than half... and two of those clay meetings Federer defeated Nadal, IIRC... Plus Federer is a 4 time consecutive finalist at the FO (06-09) and 1-time winner (09). So, enough with this bogus argument and the excuses about Federer on clay.

    Also, according to your logic... the H2H should be 12-9 with Nadal winning just the clay meetings and Federer winning everything else. This isn't reality... each has beat the other on every surface (multiple times in Federer's case beating Nadal on grass).
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
    #74
  25. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    yes just like you were going to bring up my comment about Federer failing to pass Sampras's weeks at #1 as the epic fail in the future. :oops: Do what you want, bring up whatever you want in some attempt at a childish game, and it certainly wont bother me. You delude yourself into thinking anyone other than the worst of your fellow ******* trolls (eg- TMF) even care what you think about anything. :):)
     
    #75
  26. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    not to mention that 17 year old Nadal was already beating Federer on hard courts. Federer cant own Nadal on any surface the way Nadal has owned Federer on clay despite that they began playing when Nadal was 17 and when Federer was in his prime. That already cements his ownage of Federer to anyone with a brain, but *******s will continue to roam for excuses rather than just atleast accepting a simple truth and arguing around that.
     
    #76
  27. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    Yes, it's all speculation. Gonzales was an unbelievable force, however. He won against Laver when he was 40. Something like that is unthinkable of today.

    As for Fed, he might as well recover and continue winning Slams. I really don't think we can say Fed would have been a match for Laver, or viceversa. It's all speculation.
     
    #77
  28. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    It's good that you think it's a good point, because that shows you are more intelligent than most people. It will be the year 2200 and we will continue having discussions about who the GOAT is. The answer is that there is no fricking GOAT.
     
    #78
  29. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I agree it is speculation in both cases. And I agree Gonzales was an unbelievabl e force in the game too, and a very underated player today. However you have to admit the way Federer crumbles under the psyschological pressure of his ONLY real rival of this era- Nadal, does not exactly suggest great things going up other past legends of the game.

    Even if Federer recovers and wins slams will he turn around his head to head with Nadal? Almost certainly not, that aspect is likely to only get worse from here. And that is thing, we do know Federer was owned by the only other truly great player of his own generation, and we know Laver handled anyone in his own era that was available which included some truly great players.
     
    #79
  30. DragonBlaze

    DragonBlaze Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,654
    So according to you the fact that Nadal is a bad matchup has NOTHING to do with the reason Fed loses to Nadal? It's ONLY because hes mentally weak?

    You see, I cant see anybody else being such a bad matchup for Roger as Nadal is.
     
    #80
  31. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    Yes, I agree with this. But let's not underestimate Nadal though. Probably anyone else in history (except maybe Borg) would have had their H2H against Nadal pretty much destroyed, with a substantial portion of that H2H played on clay.
     
    #81
  32. dmt

    dmt Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    how many matches do you think Laver would win against Nadal if they played on clay 12 times? What about sampras? If these guys played Nadal 12 times on clay and 9 times on other surfaces under todays conditions, i dont think there head to head vs Nadal would be much different then Federer's
     
    #82
  33. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    If you're considering yourself THE GOAT... there should be no bad matchups. That's the entire point. The fact that the sample size is so huge (21 matches) and the playing surfaces vary (with each player winning at least once on the others' stronger surface - and in Federer's case more than once on clay)... just gives more credibility to Federer NOT being even the best of his generation... much less all time.

    He's the most accomplished, however.

    BTW, out of their 21 meetings, Nadal has only won 10 on clay... the rest have been on grass and HC (supposedly Federer's stronger surfaces). Based on ******* logic, the H2H should be 10-11 in Federer's favor.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
    #83
  34. DragonBlaze

    DragonBlaze Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,654
    Yea but Im not calling Fed the GOAT. Im arguing that I highly doubt Laver would "eat Federer up".
     
    #84
  35. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    that was a realistic chance of that - fed passing sampras in terms of weeks.

    Anyways many already had a good laugh at your other epic failure of a thread - about sampras' competition . How about when you created that thread about the FO being a williams sistsers final ? None of them even made the semis :lol:. Do continue with the entertainment.

    of course, it won't bother you, you are as thick-skinned as any, even after being humiliated and proven wrong countless times, you still come up with epic failures of posts time and again . But it'll provide good entertainment for the others, which is my aim :)

    LOL ! you of all people talking about delusions ? one who is a nutcase and requires multiple IDs and uses one to boast up the claims of the other ? YOU ?

    I am sure you don't care what I write, because I humiliate you again and again, based on facts and reasoning and you are thick-skinned, but there are reasonable people who do care about what I write .
     
    #85
  36. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    ******* logic

    I thought this warranted repeating since it destroys the ****'s Rafa clay theory...

    Out of their 21 meetings, Nadal has only won 10 on clay (fewer than half)... the rest have been on grass and HC (supposedly Federer's stronger surfaces). Based on ******* logic, the H2H should be 10-11 in Federer's favor.

    Discuss :lol:
     
    #86
  37. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    you understand the word skewed ? apparently not.

    Did I say nadal would only win on clay ? no, he's good enough on the other surfaces ... But overall fed is better on grass/HC/indoors...

    nadal's edge on clay would be more than fed's on any other surface, but it'd be a closer H2H had the distribution been more even.

    barely more than half ??? 4/7 = 57% , 57% of the matches on clay when it comprises of only about 33% of the tour and just one GS out of the 4
     
    #87
  38. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    See post #86... your theory is invalid
     
    #88
  39. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    and yet again a delusional post with insane logic without even waiting for the answer
     
    #89
  40. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Federer had the opportunity to win 11 of their 21 meetings since they were on HC and grass. What don't you understand about that?

    You claim I'm delusional? Use your head.
     
    #90
  41. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    can't you comprehend. Say it was just 6 matches on clay and 9 on non-clay, with 5-4 on non-clay ( as it is ) and say nadal lead 5-1 on clay, the H2H would be 6-10 fed. clearly better than 7-14 fed as it stands now right ?
     
    #91
  42. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The surfaces have been 12 on clay and 9 on non-clay. That favors Federer, correct? Plus, there are more non-clay slams and MS tournaments during the year (3-1).

    I could turn your words (and screwy logic) around and state that Nadal would be ahead of Federer in slam total if more slams were held on clay and fewer on grass and HC... that would be correct, no? :oops:
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
    #92
  43. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    what ??????? 12 on clay and 9 non-clay. and no, it in no way favours federer ... can't believe you can't get the facts about what you are arguing right !

    Yes, that is the whole point, inspite of they've met far less on non-clay than on clay
     
    #93
  44. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I concede the point that I was incorrect in the total (based on the fact that Fed has won 2 of their clay meetings).

    However, Federer won two of the clay meeting and could have won 9 of the non-clay meetings, correct? That should place Federer ahead 11-10.

    Do you not get that?

    The bottom line... Nadal has only won 10 of their 21 meetings on clay... which is fewer than half.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
    #94
  45. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    seriously ???? The structure of the tour is well-established.

    The reason why it ( the H2H ) is skewed to a large extent in favour of nadal is that though clay makes up only about 1/3 of the tour, they've played about 57% of their matches on clay , what's so tough to understand about that ?

    The margin of advantage would've been lesser had they met less on clay
     
    #95
  46. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Nadal has won less than 50% of their total matches on clay! He's won 10 of 21 matches played on clay... that is less than half.

    So, even though 57% of their meetings have been on clay... Federer has won 2 of those meetings on clay.

    Again, according to *******™ logic, Federer should be ahead right now 11-10 in their H2H (9 non-clay meetings plus the 2 clay meetings he's won).
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
    #96
  47. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    who said federer should have won all of their non-clay matches ???? why do you make your own assumptions ?? I don't under-estimate rafael nadal on other surfaces .

    The bottomline is that their H2H is skewed by a large portion of their matches being on clay, it'd be closer had they played less on clay ( and or more on other surfaces ) - though most probably in favour of rafa if they played atleast say 5 matches on clay
     
    #97
  48. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    Please get where it was trademarked :)

    Secondly, I am not a *******, just a fed fan, and I am not incredibly stupid to state fed would've/should've won all their non-clay matches
     
    #98
  49. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,167
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Lol! You want to make up the rules as you go along.

    Again, the bottom line is the clay theory doesn't hold water (pardon the pun) since Rafa has won fewer than half of their meetings on clay.

    What I really hear you saying is that Rafa is much stronger on non-clay surfaces than Federer is on clay surfaces. In that you'd be correct, my friend.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
    #99
  50. Justdoit10

    Justdoit10 Guest

    Nah, this *******™ half arsed logic. No one proposed this argument, your the only one who has been singing this like canary for the last 15 minutes.
     

Share This Page