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. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    no, I am sticking to facts and logical reasoning


    in their specific matchup, absolutely !



    so you want nadal to win more than half of their total matches on clay to prove its skewed. seriously ??? is that how irrational you can get ? :)
     
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    absolutely :). He just assumes whatever he wants
     
  3. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    OK, read closely (and slowly)...

    21 total meetings between Nadal and Federer.

    Nadal has won 10 of the 21 meetings on clay (less than 50%).

    Federer who is supposedly stronger on HC and grass had the opportunity to win the other 11 (2 on clay which he won and 9 on non-clay), making their H2H 11-10.

    He couldn't win their 9 non-clay meetings.

    Federer will never be GOAT as he can't even dominate his own generation.

    The End.

    :-D
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
  4. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    Would you cut out all of this crap. Nadal never met Roger one freaking time during the summer(US Open series). That's how huge it is. Roger did him a huge favor by showing up in the final during the clay season but Rafa never once did Roger a favor(6 times Roger was waiting at the USO finals).

    But now it's too late b/c Roger has his prime. This is pretty similar to Sampras avoiding so many clay courter in the 90s to prevent a bad h2h.
     
  5. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    The H2H is biased towards clay, but that doesn't excuse Federer. If I remember correctly, the only surface where Fed has the slightest margin is grass. And had he made it to the final this year, we know how that would have ended up going. You can't use the bad matchup as an excuse either. Someone touted as "the best ever" should be good enough to counteract the natural deficits arising from a bad matchup, no? Especially when he has had so many chances to learn. Imagine if there was another player good on hardcourts that was also a bad matchup for Federer. Federer would be a nobody.
     
  6. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    So when was Roger's prime supposably. Nearly every ******* claims 2004 wasnt his prime since he got spanked by a hip busted Kuerten at the French Open, still saying things like "prime Federer would have destroyed Kuerten on clay" LOL! Yet even late 2007 supposably wasnt his prime anymore when he began losing to Djokovic and getting bullied from the baseline by Nadal on grass. So was his prime only 2005 and 2006 then. These same people claim Nadal's prime had already started in 2005 (amazingly the same year Roger who is 5 years older apparently started his) and naturally is still going today. So basically according to ****** logic Nadal's prime is already 3 times as long as Roger's. That is unless Roger mysteriously "re-entered" his prime from May 2009-January 2010 while he capatilized on Nadal's injuries mid 2009, and exited it again once Nadal began dominating again and others shed their fear and began to beat Federer. :lol:
     
  7. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    Nadal didn't avoid anybody. He just lost because: 1) His game was not good enough for hardcourts, and 2) Because by the end of the year his physical form was severely compromised most of the time.

    Nadal won against Fed in the only HC slam final they have played (AO 09.) He also won the Olympic gold on fast HC, while Fed was defeated by Blake.

    Yes, we know Nadal hasn't been as good as Fed in HC. But Fed basically benefitted from the fact that Nadal was eliminated before reaching the Final also. I think that if Rafa had gone beyond the SF in USO, he would have given Fed a run for his money. Their history suggests that very clearly.
     
  8. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    So poor Roger is supposably past his prime at only 26 (since heaven forbid he was in his prime when Nadal began dominating in 2008 ) yet Nadal was in his prime and should have been starting to make the U.S Open final every year at age 17 beginning in 2003. Nice one.

    Nadal began beating Federer on hard courts at 17, and posted multiple wins in relatively # of matches over Federer on hard courts from ages 17-19. If Federer were as tough an opponent for Nadal as Nadal is for Federer he should likewise be able to hold his own and post some wins over Nadal on clay at ages 28 and 29.

    Continue to spin things the way you want but fact is Federer is Nadal's little lapdog and always has been.
     
  9. Bendex

    Bendex Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,035
    You think he'll only win 3 more FOs? He only just turned 24. He could be on tour for another 10 years.
     
  10. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    If he wins another 3 FO titles he will be a legend. Any more than that, and a religion will be started around him.
     
  11. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    ^^^
    Anyone been watching Fed lately it's so easy to notice he's nowhere he was in 2005-06.

    -He's a step slower
    -Lack the consistency(UFE's machine)
    -FH isn't as lethal
    -Not as fit
    -Lost some motivation(b/c he fulfilled everything)

    Nadal is 24 and Fed will soon be 29. In almost every tennis players, age hovering at around 24 is at your absolute peak, certainly not at near 29.
     
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    Thanks for proving my point. Nadal isn't good enough on hc and that's why he never met Roger at the US Open Series. Hence, making the h2h skewed.
     
  13. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,747
    Damn, your statement should be the official subtitle of TT--especially if it is aimed at the Fed-fanatics all living in a "Fed-is-God" dreamland.
     
  14. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Yet *******s like to argue Nadal's prime began in 2005 at 18 (which is actually ridiculous but still their vantage point). So by that logic Nadal's prime is already twice or three times as long as Roger's.

    Anyway I thought prime Federer's excuse for getting owned by a much younger Nadal and dropping to 1-6 early (including 1-2 on hard courts) was that Nadal matured much earlier than Federer so was already in his prime along with Federer. And wasnt the reason the achievements by age comparision was ruled invalid was Nadal matured much earlier, yet now you are comparing them directly by their ages. Interesting change of course.
     
  15. Justdoit10

    Justdoit10 Guest

    TMF, THUNDERVOLLEY, Davey 25 are all present.

    If MotherMarjorie and Tanya enter, we will have a true forum party.
     
  16. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    And Federer's game wasnt even good enough to make it past the round of 16 of the U.S Open until he was 23. :oops:
     
  17. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    :lol::lol::lol:

    It will be fun looking back on Nadal's career in the future (20+ years from now).
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
  18. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Completely agree. If you're the best ever... you find a way to win.

    The clay bias excuse is so pathetic... as Federer has won the FO and made it to 4 straight FO finals. He's also beaten Nadal in 2 MS clay events.

    If either player between Nadal and Federer is at a disadvantage on tour... it would be Nadal since 75% or more of the important tour tournaments are non-clay events (i.e. HC/grass)
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
  19. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Here are the examples of what some true GOAT candidates of both genders have done to their biggest rivals on their best and most historical surfaces:

    Navratilova- wins 1984 French by slamming Chris Evert, who most consider the greatest female clay courter of all time, 6-1, 6-3.

    Graf- wins 1988 Wimbledon by running off 12 of the last 13 games vs 6 time defending Champion Navratilova. Defends over Navratilova the very next year.

    Court- at 31 and pregnant comes from behind to win the French Open final over an 18 year old Evert. With a badly injured ankle which had to be frozen to numb the immense pain, wins the 1970 Wimbledon final over her chief rival Billie Jean King- at the site King would end up with twice as many singles crowns as her.

    Laver- on the way to the Calendar Slam thumps his arch rival Ken Rosewall in straight sets in the French Open final, overcoming a series of losses to Rosewall on clay.

    Sampras- even though he failed to win the French in his best attempt overcame two 2 time Champions Jim Courier and Sergei Bruguera before the effort took its toil and he ran out of gas in the semis.


    Federer- just keeps losing to the same guy at the French for years and have his fans come up with the "Nadal on clay, no fair" excuse, even back when Nadal was an 18 year old boy in diapers (despite that the not in his prime excuse is somehow suffice for any losses Federer will take to Nadal now).
     
  20. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Lol~ :)

    The folks touting that are just needlessly cutting Federer down further. They forget he's been the second best CC player since 2006... right behind Nadal and is miles above what Sampras was on clay.
     
  21. djokovicgonzalez2010

    djokovicgonzalez2010 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    11,865
    Location:
    SW Virginia, USA
    people seem to have fallen into the poll's trap
     
  22. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    Yes, but it was not in a slam, so why should it "matter"? Serena doesn't think it matters when she loses to Dementieva outside of slams. :)

    Rafa didn't make it to face Federer in hardcourt slam finals when Fed was in his prime. You could say that Rafa wasn't nearly in his prime to even face Fed in 2004-2006, but it would still count in the h-2-h, just like Nadal benefited in the h-2-h when Fed was already out of his prime at AO 09. And in case you say "oh but Fed won 3 of 4 slams after AO!"...Fed won FO 09 because Rafa got eliminated early, and Andy freakin Roddick (even though I'm a fan of his) was almost even able to beat him :shock: at Wimby. Even eliminating Rafa from the competition (due to his injury), his overall tour record was a far cry from his record in 04-07.
     
  23. Bendex

    Bendex Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,035
    Yeah, but you'd have to think he'll win at least another 5 in the next 10 years. No one has ever been as good on clay, so such a record would be entirely appropriate.
     
  24. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    ok then for sake of argument, for the 21 meetings they've had:

    Instead of 12 meetings on clay, let's pretend it was 12 on hard courts. Fed is slightly better on hard courts (he certainly doesn't dominate Rafa on hard like Rafa dominates Fed on clay). So we'll give Fed a 7-5 edge. Give them 3 meetings on grass, we'll give Fed the 2-1 edge since that is their current h-2-h there. For the remaining 6 matches, they'll play on clay, and we'll give Rafa the 5-1 lead (akin to their current 10-2 clay ratio).

    What's the final h-2-h in this scenario? Nadal with the narrow lead of 11-10. :)

    You see...Nadal DID benefit a lot from most of their meetings being on clay. Fed was good enough to reach the finals and get beat time and again on his worst surface and Rafa's best....but Rafa simply wasn't even good enough to reach hardcourt finals to face Fed.

    Fact is, if the surfaces they met on were redistributed to a different proportion, Nadal would probably still lead in h-2-h...but it would NOT look nearly as horrible as the current h-2-h. Let's not fool ourselves here. Anyone with a shred of intelligence can see that.
     
  25. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    So, he's basically equal to Federer on HC and grass (3-3, 1-2)... and much better than Federer on clay (10-2)

    Now, then explain to me how that makes Federer the greatest tennis player of all time? :oops:

    BTW, you can't just delete CC results from a H2H to make one player's numbers look better. Also, Rafa beat Federer in their only HC final. Federer fans should count their lucky stars that HC is Rafa's weakest surface and the fact he's been injured in a number of HC events in the course of his career.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
  26. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    Predicting 2 months ahead of time in sports is risky. Predicting 10 years is insane. Nostradamus would crap his pants at the prospect. Nadal could injure his knees really bad some time. Mirka could leave Fed for him (and he would be, again, screwed.) A lot of things can happen.
     
  27. dmt

    dmt Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    The bottom line is if they had even number of meetings on every surface, then the H2H would be in Nadals favour but only by a couple of matches. Just like Sampras and Richard K. No one considers Krajicek a better player.
     
  28. Bendex

    Bendex Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,035
    At the French someone put it to Nadal "You have a better head to head with Federer, so shouldn't you be considered the greatest of all time?"

    Nadal responded "anyone who thinks I'm a better player than Roger Federer doesn't know anything about tennis."

    Why can't common sense prevail in this debate?

    I look at it this way... I think it's amazing that Fed has as good a record as he does against Nadal considering the impossible forehands Nadal sends to Roger's (whippy low margin of error one handed) backhand.

    A more accurate head to head would look at the Slams they've entered together and who was left standing at the end.
     
  29. JustBob

    JustBob Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,004
    Simple. Tennis isn't boxing and the H2H argument is silly and irrelevant.
     
  30. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    First of all, my point was that Rafa only leads the h-2-h by such a drastic ratio due to a big chunk of their meetings on clay. I'm not saying the numerous CC matches they did play did not exist. All I'm saying is Rafa benefited a lot from it.

    Also, I don't know about you, and maybe you have a different philosophy, but accomplishments and domination of the tour as a whole, is more important than any individual h-2-h against another player. Fed is the most accomplished, no? (I read that from you earlier). So if Rafa ends up with 12-14 slams (using 12-14 since I've read a few posters using it)...he is ahead of Fed?? So h-2-h > 2-4 slams? (assuming Fed doesn't win anymore slams).

    Slam wins is the biggest statistic in a player's resume, no? Other stats are important as well, of course. Unless you think head-to-head is the single biggest factor in determining GOAT (to give it more weight than 2 to 4 slams), your argument doesn't make sense.
     
  31. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    Ah, the bad matchup theory. The beauty of it is that it allows you to ignore a consistent pool of data by dismissing it as a mere aberration.

    The fact is that a player's standings are determined by the sum of all H2H between that player and all other players.

    If someone similar to Nadal, but much better in fast surfaces, were playing alongside Fed and Nadal, chances are Fed's slams would count in the low single digits.

    I'm not saying Fed is not great, which he obviously is. I'm saying that you need to look at everything with a little perspective.

    BTW, Nadal isn't getting to be #1 by being a bad matchup against Fed, he's getting to be #1 by being a bad matchup against Fed and everybody else. Think about that.
     
  32. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Their H2H is 4-6, barely in favor of Kraj

    In your example, the sample is much smaller and their H2H is much closer (only 1 match win/loss difference).

    Therefore you can't draw the same conclusion as Nadal vs. Federer
     
  33. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I hope Federer can start getting far enough to play Nadal again so Nadal can lead Federer in head to head on hard courts and be atleast tied with him on grass. It is up to Federer to make that happen though. :)
     
  34. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    That would be ironic... if the remainder of their meetings were on HC and Grass... and Nadal won 75% of those :lol:

    Then the tards would argue that Federer is beyond his prime and can no longer compete with his younger nemesis... even though the same tards state that in tennis years... Federer and Nadal are the same age.
     
  35. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    Oh of course Nadal deserves the #1 spot. Never argued otherwise.
    In the same token though, Fed fully deserved his weeks at #1, by being that great over everyone else (and even WITH Nadal as a thorn), and reflecting his dominance.

    I'm actually happy that Nadal is #1 now, as it makes it a a bit more interesting (Fed being 1 week shy of Sampras).
     
  36. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    Hey Davey.:)

    Just curious on how you argue that Serena's h-2-h against Dementieva isn't important outside of slams...but that somehow it's important in the h-2-h between Nadal and Fed, by continuously bringing up Rafa's hard court wins against Fed in their earlier meetings. Just interested in your thoughts. :)
     
  37. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    Same logic applies with Nadal though. You're saying that *******s would claim that Fed is no longer at his peak if he loses to Nadal from now on...but I though Nadal fans/tards argued that he hasn't reached his peak yet/he just started during 2004-2006...and therefore couldn't reach USO finals to meet Federer? :)
     
  38. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Serena still leads Dementieva head to head. That is all that matters. Furthermore Dementieva is still slamless which makes her basically an irrelevance.

    Like I said on the other thread Federer tries to win every event he plays. He is not like Serena who clearly does not, and never did apart from maybe 2002 and 2003.

    More importantly though Dementieva and Serena have played many times in slams and Dementieva NEVER won. Federer and Nadal have played many times in slams and Nadal almost always wins. Federer is Nadal's lapdog in the slams, not just in minor tournaments. What is so hard to understand.
     
  39. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,663
    Location:
    South
    1-It could very well happen, time will tell

    Could happen, but I dont know.

    2-Ain't going to happen, every year I claim his career is over

    Not going to happen, but his career is not over.

    2 answers, 4 meaningless points.

    Only a goof can come up with such gibberish.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
  40. Justdoit10

    Justdoit10 Guest

    Henin was up 4-2 on Serena in GSs before she retired. Including 3 straight beatdowns 2007. Therefore, Serena can never be the greatest of this era. When faced with true opposition, she faltered against a true rival.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2010
  41. cy1126dragonamul

    cy1126dragonamul New User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    73
    Nadal is still young and could improve over the years.
    he could come to the net more often or hit flatter ground strokes.
     
  42. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    I understand your point, however, to me, how is it beneficial for Serena to lose to a slamless player rather than a multiple slam champion? So in the hypothetical scenario: Player A would be better off with a losing h-2-h against an inferior player than having a losing h-2-h against a superior player?
     
  43. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    He already is... much more aggressive than in years past. If he somehow developed an even bigger serve and approached the net more often he'd be even more successful.

    Nadal is constantly evolving and improving which makes him the most interesting player on tour, IMO.
     
  44. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    If Serena was losing often in slams to Dementieva it would be pretty bad. However she never loses to Dementieva in slams. And make of it what you will but Serena has made it clear she doesnt make winning non slam events a huge priority for a long time now, whether she cares or not, she certainly doesnt make it as much a priority as she could or should. So all that said Dementieva has not done enough damage to Serena to even be that relevant from that respect either, even if we ignore her minimal relevance as a key player of this era. Which is a far cry from Federer and Nadal. Add to all that Serena is Federer's age so if he has been past his prime for years, then Serena probably is by now as well. Dementieva couldnt touch Serena on any surface, in any match, from 1999-2004 as well. So based on that it would appear even if Nadal were to have not proven being able to beat an absolute peak (not even just prime but peak) Federer in his own pre prime days, in slam matches only, on non clay surfaces only; Dementieva has not proven ability to beat Serena other than a past her prime Serena on non slam matches only. Again there is no parallel between the two "rivalries" if you will.

    I am not sure why you even made the comparision of the two honestly, so feel free to enlighten me on that as well. The only thing I can think of is you are trying to exclude clay losses, you are trying to exclude matches Federer is supposably past his prime (keep in mind he was only 26 and 27 years old when he lost Wimbledon and Aussie Open finals to Nadal anyway), and you are trying to exclude non slam matches on non clay surfaces that a pre prime Nadal played vs a prime Federer to boot. :) So excluding clay, excluding post total dominance, and exclude non slam matches. And you are remembering me mentioning Serena's losses to Dementieva in smaller tournaments dont matter since she always beats her where is matters in the slams. Still what you seem to be narrowing with Federer vs Nadal is alot more than what I was saying with Serena and Dementieva initially which was ONLY overlooking non slam matches and nothing else, a single whammy vs a triple whammy.

    And yes I think your most important head to heads are vs the other greatest players of your generation or people you are most directly compared to. In Federer and Nadal's case they are so far and away the greatest of this era it makes it even more significant. Sampras would lose worse if he had a losing head to head with Agassi or Becker, as oppose to having ones with Stich and Krajicek (who he barely played in slams anyway). Graf would look worse if she had a losing head to head with Seles or Navratilova, than if she had one with Jo Durie (which she does). People dont even really care much about Agassi's losing head to head with Courier, and Courier is closer to Agassi level than some of these other examples. However one looks at Agassi's head to heads vs Sampras, Lendl, Federer, Becker, and Edberg, all before Courier.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  45. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    Where have I tried to exclude clay losses? I'm one of the last people that would randomly erase stats. Nadal fully earned all his wins against Fed and all those wins are significant. I was only stating that Nadal benefited from over half of their meetings being on clay (unless you think Nadal's record would improve if they met more on hard and grass instead of clay?).

    Your other points have merit but you've made a bad assumption that I'm trying to exclude/erase clay losses. Far be it.
     
  46. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Fine but either way it shows the Serena vs Dementieva comparision is nothing like Federer vs Nadal.

    A pre prime teenaged Nadal in diapers could own Federer in any clay court event including the French, and he often beat Federer in their non slam hard court events. OK he couldnt beat Federer at Wimbledon when they met at this point, and that was it. Then a prime Nadal began beating a 26 and 27 year old Federer in all the slam finals- clay, hard, or grass.

    Dementieva couldnt beat a younger Serena in 2003-2004 anywhere- any surface or any size event. And Elena is lucky as heck she played Serena only 4 times from 2000-2004 as Serena back then was actually giving a full effort in all tournaments and likely would have beaten Elena in all 10 matches if they had played that many (and unlike Federer and Nadal they are weeks only apart in age). Only with both Serena and Elena getting older, and Serena less fit and conserving her energy for the big ones now, can Elena beat Serena now in non slam matches, and in slams cant beat her on any surface still it seems.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  47. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    That's cool. I asked for the Serena v. Dementieva comparison because, before your explanation, I thought you were doing a two-way street argument, due to your love for Serena.

    For me as a Serena fan, it's frustrating to see her lose that often in tournaments outside of slams. I feel she should pad her numbers more elsewhere to help her out in the GOAT discussions. One random thing I noticed though: you mention that slams are overrated when talking about Fed's 16...yet you often use Serena's slam count as a crutch to cushion her place, lol. She lacks too much everywhere else.

    In any case, good on Serena to focus on the majors as she has way more realistic shot of passing other greats up in that department. She's too far off in other stats now.
     
  48. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I honestly would like to see Serena bump up some of her other stats such as tournament wins and weeks at #1. And I honestly think she will too. The #1 thing is looking great right now, she has a huge points lead. As for others who could be #1 Clijsters is basically a part time player now so even if she gets her act together in the slams again and starts winning some she wont reach #1 (likely). Venus I dont think we will see at #1 again, nor Maria. Henin 's form is a long way off from a return to #1 and like Kim she isnt playing much it seems, plus she is injured now. So I think we will see Serena add alot more weeks at #1 these next few years. As for the tournament wins I think eventually she will get fed up with losing so many matches despite dominating the big events. I think we will see her kick it into gear and win some more of the other tournaments now too.
     
  49. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Nadal will never win 16 slams. I can bet my life on it.
     
  50. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,170
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Careful... if you search TT, guys (and perhaps gals) were saying he'd never win more than 3 FO's either :oops:

    Yet, here he is a couple years later on the cusp of major #8
     

Share This Page