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. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503

    Dominating 1 tournament like that is not easy, for example Navratilova's 9 wimbledons. If anything it's a PLUS, because it sets achievements that will be very hard to be broken, and show unsurpassed excellence in one of the 4 biggest courts of the world. Of course, Nadal needs to win other grandslams too, not only the french open, but he's doing it!
     
  2. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    It's not a plus in my book. In order to be the best you have to be great on all surfaces. Federer has done this by winning multiple slams at all the grand slam tournaments except the French. He would have multiple slams there as well but Nadal is a better claycourter than him. Tell me what looks better below

    - One of the top two players ever on grass
    - Probably the best player ever on hardcourt
    - A great claycourter but not in the discussion of the best

    or

    - A great grass player
    - An average hardcourt player
    - One of the top two claycourters ever

    The top scenarios looks better to me. What's holding Nadal back is his lack of hardcourt success.
     
  3. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    Nadal is hardly an average hardcourt player, he already has won the Australian Open (over Federer), the Olympics, 5 master series on hardcourt (+ 4 other finals), and 9 hardcourt titles overall. I'd say he's a great court player and he's still 24 there's no doubt that he will be adding some more.
     
  4. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,188
    IF that scenario happens, then yes I'd consider Nadal to be greater/more accomplished. However, many Nadaltards (I'm a fan of both Federer and Nadal but I'm no ****, I can actually reason objectively)...seem to reason that Nadal with ~13 slams (the average of the 12 to 14 slams that people seem to put up) is enough to overcome the 3 slam deficit to Federer (assuming Fed doesn't win anymore), JUST due to the head-to-head advantage. It's all Nadaltards seem to harp on day-in-day-out.

    Nadal is a fantastic player and has so many other great stats to support him, not just a simple head-to-head. IF and WHEN he does accomplish all that you stated above, then I agree he will be more accomplished/greater than Federer. I'd like to see Nadal perhaps accomplish all of those to stake his claim as the greatest ever...but as a Nadal fan, I don't feel comfortable saying he's the greatest ever if he has a 3 slam deficit to Federer, even with a head-to-head advantage.
     
  5. onehandbh

    onehandbh Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,031
    Historically, this has not been true. Even in other sports.
    Take the Lakers for example. There was a stretch where
    they struggled against the Portland Trailblazers in the regular
    season. The Trailblazers were just a mediocre team, but the
    matchups were not good for the Lakers.
     
  6. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    He has 1 hardcourt slam. He's no further than Roddick in my opinion. If you classify Nadal as a great hardcourt player you would have to say Roddick is a great hardcourt player as well. He needs to win 4 or 5 more hardcourt slams.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  7. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    Well, if Nadal is that close to Federer in terms of grandslam totals, then of course the head-to-head will play a huge factor. That's why most people rank Navratilova over Evert, it's mainly because she won most of those important grandslam meetings. How could Federer be considered the GOAT, if whenever he steps against another GOAT in his own era, he's the underdog and most of the time loses? RIght now, you can't really use it, but if Nadal reaches Laver/Sampras/Federer numbers, then it will be ONE of many important arguments.
     
  8. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    If he equals Federer's slam record it will most certanly come into play.
     
  9. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    Federer has 1 clay slam too, yet he's great? I'd say he's no further than Ferrero or Moya or Chang or Agassi, these are GOOD on the surface, but hardly "great". Like I said Nadal has 1 slam so far on hardcourt, but also the olympics + 5 other master series titles. If he wins 1 more slam on hardcourt, he will have at least 2 slams on each surface, which is better than Federer himself who I doubt will win another clay slam.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  10. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    Basically, if Federer ends with 16 slams:

    9 hardcourt, 6 grass, 1 clay.

    And Nadal ends with 14 slams:

    7 clay, 4 grass, 3 hardcourt.

    That would make Rafa more diverse on the surfaces.
     
  11. pyrokid

    pyrokid Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,768
    Honestly, if he somehow avoids disabling injury, I'd say he could.
    But Rafa avoiding injury would be like Calvin avoiding Hobbes, they go together hand in hand.
     
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    What are you talking about? Federer is clearly the 2nd best cc in this generation. Roger would have won mulitple RG if it wasn't for Rafa. In contrast Nadal never made a single final at the USO. Nadal will get the credit WHEN HE DESERVE IT. Right now he's not there yet. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Novak and DP all have one hc slam too, in case you didn't notice.
     
  13. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    21% of your slams coming from 50% of the majors is not diversified. Federer would likely have 4-5 French Opens if not for Nadal who is one of the two greatest clay courters of all time. If Federer were not around Nadal would still only have 1 Aussie open and 0 US Opens. There is a big difference.
     
  14. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    If finals count for so much, then why isn't Lendl considered one of the greatest grass court players of his generation? At Wimbledon he made 2 finals and 5 semi finals, very impressive.

    Let's talk about TITLES for now starting in 2005 when the Nadal era began (with his 2005 FO win). Since then on hardcourts:

    Nadal: 1 slam + 5 Ms + Olympics

    Djokovic: 1 slam + 4 Ms

    Del Potro: 1 slam + 0 Ms

    Safin: 1 slam + 0 Ms
    (his slam came before Nadal's first slam win but I still counted it)

    Roddick: 0 slams + 2 Ms

    Hewitt: 0 slams + 0 Ms


    AND THERE YOU GO, Nadal is the 2nd best hardcourt player in his own era after Federer, just like Federer is the 2nd best clay court player in his own era after Nadal. The difference is that Nadal still has lots of time to add to his hardcourt accomplishements, and he's going to keep distancing himself from the rest of the pack, while Federer's days are almost over on clay...

    If you want to count these players' accomplishements before the Nadal era began in 2005, then I can go back with the French Open before Federer's era began in 2003 and name you many 1 time clay court slam winners like him. Actually already I can name you Gaudio and Ferrero who both won 1 clay slam starting in 2003.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  15. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,188
    Evert and Nav both have the same number of slams, 18. That is why. A lot fewer people would say she's greater than Evert if Nav only had 15 to Chris' 18.

    So Nadal with 13 and Fed with 16 would not be following your same line of logic.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  16. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    I would throw the masters titles out the window though, best of 3 set matches have little weight.
     
  17. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503

    LOL how convenient. The fields in master series are very strong filled with top players, slam-like. You can't erase them. Why not just erase the whole tour, and just keep the 4 slams only? There's more to tennis than slams, sure they are the most important, but the rest counts too especially master series.
     
  18. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    The thing is most people realize Evert's slam total is far more deceiving than Navratilova's. Had the Australian and French Opens been fully regarded at the time Evert would have around 23 or 24 slams while Navratilova would still only have 19 or 20 most likely. Most people who follow the game are fully aware of this too. Yet despite that nearly everyone ranks Navratilova higher for 2 main reasons- her Wimbledon dominance, and even moreso that she so comptely dominated Evert at her own peak while Evert was still very strong. Their head to head in slams finals is 10-4 Martina. Overall in slams is 14-8 Martina I believe. If they were virtually tied in these stats, I doubt very much anyone would rank Martina higher inspite of her Wimbledon dominance and doubles record. Evert has far superior consistency, far superior longevity (meaning longevity of actual winning and really being at the top, not longevity of just good play and hanging around the top 5), a much more balanced record across all surfaces, had much harder overall competition than Navratilova had. Yet the head to head dominance of Martina in a certain sense, despite the overall close 43-37 head to head, swings it in Martina's favor to most.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  19. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    But slams are faaaarrrrr more important. You need to win 7 best of 5 set matches. Just admit that Nadal is not a great hardcourt player and lets end this debate.
     
  20. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    I didn't say that it will be the only factor, but if their slam tallies are close, the fact that Nadal dominates Federer in the important meetings will become one of the important factors, especially since they were both in their strong years (as opposed to Federer's record against Agassi for instance).
     
  21. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    If Nadal is not a great hard court player then Federer is not a great clay court player. Nadal has won a hard court slam, the Olympics on hard courts, and 5 Masters titles on hard courts. Federer has won a clay court slam and 5 Masters titles on clay courts. Except Nadal has done all this at 24.
     
  22. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    If slam record only matters and we can't even analyze anything, then Margaret Court is the GOAT end of discussion.
     
  23. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    The funny thing is many Federer fans actually argue this was really prime Agassi even though he was 34 and 35 and had a bad back which sometimes he could barely walk with, yet say Federer has been past his prime since age 25 or 26.
     
  24. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    Come on man Federer has won 5 US Opens, 4 Aussies and lost in two finals. How can you put Nadal who has won 1 Aussie and no other finals on the same pedestal as Federer in terms of hard court achievements? That just isn't right.
     
  25. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    He did... and for a reason. When I was researching Nadal from old TW posts... in 04-2005 Nadal and Toni decided to play an extreme number of clay tournament in 2005 to hugely boost Nadal's ranking... and it worked.

    Many TT members were predicting Rafa to end 2005 somewhere between 10 and 20 in the rankings. Even that poster "VamosRafa" - Susan (who was by far the biggest Nadal back in 2004-05) thought he would end 2005 between 5-10.

    As we all know he ended 2005 as #2 in the world... from #51 in 2004
     
  26. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I did not say Nadal is even close to Federer's greatness on hard courts. Read what I said again, I said if Nadal is not a great hard court player then by the same standards Federer is not a great CLAY court player. Nadal has already acheived just as much on hard courts as Federer on clay and is 5 years younger. So do you consider Federer a great clay court player? If so then Nadal must be a great hard court player by the same standards.
     
  27. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    Nadal won 6 of their 8 grandslam meetings, and after the last of these meetings at the 2009 AO, Federer still won 3 additional slams. That proves that he was during his peak years when he lost against Nadal. Maybe from now on, I'd say Federer is a little past his prime, but only now.
     
  28. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    1 Win and 4 losses to the Clay GOAT is greater than 1 hard court slam and no other finals. There was one player stopping Fed but multiple stopping Nadal.

    If one hardcourt slam equals great what the hell does 9 equal?
     
  29. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Agreed!

    Nadal is a great HC player (based on his GS and MS1000 results)
    Federer is a great CC player (based on his GS and MS1000 results)

    Both of those facts are indisputable.

    Correct again. Results don't lie. Nadal currently has the second best HC and grass results behind Federer... an argument could be made for Roddick as well, however as #2 (although his best results were spotty and quite a while back).
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  30. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    But like I showed you with the stats, Nadal IS the 2nd best hardcourt player of his era after Federer. After the slam wins, you HAVE TO look at the master series wins + also the olympics. Nadal is without any doubt the 2nd best hardcourt player of his generation, even if he doesn't lead the others by a huge margin. Sure he's very far behind Federer on hardcourts so far, but Federer is also very far behind Nadal on clay courts too. That doesn't change that they are both 2nd best on these surfaces of their eras.
     
  31. Turbo

    Turbo New User

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    84
    I think there are too many factors involved. Certainly there lots of unpredictable things, but especially against Nadal. He might get injured...maybe. Federer could keep winning...maybe. We anticipate many of his slams will come on clay, but what if a better clay courter arrives? That will greatly decrease his GS count.

    Anyone who ends up being right must admit it was no more than a fairly educated guess, and they could be right even with completely incorrect reasons.
     
  32. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Federer is one of the top 2 or 3 hard court players of all time. Everyone knows that. He is well beyond just being a great hard court player.

    Federer at the age Rafa is now (24 year and 1 month) did not have even a single French Open final. He had a French Open semifinal and 3 Hamburg titles on clay. So Rafa is actually far more accomplished on hard courts at the same age. And if you just wanted to limit to only the summer and fall hard court season, eliminating the entire Aussie Open swing and the spring hard court season, Nadal already has 2 U.S Open semis, Olympic singles gold, and 3 Masters titles- still slightly more than Federer had achieved on clay at the same age.

    Are you disputing Nadal is a great hard court player? Anyone with the achievements he has on the surface especialy at his age should be considered great. If he isnt a great hard court player then Roddick and Hewitt all arent as well since they arent better than him.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  33. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,188
    It is certainly possible that players have different primes with respect to their age. One Martina of the Hingis variety certainly hit her prime a lot earlier than the other Martina.

    Federer was certainly still in his prime at 25 or 26, but has already fading away from his peak. His 2007 to 2008 results are lacking when compared to his stats from 2005/2006, and this is all year-round, not just when he's facing Nadal.

    We all know Agassi post-29/30 posted some of his best results. Not saying it was peak or full-on prime Agassi but he certainly was playing well enough. But Agassi isn't in the same generation anyway. Just like Federer and Nadal aren't exactly from the same generation. Their careers overlap a decent amount, yes, but only about half of it. I consider Federer to be in Roddick/Hewitt/Safin (oh and he retired already) generation. Nadal is closer in age to Murray/Djokovic/Berdych. 4.5 to 5 years in tennis (in terms of age)is a lot.

    Right now as it stands it's 14-7 in favor of Nadal in h-2-h, and 16-8 in favor of Federer in slam tally. Numbers for both players in both stats can go up, we will wait and see. Of course Nadal has more time to add/pad his numbers, as he is from a slightly different generation.
     
  34. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Agassi indeed had a bizaree career. I would say Agassi's peak years were 1995 and 1999 though. His prime years were probably 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002, and maybe 2003. So from either angle there is no way 2004 and 2005 where most of Federer's dominance of Agassi were part of his "prime". I do give credit to Federer for his ass whooping of Agassi in the 2003 TMC final, any version of Agassi was losing badly that day. Other then that though he was never really tested vs a vintage Agassi of any sort, yet he still had alot of trouble in 5 of their 8 meetings.

    Prime Federer would overall have the edge on even peak Agassi. Agassi would be hard pressed to ever beat prime Federer on either grass or clay. On hard courts Agassi would score some wins and so would Federer. Federer would probably have the slight edge indoors and carpet but hard to say as there are few of these surfaces around, and Federer actually doesnt exactly have a great record on them. So I think Federer would get the better of any version of Agassi, but this doesnt change the fact it is proposterous to include Agassi as a strong part of his competition if people are dimissing Federer's results and losses to Nadal as early as 2007.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  35. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,188
    Not really, those were not peak years. Credit to Federer to be able to take advantage of Nadal's absence to win FO/Wim in 09 (you see? I never said Federer would have still beaten Nadal. I'm not a *******. I give FO 09 to Nadal, and I'll go ahead and even toss in Wim 09...though that could have been another close encounter that could go either way). Fact is, Federer was already not in his peak years. His stats against other players and his overall tour record just doesn't even compare, even if he was able to win 3 more slams, 2 being in the absence of Nadal. Just compare his stats from 05/06 to 09/10 when he won those 3 slams. It's a far cry. Even compare to 05/06 to his 08 stats...no contest. Fed's stats in 07 already slipped a little as well..and it most dramtically slipped in 2008, both against Nadal (credit to Nadal), but against the rest of the tour as well. Fed's level alerady dipped.

    Yes, in 2009-2010, 3 of 4 slams won looks mighty impressive but if you look at it more closely (and examine the stats from each year for Fed) you will see Fed was already sub-prime in 09 (and even sub-prime in 08 ) and took advantage of Nadal's absence (not Fed's fault). What **** all has Fed done besides take advantage of Nadal's absence? 4 titles total compared to 11 or 12 for prime and peak Fed? Fed's overall dominant standards were much higher in 2005-06. 2007 is maybe still prime for Fed but definitely no longer peak. 2008-09-...LOL. That's a past-his-prime Fed. In 2009-No way Fed would have won the two slams that he had if Nadal was still around and healthy. What else has he done that year besides those two slams? A couple titles because he's a great, but he wasn't exactly thrashing the rest of the field like he did when he was at his peak. In 2008-Fed won 4 titles total...nothing compared to his peak in 2005/06. So that is already a sub-prime Fed. You can say that Nadal "took" FO and Wim away from Fed, but Fed's numbers everywhere else against the field (and number of matches and titles won) has already dwindled... People trying to sell 2008/09 as peak or prime Federer...LOL
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  36. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    You are even admiting Federer took advantage of the situation with Nadal in the middle of last year. Yet another reason many would rate Federer ahead if he is even close to Nadal in slam count.

    There was no depth in the mens game in 2005-2006. No wonder Federer had such an amazing record. A very young Nadal who was mainly a clay court specialist back then, his pigeons for life Roddick and Hewitt who were both on the way down- in Hewitt's case for good, Safin who was missed the majority of 2005-2006 combined with injury anyway, the overrated Nalbandian. And guys like Ivan Ljubicic or Nikolay Davydenko spending so much time at #3 in the World. I dont doubt Federer declined, which also means he had a short prime which is not an admirable trait for a greatest ever candidate, but his record also got worse since the competition was different. This reminds me of how blind Selestards just look at her post stabbing record and assume she would have been able to post the same record vs Graf, Davenport, Hingis, an improved Novotna, Pierce, and Venus from 96-98 as she was able to post vs a slumping Graf, her pigeon for life Sanchez Martinez, an old Navratilova, Sabatini, Fernandez, and a 15 year old Capriati in the early 90s. How you fare is not just a product of your own game but what is around you. If you are part of a weak field with players who are good matchups for you naturally you will fare better than vs a tougher field with players who arent as good of matchups for you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  37. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    He did and we all know it... though some will never admit to it.

    Federer can thank Rafa's knees for his career GS and two additional GS titles. However, kudos to him for seizing the day and winning both tournaments.
     
  38. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,188
    Of course I admit to it, it's plain for all to see. Nadal was just better at that point, having hit his stride, and Fed having fallen from his peak. Thing is, we haven't really seen peak Federer versus peak Nadal for any stretch of time. Peak Federer came before Nadal really hit his stride and peak Nadal came after peak Federer had alerady fallen off. The head-to-head is a smorgasbord of whenever they did meet, of which his (nadal's) playstyle will be favored. Federer's "head-to-head" versus the rest of the field was excellent (92-5 and 81-4 records will show)...let's see what peak Nadal's "head-to-head" versus field will be. We'll look at his match records for his peak years.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  39. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    We have already explained why the head to head is fully legit. Nadal started their meetings vs a then prime/peak prime Federer at only 17 years old and still managed a 3-3 head to head on hard courts (his worst surface and Federer's best) and complete domination on clay. If you want to argue Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer and that is the reason for the head to head, one could argue Federer faced a **** easy field in 2005-2006 which is why he had those sterling match records which he couldnt match in any other year, and that Nadal will likely never get the benefit of a field that weak. I dont see how that argument is any different than putting the lopsided head to head of the by far 2 greatest players of the generation just down a matchup problem.

    And the fact is you admiting Federer basically got lucky to win 2 of his later slams which really should have gone to Nadal already should show you another reason so many are saying if Nadal even comes close to Federer' slams count he is greater. That is a 4 slam swing or minimum a 2 slam swing that should have happened really.
     
  40. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503

    The only overrated player on your list is Steffi Parche. She won half of her slams with that same competition but WITHOUT Seles (who is her only threatening rival). At least Seles had to beat Graf in 3 of her slam finals in the early 90's.

    Here's how it was supposed to be: Evert --> Navratilova --> Graf --> Seles --> Hingis --> Williams

    Not: Evert --> Navratilova --> Graf --> Seles --> Graf --> Hingis --> Williams

    And now you're even saying that Federer sucks too? Wow, I now understand why you are a troll.

    Seles was about the same place as Nadal is right now, even better. She had a bright future, was dominating the slam (even more than Nadal), was 19 instead of 24, had a 3-1 slam finals against Graf like Nadal has a 5-2 slam finals against Federer, both no signs of slowing down, easily the best groundstrokes in the game, both mentally fierce & intense on the court, and both with 1 slam missing (Wimbledon vs US Open) both having lost their last match there easily. YET, because you are a fan of Nadal and not Seles, you litterally insult Seles and act like Nadal is God with every potential possible. But in reality, I can assure you, they are VERY similar in more ways than you could imagine. Heck they even both are lefties and grunt.

    You will probably argue that Nadal always had a great record vs Federer, but when you take out the 3 overrated wins of Graf in 1989 when Seles was 15 and barely an impact on the tour, Seles still owns a 4-3 record + 3-1 in slam finals, proving that she's better. ALSO, even if Graf was harder for Seles than Federer is to Nadal, Seles was way more dominant over the rest of the tour, and would have been at least until 1996, while Nadal overall has many more guys who can cause him trouble, which would make everything even out.

    You will again argue that Seles only reached the final of Wimbledon and lost badly, when Nadal did the same reaching the semi (worst) and losting badly. So I guess Nadal would NEVER win the US Open according to you? But go ahead, insult Seles in a non-related thread, you are truly insane. She was even much closer to Graf 8 vs 11 slams compared to Nadal is to Federer 8 vs 16 slams, and their age difference is even stronger. But please, keep insulting Seles, you morron. YOU are the only reason why some people now consider me a troll, because you are so annoying and know nothing about tennis. Seles if anything is UNDERRATED because today all they do is list Graf 22 and Seles 9, when before that knife it was 11 and 8 despite 5 years younger, which is much closer than Nadal vs Federer today. Yet you keep saying that Nadal has the potential to become GOAT, while Seles sucks. I NEED AN IGNORE BUTTON NOW, I shouldn't even read one stupid message by you, you know how to insult champions don't you. I might think Nadal has the potential to suprass Federer, but I will never call Federer overrated and that he sucks. It's called common sense and respect for the game. Heck Seles returned as a depressed WHALE and won a slam in 1996, proving that all these years were hers.

    For you to even bring Seles & her horrible incident in this Federer discussion is evil. But go ahead, insult both Seles & Federer. You my friend know nothing about tennis.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  41. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,188
    That is true to an extent, but like you said, it goes both ways. Conversely, I can just as easily say the lopsided h-2-h's for Federer against his "pigeons" is also due to Fed's superiority over them that makes them look "**** easy". It's the same logic that Federer's contemporaries "aren't as great" because they haven't won as many slams, as say, Sampras' contemporaries. But maybe because they're not winning that much because Fed is that good?

    Notice how Fed's been losing to his "pigeons" of late? That's a function of Federer losing his abilities. Of course 2010 has been the most dramatic fall-off for Fed (post-AO), but he has already started to slip well before then. He's been able to keep his stellar record becaues he was that good, even post-peak. Fed had the mental edge over them from earlier thrashings he's given them so he was able to still beat them for a couple more years. This year...it's no longer enough.

    Having multiple "pigeons" doesn't automatically mean the field sucks. It can also mean the player that's laying the beatdown is that great. Fed has/had multiple pigeons when facing the field. Let's see how many "pigeons" Nadal can get (and to the extent that Fed has) besides Fed.
     
  42. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,188
    lol...trouble in ********* land. Dissension amongst them!:)
     
  43. vote4Pedro

    vote4Pedro New User

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Nadal should be very close to Roger Federer's record when he is done. I believe that 1 year of rest he took was the best thing for him. Perhaps Roger Federer should do the same thing to have that desire to compete lit up again.

    -Pedro
     
  44. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Hewitt, Roddick, sparodically brilliant Safin, Nalbandian, Ferrero, would not win many slams in any era. I think most would agree on that. There are some eras many of those might win none, just as Nalbandian actually did win none in this era. A mid 30s Agassi had an even or winning head to head with all of them which is already telling enough. From 2002-2003 all those guys were major contenders including a then underachieving Federer and Johansson, Costa, a 31 year old nearly retired Sampras, an 32 year old Agassi, were all winning slams. If Federer didnt step up to be a great player that kind of charade would have likely continued, in addition to them splitting some of the other slams. Those guys are just excellent players, but not great players, even marginal greats. They are not Agassi, Becker, Edberg, or Courier. They are also not surface specialists of the caliber of Ivanisevic or Krajicek on grass/carpet, or Muster or Bruguera on clay either, even if they are better overall players arguably those kind of surface specialists also add a great deal to the overall depth of the field and how a tough a calendar year is.

    Of course Federer is past his prime now. In fact I have said he played worse in even 2009 than 2008 but the difference is Nadal wasnt around. What I am saying is in 2007 and 2008 especialy his results went down to a larger degree since the rest of the field improved a great deal and the top guys werent all as easy of matchups for him as Hewitt, Roddick, even Safin whose games seemingly were tailor made for Federer.

    Every noteable player of the last 4 years outside of Del Potro, Murray, Davydenko, and Djokovic on hard courts and only hard courts are prime Nadal's pigeons. If the clay court field were as tough as the hard court field we would see Federer have a higher # of players he has trouble with on clay and only clay too since while he is a great clay courter he is a very beatable one, just like Nadal on hard courts has been. The field on clay is just so weak it doesnt matter. Hip busted Kuerten's match vs prime Federer at the 2004 French is some insight into what Federer may have experienced from more players on clay had he been in his prime in the 90s.
     
  45. dmt

    dmt Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    Davey, i do think Federer's clay game had not fully devoloped when he lost to Kuerten. I think Federers clay game was at its best in 06 and 07. I dont believe that the 06/07 version of federer would lose on clay to the 2004 version of Kuerten. I do believe that a prime Guga would win the vast majority of meetings on clay vs Federer. But i think you are getting too many conclusions from just one match.

    Aside from Guga and Muster, which other clay courters in the 90s were better then federer? Courier, Brugerra, Moya, Agassi? No, none of them IMO. Federer would win atleast one or two french open in the 90s
     
  46. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    I was actually laughing more because of that recently bumped thread from 2004 where Davey's OP was all about Federer's extremely strong competition - especially when compared to Sampras's. I just found it funny that he could claim that "some of us" were disparaging Federer's competition in his prime after starting a thread like that.

    But you're right, the argument does fail on its own grounds.
     
  47. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Seles proved with ability to win only 1 slam in her final 7.5 years, her inabilty to handle any of the really big power hitters especialy ones who hit huge off both sides and returned and served huge as well, and her inability to mantain even respectable fitness levels throughout her 20s, that she was destined to have a short prime and short reign of the game vs a field that suited her strengths, as many of us had suspected at the time she was on top anyway. If she were winning most of the slams at ages 24 like Nadal is now people would talk about her future prospects the way they do Nadal but such is not the case. She did not earn the right to be talked about in her mid 20s the way Nadal now is.

    It is not true the field even from 93-96 would have been exactly the same as 91-92. Graf was out of her slump and regularly making finals and it has already been explained to you 10000 times why nobody buys your "Seles would own Graf' theories. Novotna was much improved and she was a tough matchup for Seles, Pierce also came into her own (she was only 16 when Seles was stabbed) and she was a tough oppponent for Seles, and Sanchez Vicario while she was Seles's pigeon did play her best ever tennis in 94, 95, the first half of 96 when Seles never played her. And there are many unknown pitfalls which you cant predict such as injury which Monica never had in 91-92 but already had in 96 (shoulder injury). Essentialy one could go on forever here about all that was different even before the next generation truly arrived.

    And people discount Monica ever winning Wimbledon since she made 1 final at her peak, got humiliated by Graf, missed 3 Wimbledons yes, but returned to Wimbledon at 21 and proceeded to lose in an early round 3 of the next 4 years (getting destroyed in the quarters by her one of her non grass pigeons in the other) to women she destroyed on all other surfaces. Thus any rational person ceases any consideration of Monica's hypothetically winning Wimbledon even in the 3 years she missed, and moves on. Nadal continues to build his results at the U.S Open, continues to win many hard court events, and gives reason to consider his chances for a future U.S Open title, something Seles never did on grass.

    Lastly I never said Federer sucked. I said the field in 2005-2006 was overall very weak and matchup friendly to Federer, and improved in later years (when Federer was still winning slams btw). Huge difference.

    And you are one to comment on off topic references. You are the one who started about 20 Seles threads and brought up "Steffi Parche" in a thread that was only about Serena recently (not the Serena-Seles thread, but the TMF Serena bash thread). Your obsession with Graf and Seles goes beyond anything describable. I only referenced Seles in 91-92 as that is another case where fans seem delusional to how ones record changes not just based on said player but on many other factors.
     
  48. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Courier went through a murderous draw at the 92 French in stellar fashion. Funny how you say Muster is better than Federer on clay but not Courier. Do you know Muster is actually Courier's pigeon on clay. Yeah I know, he probably was a bad matchup but still.

    I agree Federer is better than Bruguera, Moya, and Agassi on clay. I also think he is on par with Muster and Courier, but inferior to Nadal. The question is would he have trouble and his share of losses on clay to atleast 3 or 4 of those guys (probably not Moya and Agassi)? It seems likely that would be a yes.

    Yeah he actually might well win more French Opens in the 90s but he also wouldnt own everyone except one player on clay in the 90s like he does now. That was my main point, as I was referring to how there a handful of players Nadal has alot of trouble with on hard courts.
     
  49. dmt

    dmt Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    fair enough. This post does make sense. He wouldnt own everyone on clay like he does now except Nadal. But he wouldnt face a horrible match up like Nadal either. Its hard to predict how many fo's he'd win but IMO he'd win atleast one. And most likely more then one.
     
  50. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,188
    Wilander certainly won 7 slams by "not being much". He was a pusher. Bring Roddick onto the grass of the 90s and he may have won a couple Wimbledons almost through virtue of holding serve, and then anything can happen in a tiebreak. Of course he may win 0, we'll never know. (And in case you say Sampras beat Roddick in 02 USO, that was 5-time USO champ thriving under the lights, credit to Samp, but that was visor-wearing Roddick before he won anything big of note). Roddick could have easily have a Courier-like career. He played one of the matches of his life in 09 Wim and he could have brought the same onto the older grass (which would benefit his serve).

    Also, let's work this the other way around. Too often people say the Roddick/Hewitt/Safin, et al would not have won much in past generations. What about let's bring the past "greats" and bring them into this generation (with deeper draws)? How many Wimbledons would Sampras win on today's slower grass against the likes of Federer and Nadal? How would peak Agassi have fared against peak Fed or peak Nadal? It isn't totally inconceivable that Agassi would have fewer slams if he played in today's generation. How would serve-and-volley Edberg have fared against Nadal or prime-Fed today? He would face a deeper draw, and possibly face the Berdychs/Soderlings/DelPotros etc, and THEN face prime-Fed and/or Nadal. I could say hmmm...fewer slams for Edberg. Would Wilander have 7 slams today? He has 3 French Opens...would he still have 3 today? With Nadal around? (lol)


    Let's also not forget that the field today is deeper (as in the "lower" players beneath the top). Most would agree with that. It's not just the "top few players and then the rest". As such, the Roddicks/Hewitts, etc could be more easily be knocked out earlier in the tournament before realizing their "potential". The top players of the 90s, 80s, etc would more or less be "guaranteed" to reach the bookend of the tournaments, and therefore more chances to be "great" and winning titles.

    Bring the past greats into today's generation: The "greats" of the past have a higher chance of being knocked out early at every slam, and then facing prime-Fed (like Roddick has had to face, therefore cutting into his potential slam wins) and prime-Nadal. The "greats of the past" may have their own wins significantly reduced.

    Again, it goes both ways. I will agree to disagree.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010

Share This Page