Does anyone still believe Nadal will catch Federer in slams?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by DjokovicForTheWin, Jul 3, 2011.

  1. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that a 2011 French Open final between Nadal and Djokovic will be left forever to your imaginations, since the match never took place. And there's nothing wrong with making a prediction just before a match takes place.

    I'm using the evidence of my own eyes. Nadal won 48 out of 50 matches in this 4 month period.
     
    #51
  2. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Just like it was your imagination that Nadal would beat Djoker at Wimby this year. There's nothing wrong with speculating on what could have happened.

    If there weren't so many tourney's stacked up in that short time, your argument goes out the window. It's more difficult to win over a long period of time than a short one.
     
    #52
  3. Biscuitmcgriddleson

    Biscuitmcgriddleson Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,098
    Another two in a bag is laughable. LAUGHABLE. JUST LAUGHABLE! And don't even start with the H2H garbage again. What if Nadal goes down as never being able to defend a non clay slam or event?
     
    #53
  4. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    I don't care. I'm just saying Nadal will get close to Federer's numbers, and has a 17-8 head to head against him proving he is a better player.
     
    #54
  5. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Djokovic has no asterisk. He beat the defending champion and the best player at his peak on grass in his first final. I'd say it deserves a bold because it was extra special.
     
    #55
  6. Biscuitmcgriddleson

    Biscuitmcgriddleson Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,098
    So he would be the better player is he end up with 13 slams and the break down being 9 FO, 2 Wim, 1 USO, and 1 AO? Let's disregard how bad his consistency is in comparison to Federer also. I think today showed clearly that Nadal is not the better player as he isn't able to adapt in situations that clearly don't favor him. As many said, he was simply Out Nadaled today. Djoker did exactly what Nadal has done for many years to other players. He would be a better French Open champion for sure, but to call him a better player based of h2h when he can't even defend his titles against other players besides Federer? It really calls into question his dominance wouldn't you say?
     
    #56
  7. 10ACE

    10ACE Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,170
    This is all well said and noted and I agree
     
    #57
  8. DeShaun

    DeShaun Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,837
    I never did.
     
    #58
  9. tennis_fan_182

    tennis_fan_182 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    412
    I honestly thin he'll be lucky to get a 4th slam. Remember, Djokovic is still a flash in the pan compared to Fedal.
     
    #59
  10. Forehand Avenger

    Forehand Avenger Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    383
    Location:
    Deutschland, Italien, USA
    Are you a standup comedian? If not, you should be!

    If Djoker won 3 slams every year for the next 4 years (until he is twentyeight) he would still be 1 slam short of Fed.

    It is not going to happen. Or, at least, it is highly unlikely.

    I mean, he has had how many years since he turned pro? And he only has 3 slams so far. You do the math. Thinking that he can keep his current pace for 4 years is unreal.
     
    #60
  11. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Not really to be honest, I mean look at the players Federer had to beat to win most of those grand slams. Baghdatis, Gonzalez? The reality is that all Federer's competition fell away which allowed him to rack up all those grand slams because he had no competition, which is a huge asterix.

    I mean you can run through the list:

    Ferrero: Got chcken pox, came back as half the player with no forehand and never recoverd.

    Safin: Leg injuries, never recovered his movement

    Keurten: Hip injuries, had to retire.

    Coria: Mental breakdown

    Roddick: Started moonballing

    Tommy Haas: Shoulder injuries

    Hewitt: Got married, had kids, lost focus, injuries every year for the past 8 years.

    Who was left? Blake, Davydenko, Ferrer. A bunch of mediocre nohting players, leaving Federer to rack up a giant record of fake slams beating a bunch of guys who should have been top 20 at best but found themselves in the top ten due to all those guys falling apart.

    I mean, Keurten, Coria and Ferroro's demise is the only reason Federer even REACHED French Open finals at all!
     
    #61
  12. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Well, Safin, Hewitt or anyone INJURED you mentioned at least were there to compete. Del Potro, a part of this "new tough generation" was out for a full year and is yet to recover. Murray can't win a set in a slam final and is getting owned by the top 3 in Slams. Federer himself is 30 years old now and probably won't play much longer.

    Actually you mentioned Ferrer as the part of the old weak generation. Funny how he was a top 15-25 player in 2004-2007 yet now he's in the top 5 LOOOOL. Blake of 2006 would probably be in the top 10 nowadays looking at those who have been there in the last months aka Melzer, Almagro, Fish.
     
    #62
  13. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Now there are 4 guys who can really play, albeit Murray has never beaten him in a grand slam, so Federer has to actually beat quality players to win Slams. Ever since Nadal learned to play on hard courts and Djokovic and Murray and Del Potro came along, Federer has suddenly stopped winning 3 slams a year. Go figure.

    I was being a bit harsh on Ferrer, who has improved his forehand massively since 2008, he doesn't belong in the same class as the likes of Tommy Robredo.
     
    #63
  14. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    It will be harder now. Still not impossible though. 3 more Frenchs, 2 more Wimbledon, 1 more U.S Open and 1 more Australian is still possible.

    Most likely he wont now though. It will be harder to win hard court slams now that Djokovic is so strong, and a revived Del Potro, a future great like Tomic, and possibly even Murray are also threats to win those, as is Nadal still of course.

    I dont see Djokovic winning alot of Wimbledons given that it is still his worst surface but any aura of domince and invincability Nadal may have had there, not losing at Wimbledon since 2007 and even that a 5 setter he should have won vs prime Fed, is now over and the rest will battle him harder there, not only Djokovic.

    Based on his clay court play this year Djokovic should win a French, but he seems prone to strange upsets there. Del Potro at full strength could be a possible threat to win on the clay too.
     
    #64
  15. mcenroefan

    mcenroefan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,527
    Always back to the old standby...the H2H argument?

    Nadal is a better player on clay (10-2 H2H, 6 FO titles)

    He is, by far and away, a worse player on all other surfaces
    (5-6 losing H2H, only 4 non-clay slams and zero WTF's vs Fed's 15 non-clay slams and 5 WTF's)

    This, of course, doesn't even address the marvelous inconsistency in claiming that Nadal was the "better player" while he was the second ranked player in the world to Fed who was the #1 ranked player in the world for over five years. You'll be doing the pretzel trying to explain how the "best player" is the #2 ranked player in the world. (Fed-285 weeks at #1, Nadal-102 weeks at #1)

    Fed is one of the greatest all-courters the game has ever seen. While he still has time left and has improved on non-clay events, Nadal is not remotely in Fed's category of all-court prowess.

    I could rattle off about 10-20 other Fed records that Nadal has no chance of achieving,,,,records across all slams, annual records, unbeaten streaks across all surfaces, etc, etc.

    To be clear, Fed during his prime was one of the most dominant players the game has ever seen and he was dominant on more than one surface. The same cannot be said of Nadal at the current time. Let's see if that changes over the next couple of years.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2011
    #65
  16. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    Most of Nadal's slams must be asterisked too then, surely?

    After all, the only person he had to beat was overrated joke, weak era champ Federer, right?

    :oops:
     
    #66
  17. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    LOL you prove again you are the dumbest poster here (and that says alot on a forum with the likes of abmk, mandy01, MotherMarjorie, fakemcenroefan, and others).

    Hewitt played his best ever tennis in 04-05, the first half of Federer's dominance.

    Roddick played his best ever tennis in 03-04 and went something like 1-6 vs Federer those two years.

    Coria is no match for Federer on any surface, including clay. Federer is 2-0 vs a prime Coria on clay in 04-05, despite that in 04 he was still producing mostly sucks results on clay.

    Kuerten was 30 by the time Federer reached his first French Open final in 2006.

    Safin has a horrible 2-11 lifetime head to head and was spanked by up and coming Federer who was doing nothing in the slams twice in 2002, one of Safin's peak years.

    Ferrero would be destroyed by prime Federer on all surfaces except clay which would be 50-50 with both at their best. Even prime Ferrero was no threat on the other surfaces even BEFORE Federer's dominance apart from one fluke U.S Open final where Roddick whipped him like a little school boy.

    Haas, who cares.

    Blake is a mediocre nobody? I suppose that is why you were the one who started a past threat how he had one of the best backhands ever, how those who didnt agree were racist haters, and this despite the backhand isnt even one of his best shots, LOL!

    I agree Federer's competition isnt the best but atleast try making sane arguments.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2011
    #67
  18. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    The top 3 doesn't care about Murray. I thought he really belonged to the top tier of players nowadays after he beat Nadal at the AO in 2010 but it seems that this was a fluke. Other than that and the 2008 US Open when Nadal was on his last breath he did nothing in Slams to the top 3, not even took sets off Federer, Djokovic and can't beat Nadal now as well. David freaking Ferrer has been a more dangerous floater.

    Ever since Nadal learned to play on hard courts and Djokovic and Murray and Del Potro came along, Federer has suddenly stopped winning 3 slams a year. Go figure.

    Ever since Federer got mono/back injury in 2008 guys like Djokovic, Nadal suddenly started to beat him more often and continue to do so when they're 5-6-7 years younger than Fed and he's 30 years old. Go figure.

    Nobody from the current era would touch prime Federer on a hard or grass when it really matters. The guy was insane in 04-06. Nadal will never sniff that kind of tennis.
     
    #68
  19. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    I disagree that
    (1)Hewitt played his best tennis in 2004-2005 strongly, he played his best in 2001 and 2002 when he got those victories over Sampras and when he won the USO and Wimbledon, before that lawsuit with the ATP fiasco distracted him.

    (2)that having to go through Ferroro then Coria then Keurten combined would have resulted in all those RG finals

    (3)that Safin couldn't have pushed on to beat Federer in more grand slams after rediscovering top form in the Australian Open in 2005 had he not been cut down by injury,

    (4) that Roddick couldn't have maintained his 1:6 win/loss ratio to beat Federer in at least 1 grand slam final if he hadn't started moonballing,

    (5) that Haas wouldn't have won at least 1 slam in his career if he hadn't had all those injuries.

    Add all those guys up and 3 slams a year isn't happening. Dominance Sampras style with 1-2 slams a year? Yes. 3 slams a year? No way.

    Having said that Federer was better than all those guys definitely, he is one of the greatest players of all time, but his competition was literally non existant until Del Potro, Murray and Djokovic came along, and until Nadal learned to play to his potential on hard courts, so his slam count is massively inflated.


    No, I said he has a great backhand (which he did for a few years), not one of the best of all time, and to this day I don't understand why Korda's backhand was so revered and Blake's so reviled. Bizarre. He's a choker though, and stupid tactically, and his serve isn't/wasn't good enough.


    Honestly you're just coming off desperate now.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2011
    #69
  20. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Hewitt in 2001-2002 lost in slams to slumping unseeded Moya, Escude, Alberto Martin, and Canas. In 2004-2005 he lost in slams only to Federer (5 times), and eventual Champions Safin and Gaudio (once each). The end.

    Who the hell is this Ferroro. I have never heard of such a player. :rolleyes: Atleast learn to spell the names of the players you are trying to build up.

    The draw shaping up that one has to beat 3 players like that to make a French Open final even if all existed is next to none. Most likely Federer would only need to beat one of Ferrero or Coria, since Kuerten was a tennis grandpa by 06 anyway, easily doable. And who cares about French Open finals. They mean little to Federer's career, it is mostly desperate Federer fans who build those up. If anything he is better off if he made less finals and lost to Nadal there less.


    Safin played the match or 2nd best match of his life in the 05 Australian and still was a point from losing in 4 sets. There is no reason to assume Safin could beat Federer in future slams. He is Federer's lapdog (11-2), Federer is a horrible matchup for him, he was a headcase and underachiever before his injuries. Add to all that he is only a threat to Federer on hard courts and there are only 2 hard court slams a year, and Federer usually handles Safin on hard courts no problem with Safin needing to play out of his mind as he did that day to even have a chance, and survive the draw far enough to even play Federer on top of that.

    Safin even in the weak interim era in 2000-2002 won only 1 slam. He was a huge underachiever long before someone as good as Federer even emerged.


    If you beat Federer 1 times out of 8 you arent going to beat him in a grand slam (in his prime years). The end.


    BS. Haas peaked in 2002 in probably the worst year for mens tennis ever with Johansson and a washed up Costa winning slams, and still couldnt reach a slam final. Haas is Federer's b1tch as well. Imagine Haas winning a slam in the Federer era or taking a slam away from the likes of Federer or Nadal, freaking hilarious.


    Keep dreaming. It makes more sense to use the hypothetical of some of the guys of the Sampras era like Becker, Agassi, Courier. The ones you used were just nonsense, and to think they could have ever cut Federer's slam count down at all is delusional thinking.


    This from you, ROTFL!
     
    #70
  21. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    13,027
    Oh you know this?
     
    #71
  22. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    hmmm....I don't recall a Nadal fanatic being named an authority on that. So no, no one proves anything here because you say so. I suggest you take your fanatical fantasies about other posters somewhere else and stop involving them in discussions not pertaining to them in any way (unless of course, you need that to fan your ego on the internet :lol:).
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2011
    #72
  23. diggler

    diggler Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,179
    Location:
    Sydney
    I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal catches Fed. I'd be surprised if Joker catches either of them.
     
    #73
  24. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,509
    Federer will be smiling that his tail-gunner has prevented Nadal catching up on a non French Open slam. Djokovic only needs to win the odd slam to make Nadal's task of overtaking Federer a whole lot more difficult.
     
    #74
  25. ruerooo

    ruerooo Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,577
    Location:
    Right behind you
    You know, it's just striking to me how much more Nadal-haters seem to be obsessed with this question, as opposed to genuine Rafa fans.

    :-?

    I mean, who cares? As a FEDAL fan, I am happy with the number Rafa says he is happy with.
     
    #75
  26. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,049
    Dorkovic to top 16?
    He would have to win 2 per year for 7 years. 3 per year for over 4 years. I think he's got a shot at 12. Rafa, too.

    You never know when the next guy steps up.
     
    #76
  27. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Hewitt won the USO in 2001, and Wimbledon in 2002 and had victories over Sampras and reached World Number 1, and you think 2004-2005 when he didn't win a single slam was his peak?


    What a loser, picking on grammatical errors. You are so desperate to be right about something you resort to grammar and digging up posts from 4 years ago. Pathetic.

    Keurten would still have been a factor on clay till 2008 at least, and ten times the clay courter Federer is. In 2005 at 29 (which is old according to you) he knocked Federer out of the French Open on one leg. That's how good Kuerten was and how overrated a clay courter Federer is, and that's how important Keurten, Coria, Ferroro and Coria's demises were, because there is simply no way Federer would have gotten to all those RG finals if he had to beat one of those guys every year.

    Well he won? It was a close match but that's only because Federer is one of the greatest players of all time and Safin reached his level and played one of the greatest matches of all time. He definitely would have had his victories against Federer. Once he got injured his movement was gone forever. Another rival gone.

    Then he got his act together and tragically got cut down. What was Federer doing in 2000-2002 when Safin was 'underachieving' so badly?


    Wrong. Even moonballing and chipping and charging he took a set of Federer in the US Open final.


    Haas took Federer to 5 sets in the French Open for example even after all those inuries. That's how talented Haas is.



    Nonsense.


    Keep over compensating, you're fooling no one. Even now you're scouring Wikipedia and youtube :)
     
    #77
  28. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I am not a Nadal fanatic nor a fanatic on any player. You dont see me mourning after his losses the way you do after Federer loses a single point. By contrast your over the top worship of Federer is so pathetic, witness your posts during his quarterfinal match of Wimbledon:

    Your entire World basically revolves around how he is doing. And you call me or anyone else a fanatic, LOL! Nice one.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2011
    #78
  29. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,316
    Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

    Let us see:
    1. federerfanatic
    2. capriatifanatic
    3. federerhoogenbandfan
    4. justineheninhoogenbandfan

    yada yada yada.

    At least mandy is honest about being a Federer fan.

    And yours revolves around making bajillion posts over and over and again, spending your entire life on this message board. :confused:. Being that Federer's game is far more interesting than this board, I'd say mandy is having more fun.
     
    #79
  30. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I dont know who you are or what useless crap you are rambling on about but whoever you are, you are yet another forum idiot. Welcome to my ignore list.
     
    #80
  31. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,291
    Location:
    Far from suresh's "drying up pool of old farts"
    QFT.

    With Nole winning 4 a year (5 counting Cincy), it should be a cinch.
     
    #81
  32. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,049
    Well shazaam! Let's forward this to the ITF and downgrade Roger's number of slams to 4 or 5 then!
     
    #82
  33. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,316
    Hehe, I thought I was already on your ignore list, but I forget, I was on davey25's ignore list, not yours.:)
     
    #83
  34. GoDawgs2011

    GoDawgs2011 New User

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    82
    For all the talk of so and so only needing "_____ more slams," people belittle how hard it is to win even 1 slam. Tennis is a game where dominance is possible (arguably more so than any other sport) but its also one where it tends to be quick and fleeting. Can you imagine what the response would have been if you suggested that neither Borg and McEnroe would win a major past the age of 25, when were battling each other for slams in their early 20's? Or that after Sampras lost to a then random 19 yr. old in the 4th Round at Wimbledon for the first time in 4 years, he would never win another Wimbledon again?

    The truth is that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic combined may never win a major again (not likely but plausible). On the other hand, any of those 3 could win the U.S. Open and suddenly look like they are in the driver's seat.

    Personally, I don't think Nadal will catch Federer. I think Federer will win 1 more major for #17, and Nadal will get to around 12-14, with no more than 1 of those additional wins being outside of the French. My assertion has nothing to do with any real issues in terms of talent; instead I think he will break down physically around sometime within the next 3 years, effectively giving him only 75% of the career that Fed wil have in terms of length, since I expect Fed to play another 2-3 years as well.

    Given the amount of conjecture and speculation I just had to make in order to get to that prediction, I think it far to early to speculate on the slam counts of any other players on the tour right now, since they all have too little data to base a prediction on or are young enough to completely change their careers. For example, I foresee Djokovic winning several more majors, but this could be increased/decreased significantly by Nadal's response to someone consistently beating him for the 1st time in his career, the rise of younger players on the horizon such as Raonic, Harrison, Dolgopolov, and those who we have yet to see, and whether Del Po and Murray can take that next step (for Del Po, its getting healthy and hitting his groundstrokes as massively as he did in the USO in 09; for Murray, its winning his first major, as once he does, I'd say he could easily win a couple more). Furthermore, there's always the health issue and perhaps even motivation (if a rival who has his number arises, will he fight, change, or ignore it? Perhaps he will even leave the game i.e. Borg since coming from such humble beginnings he will be happy with the fame and riches he's achieved?)
     
    #84
  35. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,291
    Location:
    Far from suresh's "drying up pool of old farts"
    6 more slams in 4 years, assuming Roger does not add any more?
    Quite likely.

    Depends on whether Joker takes 2 or 3 slams each year for the next 3 or 4.
     
    #85
  36. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    I don't really see Nadal winning anymore slams. I think he will end up just behind Borg in terms of greatness.
     
    #86
  37. Biscuitmcgriddleson

    Biscuitmcgriddleson Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,098
    2004 he lost to Federer at the AO, Gaudio at the FO, Federer at Wimb, and was DISMANTLED by Federer in a match that a great deal of people thought he could win. Playing your best doesn't mean that you are the best at the time. There have been time when people have been playing their best, but it just means others are playing better than them. Take for example Roddick and his performance at the 2004 Wimbledon. He came out guns blazing and took the first set off of Federer. Federer was able to make adjustments and win in four. Many people feel that Roddick played some of his best tennis that day, but it just wasn't as good as Federer's.
     
    #87
  38. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,291
    Location:
    Far from suresh's "drying up pool of old farts"
    It's posts like these by which you set yourself up so you have to disappear when Joker loses. And such posts that expose that you don't play tennis and know squat about it.
     
    #88
  39. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Did I disappear after Djoker lost to Federer? In fact I lauded Federer. And what makes you think Djoker will lose again? :)

    Yeah sure, playing tennis makes you more able to make better predictions. LOL, did you see where a pecking chicken outdoes pro football players in picking winners?
     
    #89
  40. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    The way Roddick played Federer in the Wimbledon in 2004, I think he would have beaten Federer maybe 3 times out of ten over the rest of his career if he'd carried on playing like that instead of switching to moonballing in 2005. It's a bit like Agassi/Sampras, Sampras was just better than Agassi and beat him in multiple slams, (5-1 head to head I believe), but Agassi managed to beat him in the AO eventually. I'm not saying Roddick was better than Federer, just that he would have had his wins if he hadn't retreated into his shell.

    And losing Gaudio in 2004 in the FO was no disgrace at all.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2011
    #90
  41. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,316
    There is an epidemic of foot-in-mouth-disease on TW these days.
     
    #91
  42. ViscaB

    ViscaB Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,203
    Location:
    Singapore
    Margins at the top are small. Each of the 3 top players will win the next GS when they are in the form of his life. If they are at the same time tight matches will be the result.

    Nadal has not been in form all year. Credit form for still winning a GS in that form. If he can do one every year he will get close.
     
    #92
  43. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Hewitt had his best achievements in 2001-2002, but his best level of tennis was in 2004-2005, where prime Federer was about. Hewitt could have won another 5 majors in 2004-2005 without Federer standing in his way, on top of the 2 that Hewitt did win at the 2001 US Open and 2002 Wimbledon.
     
    #93
  44. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,982
    THIS. 6 of his 10 slams are on clay and he has never defended a non-slam title. That is telling.
     
    #94
  45. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    I still believe Nadal has a good chance to overtake Federer.

    For that reason, I hope Federer wins 1-2 more majors.
     
    #95
  46. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,982
    No this is not correct. As a Fed fan first and not a *******, I think Nadal is past his peak. The difference in his play is slight but it is there. I think his peak year was 2010.
     
    #96
  47. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,982
    Ah no, not even close. Nadal has 10 slams ,6 of them on his best surface, clay. Fed has multiple slams on every surface aside from clay. His 6 Wimbledon grass titles, 5 USO HC titles and 4 AO HC titles trump Nadal's non-clay FO slams to show that Federer is a superior player on non-clay surfaces.
    In order for Nadal to be considered greater than Federer, he would have to win 7 more slams and of those 7 slams have multiple slams on non-clay surfaces to have the better record. Period, end of story. No tennis analyst would ever say that Nadal is the better player overall if Nadal does not have more slams especially on non-clay surfaces. It does not work that way.
     
    #97
  48. Lsmkenpo

    Lsmkenpo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,915
    Nadal needs Federer's help to win anymore majors, he clearly doesn't have
    enough offense to beat Djokovic anymore, his best chance is having Federer beat him first, as Federer goes so goes Nadal's chances to win anymore majors.
     
    #98
  49. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,982
    1000%. Only a moron would say otherwise
     
    #99
  50. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,982
    Agree completely.
     

Share This Page