How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Mike Sams, Oct 1, 2012.

  1. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Thats exactly my problem. When people argue against and refute your points, or opinions, you do not answer, or cherrypick in the extreme, misrepresenting and repeating yourself endlessly along the way. So it is you who is not consenting to debate the way I see it.
     
  2. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,543
    No he didn't? :shock: 8-2 in slam h2h and has taken fed out on ALL surfaces at the slams (Grass, hard, clay). Thanks for playing.. You fail
     
  3. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Destroying implies a devastating performance. When has Nadal ever done this? Maybe once, in 2008.

    Had you said "regularly beat Federer in slams", that would be closer to the truth.
     
  4. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Nadal not being around is not Federers problem nor is he to be blamed for it. It is Nadals problem. He has been around to little exept on clay to be a goat candidate. Something Federer has done to abundance. Not being around enough is Nadals issue and the reason why he was nr 2 for most of the era. Pretty simple.
     
  5. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    How can you make a ridiculous statements like that?

    He WAS around in Wimbledon. Not to mention, Federer losing to Nadal isn't some sort of cosmological constant. :lol: I mean if VERDASCO can win a match against Nadal, Federer can beat Nadal in slams as well.
     
  6. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Are you kidding? 4 times at the FO....it wasn't close....the AO didn't even go five sets.....and a 6-2 record on all slam surfaces is dominance......there is no way on earth anyone can logically say that Federer is better than Nadal.....it's just not true.
     
  7. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    No Federer cannot beat Nadal in slams .....not since 2007 and only on grass.
     
  8. ledwix

    ledwix Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,129
    These guys win 66-72% of their grand slam finals. Federer has put himself in a winning position more often than Nadal, which is why he has won more. Wanna win more? Then make more finals. Federer has 17 slams from 24 finals. Nadal has 11 from 16. This is pretty easy stuff to understand, yes?

    You also stick to dogmatic absolutist logic like Player X simply CANNOT beat Player Y, etc. Sorry but that's not how reality works. Flat-earthers and YECs apply similar debate tactics.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  9. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Yes it was close. Destroying isn't what happened there.

    Yes my darling Federer is better than Nadal. Even Navratilova accepted it. :)
     
  10. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    First of all Nadal has been around. They have met 8 times in slam finals....that's more than anyone in history .

    Secondlyits not Feds fault but it is Feds problem.....a very big problem because the only way Federer can win a slam is if it's not against Nadal. That makes his record look very questionable indeed.

    Third rankings mean nothing. That's only a paper argument as is all of Fed is the goat argument.
    On paper azerenka was the best , Jankovic, safina... even Becker never attained year end number one status ...hell even roddick and Ferraro were number 1. Means absolutely nothing.

    What was Sampras ranking in his last USO ? Was he even in the top 20?
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  11. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Yawn. Not worth it.
     
  12. ledwix

    ledwix Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,129
    Ranking means nothing? First of all WTA is irrelevant, just consider their system stupid for now if you wish. But in ATP, ranking is a prestigious award summarizing the last 52 weeks.

    You stupidly named guys who were barely #1 for more than a few weeks. Do you REALLY think when Nadal reached #1 for the first time, it meant "nothing" to him? Do you really think Djokovic falling to the ground like he just won his first slam after beating Tsonga in 2011 Wimbledon SF was solely due to his Wimbledon final appearance and that the #1 ranking he achieved meant "nothing" to him? Do you really think 300 weeks at #1 means "nothing" and is easily rendered a meager accomplishment by the mere mention of other players who spent less than a 30th that length of time at the same position?

    If so, your brain operates at a cognitive level closer to that of a chicken than that of a human.
     
  13. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Yet you say the problem is that he has not been around.
    On clay yes probably, on other surfaces your argument is false, and hypothetical since Nadal was not around enough, which is his problem not Federers.
    Yes when Federer overtook Sampras weeks at nr 1 record it was nothing, of course. Funny stuff.

    Yep
     
  14. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    H2hs are not irrelevant of course, and it is to Nadal's credit that he has such an outstanding record against Federer who is at worst one of the greatest players to have ever lived.

    However a h2h record is only against one player, while major titles and weeks as world no. 1 are achieved against the entire field, and are much better indicators of overall superiority.

    After all players are completely against the rest of the field as a whole, and not just one particular opponent.
     
  15. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    No that's what you say I said.

    The point I made is that Nadal has done much more than Fed with far less opportunities to do so.

    Nadal has missed 6 grand slams and Federer has missed zero. Yet Nadal still managed to win 11 slams. By the way 17-6= 11.

    Federer is 31 and has been in far more slams than Nadal.

    Federers slams came mainly by avoiding playing Nadal . On the other hand Nadal has had to face Federer in a majority of his slams.....and Federer was in every single slam that Nadal ever played in .


    Nadal beat Fed at the AO and at Wimbledon Feds best surfaces . In four attempts Federer has not even come close to beating Nadal. Therefore Nadal is te better player.....Nadal can beat Federer on any surface but when it comes the FO Federer cannot come close.



    No that's a great feat....

    But the #1 ranking is bs in my opinion . I'm tired of repeating it ad nauseum so please scroll up.
     
  16. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Yes, it is not unusual for a surface goat to have a winning H2H against almost everybody, because they are not around enough on other surfaces. That again is the reason why they are not overall goat candidates.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  17. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    I'm only looking at slams by the way.....

    Nadal got to those slam finals by beating everyone else. How many times does Nadal need to beat Federer in a slam final to prove he is better. Isn't 6 times enough already? Has any #1 been beaten 6 times on all surfaces in slam finals by the same person before ?

    I don't see how much more proof anyone can possibly ask for.
     
  18. Rock Strongo

    Rock Strongo Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    7,719
    Location:
    Sweden
    We need some sensibility in this thread. Where is 130 when we need him?
     
  19. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    11 slams and an Olympics and a few more slam finals says Nadal is just so good he beat just about everyone.
     
  20. Hood_Man

    Hood_Man Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,324
    Location:
    Wales
    He is in all of us. Surrounds us. Binds us.
     
  21. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,269
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    See here: Federer has beaten Nadal for two of his majors.. thus making your entire post worthless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer–Nadal_rivalry
     
  22. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,269
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Perhaps Nadal should win more than 1 major at the two he's only got one at? At least Federer has multiple titles at 3 places.. Also, btw. Federer has defended a major title at 3 of the 4 majors. Nadal has defended at 1 of 4. Seems Nadal is the one lacking, not Fed.
     
  23. Gizo

    Gizo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,699
    Well for Nadal to prove he is better, he needs to have a better overall collection of big title wins and set of accomplishments The better player is the one that has the superior record against the whole field, and not just any one player, and translates that into more grand slam title wins and more time as the world no. 1 ranked player (and weeks as world no. 1 is far more important than one single h2h record).

    Looking just at the h2h is very narrow minded indeed.

    Fabrice Santoro has beaten Safin 7 times out of 9 but wasn't the better player. Nadal was dominated by Davydenko on hard courts, but Nadal has clearly been the far superior hard court player overall. Feliciano Lopez has dominated his h2h against Davydenko winning 6 matches out of the 8, but Davydenko has been the much better player.
     
  24. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Not Federers problem. To his credit.
    But you said "the only way Federer can win a slam is if it's not against Nadal" which is factually false, and also hypothetical (stating prediction/opinion as fact).
    A great feat that is bs. Sound logic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  25. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    This. He has not been around enough.
     
  26. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Federer just did far more so.
     
  27. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    Are we speaking English here? Yes, English as the language, not some kind of alien dialect. Are YOU speaking English too?
    "...avoid playing Nadal": For the hundred thousand times, 90'Clay and you seem to love using that expression w/o understanding it. Here: if Fed was already in a GS final by making through his own half, he was there to play. If Rafa was NOT there in the same final, he COULD NOT play Fed. Any LOGICAL, AND INTELLIGENT person looked at it and will conclude "Rafa AVOIDED Fed, not the other way around. Now your bs litany of excuses such as skipped this, skipped that, injured here, injured there, still too young are just...BS excuses.
    Now for the hundred thousand times, where is the damn comparo of GS finals that I asked? Remember, the one where your invincible Rafa was NOT (NOT IS THE KEYWORD HERE) whereas the slew of weak players such as Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Philippoussis made it through their own half.
    "#1 ranking:bs". Humm, perhaps yes, perhaps no. It still stands AS OF TODAY that Fed has been #1 much MUCH longer than Rafa.
    To be in the GOAT discussion, a player MUST do EVERYTHING BETTER than the guy in front of him, not only H2H, not only winning on 1 surface. EVERYTHING BETTER. In that regard, Rafa<Fed and has a long way to go.
    Now are we speaking English? Where's the DAMN comparo? Put it up with the emphasis where Rafa was in that particular tourney. We want to see it.
     
  28. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    How about this:
    17 GS titles, also a few MORE slam finals (either won or lost) than Rafa, #1 ranked MUCH longer than Rafa, still #1 as of TODAY at the age of 31, just spanked Rafa at last year WTF and Indian Wells, won in Madrid where Rafa got booted out and then threatened to boycott next year (Bouhoo, bouhoo, bouhoo....), a Wimby title whereas Rafa was kicked by a 100th-ranked player, won Cinncinati title, USO quaterfinal whereas Rafa was playing (oupss, he was NOT even there in the last two events I mentioned). Want more? GOAT over Fed?!!! NOT even by the longest measure man can measure.
    Achieve that when Rafa is 31 year old. Then let's discuss it over. Stop "avoiding" logic.
     
  29. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    As long as he didn't have to face Nadal.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  30. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    Where's the damn comparo?
    Run but you canNOT hide.
    Post #279 of this thread.
     
  31. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,293
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Wimbledon 2006 and 2007 and face*
     
  32. Numenor

    Numenor Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    245
    I agree. Also, I think that Nadal really has only 1 major, since he didn't go through Djoker 2.0 for the rest.
     
  33. ledwix

    ledwix Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,129
    Nadal has zero real majors and is a hollow champion who built his legacy on avoiding Djoker 2.0. Djokovic just felt bad and let him have the French. Face it. The only matches that determine who is the better player are when Nadal plays peak Djokovic. If Djokovic doesn't play well enough to reach a late round, then that tournament doesn't count. The whole tennis world stops and scales down the value of their achievements greatly.
     
  34. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Djoker had one incredible year....the greatest year of all time .

    It's not the same as a 6-2 record on all surfaces . Djoker has not beaten Nadal at RG for example.

    But one thing is for sure .....Nadal is a goat candidate .
     
  35. Numenor

    Numenor Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Messages:
    245
    I completely agree. Now that I come to think of it, Nadal should thank his lucky stars that the match was postponed just as Djoker won the 3rd set 6-2. In fact, imagine if the match continued that day: Nadal would be an empty champion who dominated the weak era before real competition showed up :lol:
     
  36. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    2006 .....er weak. Nadals first slam ever. Same as Fed beating 19 year old joker at the USO. Yeah it's a win ....but basically against a rookie.

    2007....I'll give you that one. Great win for Fed.

    But that's about it. The rest is just pure Nadal domination at the slams.
     
  37. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    I don't think that Federer was weak competition.
     
  38. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,543
    Heck even that 2007 win it took a Nadal injury and serve chokeage just for Fed to win that. ROFL. Ever since then its been ALL Nadal at the slams
     
  39. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    You guys are always quick to fix my stats but not when it helps you huh?

    I keep saying Nadal is 6-2 in slams.....

    But the fact is he is 8-2.

    So he beat Fed twice at the AO????

    Come on guys.....this is pathetic .

    Fed just can't be the greatest player that ever lived. It's obvious . How anyone can say otherwise is just complete bias.

    Nadal beats Federer so how on earth can fed be the greatest player that ever lived when he can't even beat Nadal????

    It's insane to maintain your argument .
     
  40. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,269
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Well, ah, Federer has a total record in major finals of 15-1 versus non-Federer opponents... the one loss being Del Po.

    So other than what has been repeatedly described as a one-time performance, Federer is perfect against the field. Nadal has lost 5 major finals.. 3 to guys not named Federer. Named Djokovic. So, like Nadal, Federer has lost finals to exactly two people. The difference is that Nadal lost 3 times to the non-fedal opponent, while Federer only once.

    Nadal is 5-3 versus the field...

    That's why Federer is moer likely the GOAT candidate than Nadal. Other than his one, single bane, Federer dominates. Nadal's finals record against non-Federer's is pretty pedestrian for a guy who's supposed to be GOAT.
     
  41. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    The number 17 must really kill you inside. Day In Day out. Like a thorn in your side.
     
  42. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    FO 2012 was not djoker 2.0 do nadal has 0 slams.
     
  43. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,293
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    ?? he won 2 RG's before
     
  44. VPhuc tennis fan

    VPhuc tennis fan Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    933
    Hard to keep stuff straight when one shoots so many lies from both sides of his mouth, heh?
    Funny that Rafa himself is very humble, likable whereas some of his fans are just...
    "Utter domination, GOAT, Avoid, Gonna win the next 7-8 FO" and the list goes on. Seems like they just love hearing their own sound, even in the expense of good use of English.
    BTW, I used up all my tissues while reading the thread "Nadal with a broken foot". Can someone give me some more?
     
  45. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Nice graph and statistics bla bla bla.....Im not knocking it .... If that oswhat convinces you then i respect that.

    However please respect that those things mean nothing to me. To me if a guy beats me 8 -2 he is better than me. It's simple.

    I'm not saying that Nadal is the goat or not.....but one thing is for sure , even of fed has 500 slams he cannot be the greatest player that ever lived because their is a living player that beats the snot put of fed.

    It is impossibe to declare fed the goat because of Nadal despite Feds great nu,bers technically on paper....At least in my opinion.
     
  46. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    *Translation*

    "Blah blah blah blah - Simple - Blah blah blah blah - Nadal - Blah blah blah blah blah - blah blah blah - blah - Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah - in my opinion"
     
  47. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    First, I would like to say that I hope you pay attention when you go to university.

    Now, back to the topic. Let me ask you a question, do you believe that there will be one player throughout all of time who would be capable of beating any other player at least six times out of ten?

    Tennis tends to not work out quite like this, and given a long enough period, it becomes extremely likely that no matter how good you are, there will eventually be a player who is going to beat you. They will be skilled enough and play in a manner that counters your game. The main point is that if Player A beats Player B and then Player B beats Player C, that doesn't necessarily mean that Player A will beat Player C. This is so obvious that it hardly needs mentioning, but you don't seem to grasp such concepts.

    Your argument seems to be, how can a player be the GOAT if he is beaten by another player. The obvious issue with that argument is that it will basically preclude anyone from ever being the GOAT, as the odds are slim (as in, nil) that you wouldn't be able to find at least one player (from the past, present, or future) who wouldn't be capable of having a winning record over your GOAT candidate.

    If your intention is to point out that there can be no clear GOAT (based on your own naive definition of what it takes to be the GOAT), then mission accomplished. No need to waste everyone's time any further.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  48. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,269
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Fallacious argument. If a guy thoroughly dominates all but ONE single person, and that person is not of equal dominance over the field, there's no actual proof that the one who is not of equal dominance is in fact better at tennis than the one with more dominance.

    If Fed, for instance, had 500 majors... no sane person would POSSIBLY suggest Nadal was better than he just because of the h2h.

    Thus, your illogical thought processes are totally revealed.

    if Nadal was at 15 or more majors, this would be a relevant discussion. He is not.
     
  49. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    I can guess how he responds.

    "Blah blah blah blah blah, in my opinion, blah blah blah, so Federer is not the GOAT."
     
  50. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,367
    The Tennis Channel is killing him.
     

Share This Page