Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Dark Knight, Jun 14, 2013.
Soderling = Clay Court GOAT
Rosol = Grass GOAT
OMG ....yeah Nadal had an upset . He has one every single FO he has ever been in except one. Yes he is human . Borg lost twice .
That's a lot different than not winning in a slam against Nadal for the past half a decade!
Rosol yeah again it happens . He is human .....still very different . Anyone can beat anyone on a given day . But to be Nadals whipping boy in the slams is a different story all together.
By the way Puerta and Canas beat Fed .....roger is human as well.
Now, it's the difference between 12 and 17
Whatever . Lest make it simpler .....
The difference between Nadal and Federer now is simply
Roddick & Philopusis . ......
And philopusis is basically a lesser clone of Roddick.
You could say the difference betwee the slam count is therefor basically :
That's not really all that big of a deal.
And Nadal beat Roddick at queens .
Of course in order to be in position to win a slam, whether it be against Roddick or whoever, you first have to get to the final.
Fed has been to 24 slam finals, Nadal "only" 17. So it is false to claim the difference is "Roddick".
Rafa has a chance to get to Fed's slam total. If he gets there, then the discussion gets more interesting. Of course Nadal will never get close to Fed's weeks at #1, but he does have the H2H. So if he gets to Fed's slam total then there is a discussion to be had.
Until then, Fed is GOAT, Nadal is CGOAT.
Herr says Ralph is the GOAT (even though he gets beaten by Nole and has to resort to Nole's overhead in order to beat him !!).
(For Ralph) Nole's overhead == Fred's backhand.
Yes you made that hilarious shortsighted childish argument 10000 times now kid, not going to counter them again. Google it and you'll find your other threads and there you can look at the arguments that have been used to counter this weak argument. Guess there are 1000's of them since it's the weakest argument in history of weak arguments.
This is some crazy logic, I have to say. Even for you, lol.
And it's Philippoussis, you should at least spell his name right for once.
How about this logic? Djokovic + Nadal = 18 slams, 2 WTF, 200 weeks at nr.1.
Do you know that WTF is worth 1500 points? Just behind slams, who are worth 2000 points.
Even if they share their trophy room, they still don't surpass Federer.
Simple and to the point.
Yes? Only in this forum do you have to ask this as a question, as there are so many haters in denial.
Right, anyone who doubts my hero is the bestest ever is a hatur, great attitude.
It's amazing .
In fact this is a completely boring thread and the answer is elementary . But just take a look at how many pages there are?
Anywhere else there would be a vote and that would be the end of it .......or actually you would see comment after comment saying how amazing Nadal is but here it's just a bunch of hate.
Where else would you find 13 people who cannot bring themselves to vote yes?
But what if this is an extremely weak CC era? I mean a mentally weak crybaby loser like Fed made 5 FO finals, won a FO and 6 CC masters so how can we claim with such certainty that Nadal is the best ever on the surface?
Don't like the taste of your own medicine, don't you?
Can you not accuse me of something I am not? I don't even see Nadal as my hero, but his achivements are hard to belittle. The hate you see in this place is downright alarming, that is the fact I am commenting on.
Anyone who is most accomplished should be considered the greatest, IMO. That's why I see Fed as the greatest of the open era, and Nadal as the greatest on clay. Weak field, split stats excuses are for fan boys. So, basically I am defending Fed here as much as I am defending Nadal.
That's the reality. Man up and accept that achievements and results are everything in tennis, or ***** out and return to your (not yours, but you know what I mean) little sad, self fulfilling cave. What are tournaments for otherwise? Why are there champions and runner-ups? Let's all stick a probe into the tennis player's brain instead and measure their "innate talent", and cancel all tournaments, shall we?
For the record, I think Nadal is not only the best CC player I've ever seen but the best player on a single surface (better than even Sampras/Fed on grass) but not being ready to proclaim him (or anyone else for that matter) the greatest ever (on a specific surface or overall) doesn't automatically mean one hates him, some people simply don't believe in anointing one player as the greatest ever but limit it to greatest of his era.
That said, what bothers me the most is OP's massive double standards, he ridicules Fed fans for using his achievements/stats (slam count being the most important) when comparing him with other players due to supposedly weak era but apparently Nadal's stats shouldn't be questioned one bit and he's the undisputable CC GOAT with no room left for any kind of doubt.
He (the OP) goes to great lengths to present Fed as some mentally weak crybaby loser who only achieved anything due to extremely weak era but doesn't at all realize that downgrading Fed as a player in such a manner and to such a degree he is the same time sabotaging Nadal's claim to greatness regarding clay as he's indirectly saying this CC era is extremely weak (it must be, if a weak sissy like Fed was beating the crap out of the field for the most part and only lost to Nadal).
Ok, I see what you mean. I would see BOTH Fed and Nadal as the greatest in their respective areas, I don't agree with the OP one bit if he did suggest what you mentioned about Federer.
I fail to see the point trying to reason with this guy...
Might as well tell him what he wants to hear and hope he just goes away
OT: What happened to N_S_K?
Nadal is so far ahead of everyone else in history on clay he could be called the best and second best clay courter ever both, with the next best whoever that is being third.
I don't know what you have been sniffing but I never said one bad word about Federer .....
I'm glad we agree that Nadal is the greatest clay court player that ever was. So why is this thread still going on page after page?
All i did was post a question with a poll .
Look like N.S.K is arming himself to start the greatest TTW War in world history.
I dont know what the hell you are talking about, but that Nadal is starting to be talked about as the possible GOAT, and it is 80% based on what he did on clay alone, shows he is a greater clay courter than anyone is on any surface ever and in another statosphere from the rest on that surface. Basically with achievements mostly all on one surface, he is being compared to various guys who are possible GOATs on two different surfaces, so that shows his clay GOATness is out of this World.
The tribe has spoken
Ah, but he is not being talked about as a possible GOAT, let's be serious a minute here. He needs to do much more than what he has done to join tier 1 and be even considered for the discussion.
There is no absolutely doubt in my mind that, even though I never saw Borg playing live during his prime, Nadal has to be the strongest clay court player ever to pick up a racket.
You should step outside TW once in a while and live in the real world.
Nadal is actually being talked about as goat and there are several articles about just that .
Id be happy to post them for you but I don't want to cause any more pain than I already have .
I don't understand why it causes some people pain ? What difference does it make to you ? But strangely it really bothers certain fed fans.
OMG your still on this worthless WTF ?
I don't give a sheet about WTF and you can talk about from here to doomsday . It just doesn't matter to me.......the slams just kill it .
I don't care if a slam is only 500 points more......it's just so much more prestigious. Please don't even say wtf and a slam in the same sentence .
Then following that line of logic Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has more slams than Laver .
But Nadal has missed 7 slams and Nadal has not been around as long as fed.
Here we go around the merry go round with the same old crap . Why do we keep repeating each other ?
Don't know what *** stands for .....
But why would calling Nadal the greatest clay court player ever start a war?
That does it for me ..... I'm convinced.
So Dedan are you saying you are not convinced ?
Laver has 8 pro majors as well. Keep on failing though.
Sure ok then Laver is greater than Fed as well because that would be 19.
But lets go a step further.....
Emerson has even more than all !! Emerson has 28 slams in singles , doubles .
So applying your rules of simply counting .....Emerson is the goat.
Your rules the ranking is this :
Laver is greater than Federer due to the CYGS, some of those majors are amateur majors e.g. not equal to the open era grand slams. So it's not the total that makes Laver the best. He also won the pro slam in 1967 which included the Wimbledon pro. At every stage in his career Laver rose to the summit and utterly dominated an entire year. That's why he's the best, not because he has 19 majors some of which are from amateurs...
But Emerson won even more and was the first player to win each at least twice .
So if you apply the robotic TW fed fan rules Emerson is the goat.
Emerson only won amateur majors...
Not talking as a Fed fan, and I don't care if a couple of articles are creating a buzz right now, cause this is what journos do, ie overhype hot stuff, then forget it or diss it next time it looks a bit down.
But in serious tennis circles? Tier 1 is still a loooooooooooooooooong way away for Nadal.
That's okay, you don't know anything about tennis--everybody understands, you don't have to rub it in every other post.
I know that WTF doesn't mean sheet.
It's not a couple of articles my friend it's a lot . And a lot of pros from Mcenroe to Wilander to Navratilova ....etc etc.
Sorry to burst your bubble ......but the fact is that Nadal
Is now very much in the goat discussions whether you like
It or not.
Tell that to Novak Djokovic...
Celebrates pretty hard for something which doesn't mean 'sheet'.
Still means sheet.
See the bolded part. Is that an excuse? Looks like it to me. Humm, but it's valid, correct? since that applies to Rafa? But whatever I or any other Fed fan may say would be qualified as "bs excuses? Am I correct? Humm... And we get called "fanatical obsessed fanboy always making up excuses for Fed"? Humm...
What if Rafa had won 6 times the WTF, and Fed none. Would you still call the tourney "sheet"?
Or is it "sheet" because Rafa got his butts kicked every single time he participated? Humm...
FYI, as recent as last December, the old dude called Fed still made to the final whereas Rafa won it! No, wait... Rafa did NOT win it. Sorry, Rafa was licking his wounds somewhere on a fishing boat, or drowning his sorrow at some poker table, I believe. Yup, only you would take the fishing boat, poker over the WTF final title! Too hilarious, agree?
Yes I would still call the tourney sheet.
The only thing that history looks at is the slams.
No it's a fact .
Poor Rafa! But hey, in sport, no award is given to absentee, correct?
Your own words "step out and live in the real world". Live by it, would you?
For someone who claimed to know and follow tennis, qualifying WTF as "sheet" is ... NOT to know and follow tennis!
As a matter of fact, facing the 7 top players of a given year in WTF is so much tougher to win compared to the first 3-4 rounds of any GS tourney! In fact, name me one instance where you face someone ranked as high as #5 or 6 in the world right at your first match in a GS tourney. Nowhere! Never! The only thing that WTF doesn't have to make as prestigious as Wimby or FO is its shorter history. In fact, many already proposed it to the 5th slam! Not too bad for a 'sheet' tourney, huh?!
goats arent compatible with clay
with grass? Law of nature?
Separate names with a comma.