Can Nadal complete 16 slams or more?

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Rippy

Federer has beaten Murray, Djokovic, del Potro, and Soderling on his way to slam titles.

(It's also amusing how you've only included the factors at which Nadal beats Federer)

you´re right, but, how many? I´m sure most of his GS are not against nadal, murray or Djoker (the one against Soderling does not really count since Soderling was a novice and played way worse than he was playing). If you drop federer´s slams against hewitt, safin, roddick and so on, he´d be 7-8 or so right? fair enough, those slams do count, but you´ll agree that those rivals were not so good. That´s obvious

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Berundi

Who won the Olympic gold in 1980 and 1984?

no pros were allowed to play i think. dont take credit away from him. federer lost to blake and nadal beat djoker and gonzalez on FAST HC. YES. Plus, you remember how happy was federer when he won the doubles thing? Sure every tennis pro wanted badly that gold medal. Not saying is a GS, but it should count way more than a Masters 1000 for sure

[davey25]

Murray, Djokovic, and Soderling have done nothing to prove they are better than Roddick, prime Hewitt, or prime Safin. It is ridiculous to claim Soderling is better than any of those, the guy hasnt even won a Masters title yet. Atleast Del Potro I can see he managed to beat Federer in a slam final during a stretch he was dominant again in slams.

[Rippy]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

you´re right, but, how many? I´m sure most of his GS are not against nadal, murray or Djoker (the one against Soderling does not really count since Soderling was a novice and played way worse than he was playing). If you drop federer´s slams against hewitt, safin, roddick and so on, he´d be 7-8 or so right? fair enough, those slams do count, but you´ll agree that those rivals were not so good. That´s obvious

Not really.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by TheLoneWolf

Early in the 21st Century, the TW Corporation advanced troll evolution into the bruce38, a being virtually identical to a human, known as a TW ubertroll. The bruce38 trolls were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in determination, to the nerds that created them. Bruce38 units were used in the internet as slave labor in the hazardous exploration and colonization of dumb threads. After a bloody post by a bruce38 team in a TW subforum, bruce38 trolls were declared illegal in TW under penalty of ban. Special moderator squads, Blade Runner Units (or Sentinels) had orders to shoot and kill, upon detection, any trespassing troll. This was not called execution. It was called retirement.

same for you mate. im not trolling. first, you should get the facts right. back in the eighties, i think either pros were not allowed to play Olympic games in tennis or for some reason no good player would take part

[TheLoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

same for you mate. im not trolling. first, you should get the facts right. back in the eighties, i think either pros were not allowed to play Olympic games in tennis or for some reason no good player would take part

Dude, you got it all wrong. My post was addressed to Berundi (who some people believe is a previously banned troll.)

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

you´re right, but, how many? I´m sure most of his GS are not against nadal, murray or Djoker (the one against Soderling does not really count since Soderling was a novice and played way worse than he was playing). If you drop federer´s slams against hewitt, safin, roddick and so on, he´d be 7-8 or so right? fair enough, those slams do count, but you´ll agree that those rivals were not so good. That´s obvious

Yea but the same happened against Nadal this FO.
And Federer is a mentally weak crybaby who played way worse than he usually does against Nadal in all of the slam finals. So that means Nadal has 0 slams...

Actually in the end Nadal has 0 slams, you know why? Because he never had to face and win against the raging beast of a tennis player that is no doubt the undisputed GOAT (or will be) and on top of that is one sexy mofo,
the one,
the only,
el toro,
raging bull

Rafael Nadal!

And no one else, except Fed has done so in the history of tennis (and Del potro!)

So really

Fed has 3 slams (2 against Nadal + Cincy)
Del Potro has 1 slam
Nadal and the rest of the ATP tour present and past combined have 0 slams

Therefore,

Fed = GOAT

wat u think?

[Bud]

Originally Posted by jones101

I think 12 is deinitely viable, 16 is a LONG way off, but woth Rafa, like Fed, anything is possible.

This... 16 is possible if he remains injury free and manages his schedule more intelligently in the future. I think he needs to sacrifice a HC tournament after Wimbledon to save his knees for the USO.

He's already locked up the MS1000 record... with no end in sight there. He'll probably hit 25+

[Bud]

Originally Posted by samboy01

Federer is done.

Nadal will be in double digits very soon. After that, the sky is the limit!

I see him ending with:

3 AO
8 FO
4 WB
1 UO

That's 16 slams. Add the fact that he would have more master series than Federer, the gold medal AND a convincing head-to-head against him especially in grandslam finals. And there you have it: Nadal is GOAT

Federer fans, I know that Nadal is younger, fiercer and making a move, please don't stab him

IMO, this is a pretty realistic scenario

If Nadal ends up winning 14 majors... it will be questionable as to whether Federer is the more accomplished player of the two. Especially if he wins 8 FO's, more total titles and an additional gold medal at Wimbledon in 2012.

Nadal is going for a double back-to-back win at FO/Wimby tomorrow. This would place him above Agassi, IMO.

[Berundi]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

no pros were allowed to play i think. dont take credit away from him. federer lost to blake and nadal beat djoker and gonzalez on FAST HC. YES. Plus, you remember how happy was federer when he won the doubles thing? Sure every tennis pro wanted badly that gold medal. Not saying is a GS, but it should count way more than a Masters 1000 for sure

The point is if you were comparing Borg and Nadal for greatness, you couldn't consider Olympics, which is why gold medals are absolutely meaningless in GOAT discussions.

[davey25]

Another topic would be if Nadal ends up with 4 or 5 hard court slams and if he ends up beating anyone of substances (eg- Federer, Del Potro, Djokovic, Murray, some others) would you consider him better than Agassi on hard courts despite that Agassi ended up with 6? I for one would. Agassi had joke draws to most of his hard court slams- both U.S Opens, and the 2001 and 2003 Australian Opens were the worst in history. And Sampras did not deny him as many hard court slams as people think, he was never winning the 1990 U.S Open, unlikely to win the 2001 U.S Open, and he could have been beaten at the 95 U.S Open by Courier or 2002 U.S Open by a better day Hewitt in the final too.

Most people rate Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe above Agassi on hard courts despite that they all have fewer hard court slams.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by davey25

Another topic would be if Nadal ends up with 4 or 5 hard court slams and if he ends up beating anyone of substances (eg- Federer, Del Potro, Djokovic, Murray, some others) would you consider him better than Agassi on hard courts despite that Agassi ended up with 6? I for one would. Agassi had joke draws to most of his hard court slams- both U.S Opens, and the 2001 and 2003 Australian Opens were the worst in history. And Sampras did not deny him as many hard court slams as people think, he was never winning the 1990 U.S Open, unlikely to win the 2001 U.S Open, and he could have been beaten at the 95 U.S Open by Courier or 2002 U.S Open by a better day Hewitt in the final too.

Most people rate Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe above Agassi on hard courts despite that they all have fewer hard court slams.

That's a tough call. IMO, if Nadal wins 1-2 USO and another 2 AO ... he'll be very close to Agassi on HC.

No doubt that Nadal is better on HC than Agassi on clay... even without a USO.

[heninfan99]

It's up to his knees & ankles. With his will power and talent 16 is doable.
The question I can't answer is can Federer be the GOAT is he can't beat Nadal?

[TheLoneWolf]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

It's up to his knees & ankles. With his will power and talent 16 is doable.
The question I can't answer is can Federer be the GOAT is he can't beat Nadal?

It's easy: You don't need to answer the question, because it is flawed (the concept of GOAT is not realistic.)

[Bud]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

It's up to his knees & ankles. With his will power and talent 16 is doable.
The question I can't answer is can Federer be the GOAT is he can't beat Nadal?

Federer isn't even the best of his generation with the huge lopsided H2H with Rafa.

Federer is the most accomplished male singles player in the Open Era (so far)

Originally Posted by TheLoneWolf

It's easy: You don't need to answer the question, because it is flawed (the concept of GOAT is not realistic.)

Agreed... one would have to consider the technology (strings, racquets, etc), playing surfaces... plus how dominant a leading player was over all competition during his reign at the top.

Federer has a huge problem... the lopsided (7-14) record across all surfaces with Nadal... with many of Federer's losses occurring during his prime.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by TheLoneWolf

It's easy: You don't need to answer the question, because it is flawed (the concept of GOAT is not realistic.)

That is why Laver is the GOAT though. He has no flaws:

-versatility and success across all surfaces that were available at the time. Check.
-dominance over all main rivals. Check.
-longevity. Check (Rosewall and Gonzales actually have more but Laver still excellent in this area)
-extreme dominance of the game for a period. Check
-consistency. Check
-all court game. Check
-peak level of play. Check

So he didnt have to play a hard court slam. So what, there were many hard court or indoor tournaments and he dominated those too during his better years.


I picture Federer playing a prime Laver. Lets see a fragile backhand, not much comfort or reliability at the net, an overly defensive return game, and a fragile pysche against tough competition. Honestly I think Laver would eat Federer up most of the time. Heck if Federer fans put Nadal and his abilities down so much, well if even mediocre little Nadal (according to them) does so much damage to Federer, imagine what Grand Slammer at age 31 Laver and his near faultless all around/all court/all surface game and mental toughness would do to Federer.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by davey25

That is why Laver is the GOAT though. He has no flaws:

-versatility and success across all surfaces that were available at the time. Check.
-dominance over all main rivals. Check.
-longevity. Check (Rosewall and Gonzales actually have more but Laver still excellent in this area)
-extreme dominance of the game for a period. Check
-consistency. Check
-all court game. Check
-peak level of play. Check

So he didnt have to play a hard court slam. So what, there were many hard court or indoor tournaments and he dominated those too during his better years.

Did Laver have a winning H2H over his rivals on fast indoor/wood courts as well?

[Netspirit]

Originally Posted by Bud

Federer has a huge problem... the lopsided (7-14) record across all surfaces with Nadal.

Not really. Tennis is different from boxing or chess: it is a tournament-based sport, not a champion vs. contender one. A player is measured against the whole tour, not against any particular somebody who happens to be a bad or good match-up.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by Bud

Did Laver have a winning H2H over his rivals on fast indoor/wood courts as well?

I am pretty sure he did. All the records I look up say so. The only thing I am not sure of is his head to head with Rosewall on clay. It might have been a losing one, but he still beat Rosewall alot of times on clay too, it wasnt like he was ever his pigeon on clay like Federer is to Nadal on clay (and I know Nadal is now considered greater than even the great Rosewall on clay, but still doesnt change the relevance). There are people in the Former Pro section much more versed in all the stats than I would be though.

[TheLoneWolf]

Originally Posted by davey25

That is why Laver is the GOAT though. He has no flaws:

-versatility and success across all surfaces that were available at the time. Check.
-dominance over all main rivals. Check.
-longevity. Check (Rosewall and Gonzales actually have more but Laver still excellent in this area)
-extreme dominance of the game for a period. Check
-consistency. Check
-all court game. Check
-peak level of play. Check

So he didnt have to play a hard court slam. So what, there were many hard court or indoor tournaments and he dominated those too during his better years.


I picture Federer playing a prime Laver. Lets see a fragile backhand, not much comfort or reliability at the net, an overly defensive return game, and a fragile pysche against tough competition. Honestly I think Laver would eat Federer up most of the time. Heck if Federer fans put Nadal and his abilities down so much, well if even mediocre little Nadal (according to them) does so much damage to Federer, imagine what Grand Slammer at age 31 Laver and his near faultless all around/all court/all surface game and mental toughness would do to Federer.

But every player is also a product of his time. Laver is lucky that Gonzalez wasn't exactly his contemporary (even though they did play some matches.)
Similarly, if Fed and Laver had been contemporaries, they would have had to share all those trophies, making their achievements seem less spectacular individually.

There is just no such thing as a GOAT in my opinion.