How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Federer bageled Nadal on Clay.

You mean at Hamburg? Nadal was so tired he could not hold his racket in that third set.

[90's Clay]

Nadal is rapidly approaching GOAT candidacy. (If hes not considered that already)

11 slams
Career Grand Slam
#1 in the world
Has owned another GOAT candidate his whole career
positive h2h with his main rivals
Already hands down GOAT on clay


Hes just missing a YEC and perhaps a bit of a longer stint at #1

But hes accomplished everything there is just about and did so before he was 26-27 years old.. Thats enough for GOAT consideration. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless. The guy has a GOAT-like Resume

If people consider someone like Borg a GOAT candidate for instance, how the hell can't you consider Nadal? Nadal has already surprised Borg IMO. He's just trailing behind a few other guys like Laver, Pancho, Tilden, Rosewall, Fed, and Sampras. All GOAT candidates themselves. But one of those (Federer) he has owned his whole career

If Nadal can just get maybe 2 more slams (preferably off of clay) his GOAT candidacy should be universal

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Yep, Federer has made 24 Grand Slam finals and he's so talented that he planned his finals so he wouldn't have to face Nadal there

Of course not. It's through no fault of his own.

He is clearly a goat and would win slams in any era and will continue to do so. In fact he was my pick to win Wimbledon.

But the only thing you guys hang your hat on is Feds 17 slams......like that should automatically make him the goat.

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe .

The answers has never been so cut and dry . Certainly 17 slams adds to Federers argument . It's a gigantic feat.......but I don't think that automatically means he is the goat.

The fact that Nadal dominates him is a huge problem for Federer. I'm sorry but you can't say he is the greatest player that has ever lived when in front of our eyes he is just utterly dominated .

We have never had a situation like this before. Laver , Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated their opponents.

But when the alleged greatest player that ever lived gets beaten on his favorite surface , gets beaten on his equally greatest surface ( hard) and loses 6-3,6-1,6-0 at the French and dominated like I believe four other times at the FO......it gets really difficult to say he is the greatest player that ever lived .

There is Nadal who beats the crap out of Federer in front of your eyes. How can you just ignore that???

Does Federer have the greatest record of all time : YES......but does that mean he is the greatest player that ever lived ? I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.

[The Dark Knight]

Just by analogy ..,,

Jankovic ,Azerenka ,Safina all ranked as the best players earth....#1 in the world . Their records were better than Serena.....but were they really better? No way Serena beat them an was the better player even though her record was worse.

I'll even go a step further.....I don't know the numbers but I think Grafs numbers were better than Serena's..... I personally think Serena is a better player. In fact ill go as far as saying that Serena Williams is the greatest female tennis player that ever lived

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Of course not. It's through no fault of his own.

He is clearly a goat and would win slams in any era and will continue to do so. In fact he was my pick to win Wimbledon.

But the only thing you guys hang your hat on is Feds 17 slams......like that should automatically make him the goat.

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe .

The answers has never been so cut and dry . Certainly 17 slams adds to Federers argument . It's a gigantic feat.......but I don't think that automatically means he is the goat.

The fact that Nadal dominates him is a huge problem for Federer. I'm sorry but you can't say he is the greatest player that has ever lived when in front of our eyes he is just utterly dominated .

We have never had a situation like this before. Laver , Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated their opponents.

But when the alleged greatest player that ever lived gets beaten on his favorite surface , gets beaten on his equally greatest surface ( hard) and loses 6-3,6-1,6-0 at the French and dominated like I believe four other times at the FO......it gets really difficult to say he is the greatest player that ever lived .

There is Nadal who beats the crap out of Federer in front of your eyes. How can you just ignore that???

Does Federer have the greatest record of all time : YES......but does that mean he is the greatest player that ever lived ? I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.

Utterly dominated... must you continue to engage in hyperbole? Federer has won 10 matches of 28. That's not being utterly dominated. You're just exaggerating the effect it's had.. and it's not a correct way to make an argument. Federer has denied Nadal majors. That's not being dominated.. end of story.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal is rapidly approaching GOAT candidacy. (If hes not considered that already)

11 slams
Career Grand Slam
#1 in the world
Has owned another GOAT candidate his whole career
positive h2h with his main rivals
Already hands down GOAT on clay


Hes just missing a YEC and perhaps a bit of a longer stint at #1

But hes accomplished everything there is just about and did so before he was 26-27 years old.. Thats enough for GOAT consideration. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless. The guy has a GOAT-like Resume

If people consider someone like Borg a GOAT candidate for instance, how the hell can't you consider Nadal? Nadal has already surprised Borg IMO. He's just trailing behind a few other guys like Laver, Pancho, Tilden, Rosewall, Fed, and Sampras. All GOAT candidates themselves. But one of those (Federer) he has owned his whole career

If Nadal can just get maybe 2 more slams (preferably off of clay) his GOAT candidacy should be universal

Radiohead has a great song, you'd probably like it, it's called "Nice Dream"

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Utterly dominated... must you continue to engage in hyperbole? Federer has won 10 matches of 28. That's not being utterly dominated. You're just exaggerating the effect it's had.. and it's not a correct way to make an argument. Federer has denied Nadal majors. That's not being dominated.. end of story.

History only looks at slams.

How many tournaments did Noah win? All you remember is that he won the FO. No one remembers all history remembers is the slams. How many games during the season did the Yankees win? Who cares all that matters is the World Series .

Any matches during the regular season are just that matches to determine your ranking for the slams. It's no different that being in 1st place in the Anerican league and making the World Series.

Baseball has its World Series which consists of 7 games. Tennis has te slams which consists of four tournaments . The rest are all merely "regular season" matches to determine your ranking .

The only slams Fed was able to beat Nadal on were grass....and that's when he was still labeled a clay court specialist . You can't call him a clay court specialist and then be surprised he lost on grass.

In any event Nadal beat him on grass on hard and on clay.....that's domination in my book.

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

History only looks at slams.

How many tournaments did Noah win? No one remembers all history remembers is the slams. How many games during the season did the Yankees win? Who cares all that matters is the World Series .

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe.

Um, you just blatantly contradicted yourself. How could slam H2H, a smaller scope of the big picture, ever mean more than total accomplishment and performance in slams? That's like saying it doesn't matter how many WS the Yankees won, but it is all about who won the WS when the Yanks played the D'backs. Because the WS is all that matters and where all the glory is. So I guess the D'backs are a better team than the Yanks. Since they showed up in 1997 they "dominated" the Yanks in the World Series in '01.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by ledwix

Um, you just blatantly contradicted yourself. How could slam H2H, a smaller scope of the big picture, ever mean more than total accomplishment and performance in slams? That's like saying it doesn't matter how many WS the Yankees won, but it is all about who won the WS when the Yanks played the D'backs. Because the WS is all that matters and where all the glory is. So I guess the D'backs are a better team than the Yanks. Since they showed up in 1997 they "dominated" the Yanks in the World Series in '01.

Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.

No you just say it a heck of a lot of times.

[Povl Carstensen]

And it doesn't make you more right.
"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?

By analogy that's what happened in tennis...

Young Nadal beats Fed at wimby , then defends his title the next year and ten skips Wimbledon .

Federer then wins wimby beat Roddick yet again for the same old story.
Fed adds yet another slam in the records.

Sort of a hollow win if you ask me.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

And it doesn't make you more right.
"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."

Toni and Rafa are so respectful of Federer it's amazing .

[Povl Carstensen]

With good reason. It was Federer who was (and is) nr one for almost 6 years. A far bigger blemish on Nadals record than a loosing head to head on clay on Federers.

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?

Federer was world #1 five times, Nadal twice, and Djokovic soon to be twice as well. Slams between the two best players aren't the only criteria. That ignores consistency, something Nadal doesn't have at the top of the game. A slam final is not the WS. There are four of them plus other points to be had, including a neat summary of all data, called the ranking, which shows who was the best player overall for that season. Nadal has dominated two tennis seasons, Federer five.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

But a deeper more intellectual approach

Hillarious comming from a man who uses misrepresenting, Federers wifes weight and big fonts as arguments...

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Hillarious comming from a man who uses misrepresenting, Federers wifes weight and big fonts as arguments...

Awwww come on that was a joke. I thought it was funny.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by ledwix

Federer was world #1 five times, Nadal twice, and Djokovic soon to be twice as well. Slams between the two best players aren't the only criteria. That ignores consistency, something Nadal doesn't have at the top of the game. A slam final is not the WS. There are four of them plus other points to be had, including a neat summary of all data, called the ranking, which shows who was the best player overall for that season. Nadal has dominated two tennis seasons, Federer five.

It all depends on who is the Judge doesn't it?

But history has already proven that slams are the only thing it remembers .

Boris Becker is my favorite example. He is a goat by every ones standards. Yet he was never the year end #1 player in the world .

It's actually sort of a trivia statistic because no one really cares. All they remember is that he is a multiple slam winner .

But let's take the analogy further . Becke beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat him right after that at the US Open . And yet somehow Lendl was the #1 player in the world .

No one agreed with it . There were tons of articles about it......why?? Because even though on paper Lendl was the better player everyone knew in reality Becker was the best player that year.

He beat Lendl Mano a Mano in two consecutive slams.
It's paper vs reality argument.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Awwww come on that was a joke. I thought it was funny.

Oh, perhaps I am too deep and intellectual. And the misrepresenting and big fonts?

[Numenor]

No GOAT candidate can be dominated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces by his main rival. Too bad nadal had to wait until Novak's level decreased, was emotionally distraught, and on clay to finally end his losing streak.