How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by 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.

Joker did have one good year. Nadal on the other hand has been beating Federer since he was 18 or was it 17 ......a teenager beating the veteran supposed greatest player that ever lived ? Over and over and over again ?

Sorry ....bit different than Joker one great year......

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're like a parrot, the same old "head-to-head" argument ad nauseum, which doesn't really mean anymore than Nadal's record against Davydenko. Federer is the GOAT and, deep down, you know it. Which is why you spend so much time with the same (worn off) argument. See ya!

No....you don't listen. That's why I have to repeat it again.

Nadal vs Fed is not merely a head to head. It's utter domination on every surface in the World Series of tennis the Super Bowl a.k.a. THE GRAND SLAMS.

Davydenko on the other hand is merely a regular season head to head on one surface (hard) in a best of three.

Hopefully I won't have to repeat that again.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

More like Nadal FAILING to reach Federer. ROFL....XD

Fortunate for Federer.

Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.


Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?

That's why Nadal is the goat.

By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....

If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:

17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17

Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.

To me Nadal is therefore greater.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Fortunate for Federer.

Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.


Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?

That's why Nadal is the goat.

By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....

If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:

17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17

Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.

To me Nadal is therefore greater.

So you assume Nadal would've won all 6 if he played them?

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Fortunate for Federer.

Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.


Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?

That's why Nadal is the goat.

By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....

If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:

17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17

Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.

To me Nadal is therefore greater.

Ahh, the game of assumption. How about this: if not for Rafa, Fed would have had 6 more FO, 1 more AO, 1 more Wimby. Add on top of it: if not for Djoker, at least 2 more USO, all 3 GS titles of last year where Rafa got owned by Djoker. Where are we already in the count for Fed in this game of assumption:
17+6+1+1+1+2+3 = 31 GS
Repeat after THIRTY-ONE. We're not talking about GOAT anymore. We're talking about GOD, pure and simple.
"That's why Nadal is the goat." Excuses are the loser. Let's talk it over when your Rafa reaches 17 GS. At the rate he's going, he'll lucky to get the next FO before Djoker and Murray started to own him for good there too.
And how about this: the spanking at Indian Wells 2012 by a VERY OLD 31-yr Fed? What's the excuse there? Skip, nah. Injury, nah. Still too young, really? HC, didn't you say he also owned Fed there too? We're all listening...

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Fortunate for Federer.

Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.


Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?

That's why Nadal is the goat.

By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....

If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:

17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17

Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.

To me Nadal is therefore greater.

My god, even worse logic than ***. Even he acknowledges Nadal can't win the tournaments he skips.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Well they say the size of a mans font is equal to the size of his ......

And there was no misreping

Deep joke. I guess I just had to get in tune with your definition of deep and intellectual.
About misrep, I wont go there too much. Theres the "Nadal always wins", the insinuation that somebody has accused you of thinking Federer is garbage, the "all you have is 17 GS" allthough the list goes on and on, the manipulative quoting of for instance Rod Laver, the listing of facts you "believe" that are wrong, and so on and so on....

[PrinceMoron]

Originally Posted by SoBad

I am a solid player, but I never won a Christmas indoor exhibition tournament because I never bothered to sign up for one.

Last time I went, it was November. maybe Christmas is just getting earlier every year.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Deep joke. I guess I just had to get in tune with your definition of deep and intellectual.
About misrep, I wont go there too much. Theres the "Nadal always wins", the insinuation that somebody has accused you of thinking Federer is garbage, the "all you have is 17 GS" allthough the list goes on and on, the manipulative quoting of for instance Rod Laver, the listing of facts you "believe" that are wrong, and so on and so on....

Well I realize what I'm saying is offensive as you want to believe in your hero and cannot really defend your position. This is why you have to resort to attacking me personally or trying to pick apart picayune points .

When I say "always" I didn't mean that Nadal wins every single time....but you already knew that.

What I meant was that Nadal has "always" been beating Federer throughout Nadals entire career. From the very first moment they met.

The domination has "always" existed. Fed has never been in the lead ,pre peak post peak ,mid peak ,kinda peak ,mediocre peak, high peak , double jig peak, mid afternoon peak........always.

No misrep there.....it is a fact.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

So you assume Nadal would've won all 6 if he played them?

No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .

Federer was the direct beneficiary and faced Roddick I'm the final for the fourth time.

Yes Roger won that wimby and that's another wimby for the record books......but the defending champion was not in that tournament.

I think on paper it looks beautiful for Fed but on paper it was a hollow win because the defending champion wasn't even in the tournament .

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Well I realize what I'm saying is offensive as you want to believe in your hero and cannot really defend your position. This is why you have to resort to attacking me personally or trying to pick apart picayune points .

When I say "always" I didn't mean that Nadal wins every single time....but you already knew that.

What I meant was that Nadal has "always" been beating Federer throughout Nadals entire career. From the very first moment they met.

The domination has "always" existed. Fed has never been in the lead ,pre peak post peak ,mid peak ,kinda peak ,mediocre peak, high peak , double jig peak, mid afternoon peak........always.

No misrep there.....it is a fact.

Oh I have no problem defending my point, while you just roboticly keep repeating yours. And it is a fact that you have expressed yourself misleadingly on many counts, which points to the problem you have. But as you say it depends on who is the judge. None of us here are judges really, but I am happy not to agree with someone as untrustworthy as you.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .

Federer was the direct beneficiary and faced Roddick I'm the final for the fourth time.

Yes Roger won that wimby and that's another wimby for the record books......but the defending champion was not in that tournament.

I think on paper it looks beautiful for Fed but on paper it was a hollow win because the defending champion wasn't even in the tournament .

hey, atleast federer had taken nadal to 9-7 in the 5th ...

and nadal hadn't won two wimbys in a row ... he had won just one, wimby 2008, that too narrowly ...

What had nadal done vs del potro in USO 2009 .....oh wait, he had lost 2,2 and 2 .....

now see that is an unworthy/totally hollow win - USO 2010 ......

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Oh I have no problem defending my point, while you just roboticly keep repeating yours. And it is a fact that you have expressed yourself misleadingly on many counts, which points to the problem you have. But as you say it depends on who is the judge. None of us here are judges really, but I am happy not to agree with someone as untrustworthy as you.

Ahhhhh.....ok.

You choose not to debate.

That's fine. Again debate is something to be enjoyed by two consenting participants.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .

No he didn't. He won 2008 Wimbledon 9-7 in the fifth, did not play 2009, won 2010. Get your facts straight. And that's a huge excuse for him to not defend his title.. Why do you make so many excuses for Nadal? You make more excuses than he does.. and in fact undermine his legendary determination by suggesting that something like personal issues with his parents would force him to SKIP a MAJOR.

Federer was the direct beneficiary and faced Roddick I'm the final for the fourth time.

And Roddick was a worthy opponent. Don't act like the guy can't play tennis. I guess Rafa was lucky that he didn't have to play peak Djokovic for his whole career... he'd be a few majors short of what he is now.

Yes Roger won that wimby and that's another wimby for the record books......but the defending champion was not in that tournament.

Ok so you're suggesting that everytime that someone DOESN'T beat the defending champion it shouldn't count? That would strip Nadal of nearly all his majors, bub. All his FO's, his AO, his USO, one Wimbledon. So he'd be sitting with one major.

LOL.

I think on paper it looks beautiful for Fed but on paper it was a hollow win because the defending champion wasn't even in the tournament .

See above. You're really awful at making arguments.. they have no connection to reality LOL.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

No he didn't. He won 2008 Wimbledon 9-7 in the fifth, did not play 2009, won 2010. Get your facts straight. And that's a huge excuse for him to not defend his title.. Why do you make so many excuses for Nadal? You make more excuses than he does.. and in fact undermine his legendary determination by suggesting that something like personal issues with his parents would force him to SKIP a MAJOR.

Not being in a slam is not an excuse. He didn't play. That's a fact.

And Roddick was a worthy opponent. Don't act like the guy can't play tennis. I guess Rafa was lucky that he didn't have to play peak Djokovic for his whole career... he'd be a few majors short of what he is now.

Roddick is the weak era #1 and #2. He is not weak but he is no Nadal. I think everyone would agree.

Federer was the direct beneficiary of Nadal not being able to play in that Wimbledon .

Ok so you're suggesting that everytime that someone DOESN'T beat the defending champion it shouldn't count? That would strip Nadal of nearly all his majors, bub. All his FO's, his AO, his USO, one Wimbledon. So he'd be sitting with one major.

LOL.

No not every time. But in the Nadal Federer rivalry it's a glaring fault In Feds career . Fed seems to win slams by basically not having to play Nadal.

[Numenor]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Joker did have one good year. Nadal on the other hand has been beating Federer since he was 18 or was it 17 ......a teenager beating the veteran supposed greatest player that ever lived ? Over and over and over again ?

Sorry ....bit different than Joker one great year......

Sorry, but being defeated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces, and 3 of them in slams, especially Wimbledon, in conditions that heavily favored nadal, does not bode well for a supposed GOAT candidate.

[90's Clay]

Djoker couldn't keep that streak up however. And Nadal got some big wins back on DJoker at a slam and at a masters. SOmething Fed hasn't been able to do to Nadal at a slam since 2007

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .

looks like you've just made an excuse here..

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Not being in a slam is not an excuse. He didn't play. That's a fact.





Roddick is the weak era #1 and #2. He is not weak but he is no Nadal. I think everyone would agree.

Federer was the direct beneficiary of Nadal not being able to play in that Wimbledon .





No not every time. But in the Nadal Federer rivalry it's a glaring fault In Feds career . Fed seems to win slams by basically not having to play Nadal.

And that's Federer's fault that Nadal didnt reach him every time? You can only beat who is in front of you; Nadal didn't make it that far, so he didn't play Federer. Who's to say that he'd have won all of those matches?

You're just making crap up, tryign to make your hero sound like GOAT. He's not. he only has 11 majors, and less than 150 weeks at number one. Zero WTF's. Not GOAT material, not yet.

Don't punish Federer because your guy isn't good enough to make it to him during his prime.

[Numenor]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Djoker couldn't keep that streak up however. And Nadal got some big wins back on DJoker at a slam and at a masters. SOmething Fed hasn't been able to do to Nadal at a slam since 2007

Like I said earlier, he had to wait until clay season, and that too when Djoker was under serious emotional stress. After all, *******s regularly cite his parents' divorce as significantly affecting his game; shouldn't the passing of a loved one consequently affect Djoker's game as well?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Numenor

Like I said earlier, he had to wait until clay season, and that too when Djoker was under serious emotional stress. After all, *******s regularly cite his parents' divorce as significantly affecting his game; shouldn't the passing of a loved one consequently affect Djoker's game as well?

Of course divorce is worse than death. Well, it may be the other way around. The problem is that Djoker doesn't have a PR team devoted to making up excuses for all of his losses like Nadal does. He should look into that.