How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I can guess how he responds.

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

True, you should never get your hopes up. When you're driving, you assume everyone on the road is an idiot, in order to stay safe. When you post on an internet forum, you assume everyone is a child incapable of rational thought (to put it nicely), in order to stay sane.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

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.

Nadal is of equal dominance.....in fact Nadal is more dominat.

Nadal at 26 years has had less opportunity than Federer . Second Nadal facd tougher competition. Third Nadal missed six slams and still somehow managed to win 11 slams by beating everyone,

I'm sorry.....but Nadal is just better than Fed. It's really simple.....you can try and explain it away but Nadal is just simplybbettervthan fed because he beats fed. Therefore Federer cannot be the goat.

[The Dark Knight]

Doubleos ,,,, sorry

[Shaolin]

By TDK's logic, Hrbaty is better than both Fed and Nadal.

[The Dark Knight]

I think Nadal’s best is better than Federer’s best. But Nadal is like a souped-up hot rod. Under perfect conditions, no one can beat him, including Federer. But if anything goes wrong, Nadal is thrown off.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Shaolin

By TDK's logic, Hrbaty is better than both Fed and Nadal.

Don't know anything about the guy.....in fact ,it's articles actually back me up.

Fed has the best record of all time..but it's impossible to call him the greatest of a

Time when heismot the greatest player in his own era ....(John Mcenroe )

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

I think Nadal’s best is better than Federer’s best. But Nadal is like a souped-up hot rod. Under perfect conditions, no one can beat him, including Federer. But if anything goes wrong, Nadal is thrown off.

Nadal's win % at the World Tour Finals where he's only up against 7 of the 8 best players in the world : 47.4%

So dominant!

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Nadal's win % at the World Tour Finals where he's only up against 7 of the 8 best players in the world : 47.4%

So dominant!

Percentage schmocentage....means crap .

Was Sampras even in the top 20 when he won? Was Serena? Becker never was #1.


Look Becker beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then neat Lendl again at the open. Butlendl was number 1.....do you think that's right?

[The Dark Knight]

Seems to me you guys need formulas to somehow disprove that Nadal kicks the snot out of fed.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Percentage schmocentage....means crap .

Was Sampras even in the top 20 when he won? Was Serena? Becker never was #1.


Look Becker beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then neat Lendl again at the open. Butlendl was number 1.....do you think that's right?

That's even worse!

Nadal has a 47.4 winning % against the "not-even-the-best players in the world"!

Way to dig your own grave!

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

That's even worse!

Nadal has a 47.4 winning % against the "not-even-the-best players in the world"!

Way to dig your own grave!

He has 11 slams. He beat 100 percent of the people...including roger Federer 8 times.

Hore than any rival in the history of tennis.

Howny more times does Nadal have to beat fed till you give up.

[The Dark Knight]

Think about the logic....


Nadal dominates fed but rediscover the greatest player that ever lived

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Think about the logic....


Nadal dominates fed but rediscover the greatest player that ever lived

Are you speaking blah-blah language? Cause that sure as heck ain't English.

[ledwix]

Pure insanity is setting in. Look out.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Seems to me you guys need formulas to somehow disprove that Nadal kicks the snot out of fed.

18-10 is not kicking the snot out of Federer.
18-1 is kicking the snot out of Federer.

[NatF]

Nadal leads the h2h based largely on his unbelievable clay court prowess. Likewise his lead in the slams is only so massive because of the 5 French Open matches Nadal has won. Nadal is far more dominant on clay, everywhere else the h2h is alot more even despite Federer declining significantly.

Besides that if you're telling everyone to look beyond the stats you shouldn't just quote numbers of matches won...Federer has had many chances in his meetings with Nadal even at the French. The fact he hasn't capitalised is in part due to Nadal's determination and Federer's mental block against Nadal. In the AO 09 Federer won more points than Nadal, in Wimbledon 08 Federer had 20 plus break point chances that he failed to take. Not only that but Nadal won as the light was fading, big advantage for someone who plays with a bigger margin for error no?

[prosealster]

Nadal is not the goat since he is not yet the best player in his own era....it's crazy to suggest he is better than fed when fed has accomplished so much more....measure of greatness is about how one goes against the entire field rather than some h2h against a single player....that's why winning a tournment/major etc is so much more important than a h2h record against some one...THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF PLAYING A TOURNMENT...you are playing against the entire field...saying nadal is better than fed is like saying watson is a better golf player than nicklaus

[NatF]

How many tournaments has Federer won while Nadal was in the draw, because if Nadal couldn't even make it to Federer then how can it be argued he would have won if they had met? Unless there's a matchup advantage.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NatF

How many tournaments has Federer won while Nadal was in the draw, because if Nadal couldn't even make it to Federer then how can it be argued he would have won if they had met? Unless there's a matchup advantage.

Very well reasoned. But blah-blah probably won't respond to you and if he does it'll be the same circulated "blah blah, head to head, blah blah, dominated, blah blah, Nadal better" post.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Nadal is of equal dominance.....in fact Nadal is more dominat.

Nadal at 26 years has had less opportunity than Federer . Second Nadal facd tougher competition. Third Nadal missed six slams and still somehow managed to win 11 slams by beating everyone,

I'm sorry.....but Nadal is just better than Fed. It's really simple.....you can try and explain it away but Nadal is just simplybbettervthan fed because he beats fed. Therefore Federer cannot be the goat.

Nadal had less opportunity because he wore himself out. Again, why blame Fed for being better? Federer won more majors from 21-26 than Nadal from 19-26.. so your whole post is moot. Federer dominated, Nadal didn't. Except for 2010. One year. Like Djokovic. So no, Fed is better, dominated longer, and more convincingly.

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

I think Nadal’s best is better than Federer’s best. But Nadal is like a souped-up hot rod. Under perfect conditions, no one can beat him, including Federer. But if anything goes wrong, Nadal is thrown off.

Cool story bro. So why doesn't Nadal win more majors? He's only managed the FO the last two years.. so much for being a souped-up hotrod. And why are you making another excuse for Nadal? How can he be GOAT if he's so easily upset? Isn't part of his legend his phenomenal focus? If things upset him so easily, then how can he be so strong mentally? Fail.

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Percentage schmocentage....means crap .

Was Sampras even in the top 20 when he won? Was Serena? Becker never was #1.


Look Becker beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then neat Lendl again at the open. Butlendl was number 1.....do you think that's right?

Yet, Sampras won the event. Not sure why you brought up Becker-Lendl. We never had an issue with Fedal who was going to be YE#1. So, cool story, again, bro.

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

He has 11 slams. He beat 100 percent of the people...including roger Federer 8 times.

Hore than any rival in the history of tennis.

Howny more times does Nadal have to beat fed till you give up.

False.
If Nadal beat 100 percent of the people, he would have more than 11 slams.

You fail again.

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Think about the logic....


Nadal dominates fed but rediscover the greatest player that ever lived

Uh...




Maybe put down the bottle, your ramblings make no sense and aren't even well done. I understand that it hurts that Nadal isn't better than Federer. I sympathize.. I really do.