How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

You mean, an explanation you don't like?.



No, it wouldn't...

Yeah, right.

An explanation that he doesn't like, or an explanation for a result that you don't like?

Unless Nadal starts winning more hard court slams and tournaments, he is never going to be put up there with Federer on hard courts. He isn't even going to be put up there with Djokovic.

Originally Posted by hoodjem

According to some, all it takes is a career slam.

And Nadal has on of those.

Right, so now we can move on to the tiebreaker. Number of slams, weeks at number one, or whatever else floats your boat. Perhaps the total amount of bacteria transferred from your butt to your face throughout your career?

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

You mean, an explanation you don't like?.

Dunno. There was an explanation? I thought you just dropped a name as though this explained everything.

Originally Posted by Crisstti

No, it wouldn't...

Yeah, right.

Well, considering that the defintion of stiffer competition seems to boil down to "Novak Djokovic" for you, Nadal clearly seems to be the lucky one in that respect.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

An explanation that he doesn't like, or an explanation for a result that you don't like?

Unless Nadal starts winning more hard court slams and tournaments, he is never going to be put up there with Federer on hard courts. He isn't even going to be put up there with Djokovic.

It wasn't the point being discussed. It was what he had on his favour in goat discussions, and him having beaten tougher competition on slam finals is something he's got on his favour.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

It wasn't the point being discussed. It was what he had on his favour in goat discussions, and him having beaten tougher competition on slam finals is something he's got on his favour.

What about the excuse part?

I was just laying it out for you in general though. Your opinion of his hard court competition has nothing to do with reality, of course. Unless you mean it in the sense that we have discussed before, which boils down to the fact that Federer can't play himself.

We can just as easily say that all the good hard courters started to decline and were replaced with grinders, or that hard courts were slowed down enough to allow Nadal to grind his way to victory. Either way, records speak for themselves in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

What about the excuse part?

I was just laying it out for you in general though. Your opinion of his hard court competition has nothing to do with reality, of course. Unless you mean it in the sense that we have discussed before, which boils down to the fact that Federer can't play himself.

We can just as easily say that all the good hard courters started to decline and were replaced with grinders, or that hard courts were slowed down enough to allow Nadal to grind his way to victory. Either way, records speak for themselves in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

What excuse?.

No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

What excuse?.

No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.

And that is a moot point. Because when Federer didn't play them, he played guys who were stronger than them at that time. During his first US Open finals, for example, playing Nadal or Djokovic would have been easier than playing Hewitt, Agassi, or Roddick. And that's not even close.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

What excuse?.

No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.

I meant the part where you acted like the person who had to hear the excuse was butthurt rather than the person giving it.

Really? It was discussed on TT? Seems legit.

[Sartorius]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

... When he [Novak] hadn't quite yet the level on hard courts.

Lesser players indeed, no doubt (good as they are).

Grumping about Federer not facing Nadal is ok I guess (even though it's still grumping at best, and irrelevant at worst), but Djokovic? Federer was the only player to beat him in a slam in '11, he recently beat him at Wimbledon, and Murray afterwards; I hope that's not too shabby for weak-eraists.

And of course, as always, one must marvel at how Federer is perceived to be the only player able to sustain the same "level" on all surfaces; at his best whenever and wherever, since 2004.

It's also hilarious that Federer gets this weak-era oppurtunist treatment and Nadal is lauded because he faced...Federer in the finals. That's another thing, to think a slam is worth "less" because the opponent in the final is not "worthy". I'd assume Nadal would be the first person to say Roland Garros is not his title by right, and he still has to win 6 matches just to get to the final. Nadal is hands down the best player on clay and RG, not because he beat Federer in most of the finals, but because he managed to win the tournament by winning 7 matches, each time. This will sound weird to most but I believe his best performance at Wimbledon was 2010 and not 2008, beating Berdych in the final didn't change the fact that he had to play some flawless 5-set matches in the earlier rounds and stayed untouchable for the rest.

Ultimately this is what Federer has done in each his slam wins, this is why his consistency in particular at all slams is his most impressive achievement, and I would say it invalidates any weak-era argument you can throw at him; it's not easy to reach many semis and finals at slams, and doing it consistently is likely the hardest thing in this sport. At the end of the day he also has beaten each of the other trio at least once in slams.

Okay so what's this thread about again, why Nadal is a GOAT candidate? It's such cheesy phrases "GOAT", "GOAT candidate". Nadal is one of the greatest ever, I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

What excuse?.

No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.

There are/were also a whole bunch of threads about Nadal serving a silent ban after Wimbledon this year, about him getting cakewalk draws, about him being the biggest cheater in tennis etc. People discussing a specific topic here hardly counts that much to be honest.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Sartorius

Grumping about Federer not facing Nadal is ok I guess (even though it's still grumping at best, and irrelevant at worst), but Djokovic? Federer was the only player to beat him in a slam in '11, he recently beat him at Wimbledon, and Murray afterwards; I hope that's not too shabby for weak-eraists.

Funny thing is, if we presume that Novak really came into his own in 2011, even since then Fed faced him in slams more than Nadal, 5 times to Nadal's 4.

Originally Posted by Sartorius

And of course, as always, one must marvel at how Federer is perceived to be the only player able to sustain the same "level" on all surfaces; at his best whenever and wherever, since 2004.

Oh definitely, it never ceases to amaze me on this forum how Fed is supposed to be like some fine wine that gets better with age while the other members of the top 4 have so many slumps, peaks, injuries and massive declines that it's hard to keep track.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

According to some, all it takes is a career slam.

And Nadal has on of those.

Surface homogenization. He didn't win it by playing serve and volley. Federer did.

Originally Posted by Crisstti

It wasn't the point being discussed. It was what he had on his favour in goat discussions, and him having beaten tougher competition on slam finals is something he's got on his favour.

He faced Federer throughout his career a guy whom he didn't even need to match most of the time to beat him. Considering Federer tough competition is only accurate if you take him by name value. The actual performance he was forced to come up with were typically less impressive than most of the performances Federer had to come up with.

The reason why Djokovic crushed him so often in 2011 is because pummeling a guys backhand doesn't work if he hits it with 2 hands and has any real quality.

Originally Posted by zagor

There are/were also a whole bunch of threads about Nadal serving a silent ban after Wimbledon this year, about him getting cakewalk draws, about him being the biggest cheater in tennis etc. People discussing a specific topic here hardly counts that much to be honest.

What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.

This way, the player has served a "silent ban". The fact that you consider this some sort of impossibility or a joke, shows how clueless you seem to be.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by dangalak

What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.

This way, the player has served a "silent ban". The fact that you consider this some sort of impossibility or a joke, shows how clueless you seem to be.

That wasn't the point of his post. The whole silent ban issue has been discussed ad nauseam. Why don't you go and make another thread about it.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by dangalak

What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.

Never said it was right or wrong, impossibility or a joke, I personally don't think Nadal is serving a silent ban but I'm not dismissing any possibility (including that not just Nadal but other top players/stars are doping as well, yes even Fed with his "smooth" game).

I merely used those examples I know she (Chrissti) disagrees with to illustrate a point.

Originally Posted by dangalak

This way, the player has served a "silent ban". The fact that you consider this some sort of impossibility or a joke, shows how clueless you seem to be.

Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by zagor

Never said it was right or wrong, impossibility or a joke, I personally don't think Nadal is serving a silent ban but I'm not dismissing any possibility (including that not just Nadal but other top players/stars are doping as well, yes even Fed with his "smooth" game).

I merely used those examples I know she (Chrissti) disagrees with to illustrate a point.



Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

Possible.

I never denied that Federer is possibly on the juice. But it is much more of a certainly when you look at Djokovic or Nadal.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Right, so now we can move on to the tiebreaker. Number of slams, weeks at number one, or whatever else floats your boat. Perhaps the total amount of bacteria transferred from your butt to your face throughout your career?

Sounds like someone has already made up his mind, based upon an esoteric, scientific criterion.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Sounds like someone has already made up his mind, based upon an esoteric, scientific criterion.

I was only asking for your advice on how to break the tie. I do agree that if the last last condition is enough, then there shouldn't be any more debate. I also failed to read any posts that claimed that a career grand slam was sufficient for a player to be the GOAT, only that it was a requirement.

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Wanna be a GOAT? At least have the same resume as the guy in front of you, then we'll talk. Until then, happy hunting...
Right now, the only things going for Rafa are: 1)H2H vs Fed. Not even sure it should be in consideration since one plays against a bunch of other players in every tournament, and not just one guy, 2)his FO record. That's VERY impressive. However many already pointed out, this record gives him the title of "surface GOAT", but not "GOAT". So many more to accomplish. Until then, let's NOT waste our breath.

[Povl Carstensen]

Federer QF or better for 34 GS running is a cool record I think. (hope I'm right).

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

According to some, all it takes is a career slam.

And Nadal has one of those.








(But I disagree. A career slam is pretty much a Carilloism.)

According to some, you mean few Nadal fans like TDK. And there are Laver fans who believe a Grand Slam alone is enough for goat candidate. No so fast. Career slam or a Grand Slam is not enough because that's only 1 criteria. The full picture is the entire career achievement, which should take EVERYTHING into account.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by TMF

According to some, you mean few Nadal fans like TDK. And there are Laver fans who believe a Grand Slam alone is enough for goat candidate. No so fast. Career slam or a Grand Slam is not enough because that's only 1 criteria. The full picture is the entire career achievement, which should take EVERYTHING into account.

That's right !

And the fact that Federer has a losing record to his main rival and baaaaaaaaarely has a slam on clay means he can't be the goat to me.

I mean that FO was only becaise Nadal was having issues in my opinion . Whatever he barely he has it.

Nadal on the other hand has two grass slams and two harcourt slams .....2 of which were against Federer the supposed goat....

To boot Nadal has a hardcourt at the Olympics in only one try. Fed has not won it in 3 attempts on hard or indoor grass.

Sorry .....Fed is no goat in my personal opinion .