Nadal News

[nadal_slam_king]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

I don't want to bring this debate here, but this needs some addressing.

Okay, so Federer's legacy is lowered because Nadal has done some things Federer hasn't? Fair enough.

Nadal doesn't have 16 slams, so until Nadal reaches 16, the GOAT debate is heavily in Federer's favor.

Federer's slam distribution is much more balanced than Nadal's. Sure, Nadal has 5 more RGs than Federer, but Federer has 4 AOs, 6 Wimbledons, 5 USOs, and 1 RG, with 4 RG finals. Aside from RG, Nadal has 2 Wimbledons, and 1 AO and USO each, along with 5 Wimbledon finals, and 1 AO and USO final each. Now, I know you're going to say "but Nadal will make more finals and win more at the other slams" which is untrue because until it happens, it hasn't happened. Fact is, Federer has showed more domination at the other 3 slams than Nadal has and, most probably, ever will. If Nadal ever passes 16 slams but doesn't add anything more than 6 more RGs, then he won't pass Federer as Federer has showed a domination across every surface, being nearly unmatched on grass and hard and having only one player stop him on clay.

WTFs? You can argue that Olympic Gold is bigger than 1, maybe 2 WTFs, but 6? No way. Yeah, Nadal has 20 Masters shields, but Federer has 19, so he's not far behind. Finishing with less slams and marginally more Masters shields isn't going to give Nadal the GOAT status.

Now, Nadal has never reached 23 consecutive Grand Slams semifinals. This is something Federer has done and adds to his legacy that, according to you, should be diminshing Nadal's because he hasn't done this (and most likely never will). In addition, Nadal has never spent 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1 like Federer has. Since Federer has done this, it takes away from Nadal's legacy (again, according to you).

Nadal also may have won slams across three different surfaces in one calendar year, but Federer won three slams in a year three times in his career, and was twice one match away from a Grand Slam (06, 07, 3 slams and a F), which is much closer than Nadal did in 2010 (3 slams and a QF).

I apologize to Crisstti, Vernonbc, TheTruth, reversef, and the other regular patrons of this thread as they have kindly asked me to not fuel this debate here, but I felt this post needed to be addressed.

Semi-final records? You are seriously reaching. Semi and QF records don't even come close to the 81 straight single-surface wins and winning 3 slams on 3 completely different surfaces in a Calendar Year. And winning 2 events 7 times each. See, Nadal's records are WINNING records, not losing records (losing in the semis and quarters etc.). And consecutive weeks at number one is nice, but Sampras has more weeks at number one, and inevitably the weeks a player spends at number one is THE RECORD. We don't see top 10 lists of 'consecutive weeks at number one'. I never said Federer didn't have records. It's just that Nadal has the more valuable records. The records unthinkable for others to accomplish.

I never said the Gold Medal was more valuable than 6 WTFs. I said the Gold Medal is valuable now because Nadal has it. If Nadal didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Another example of Nadal lowering Federer's legacy. And of course Federer can win 3 slams in a year, multiple times. He's great on his fast surfaces. But that doesn't make a versatile player. A far more convincing display of versatility is to win on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar year (not to mention actually beating Nadal at Roland Garros, as Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon and twice at the Australian Open). That is the valuable record, and the record only Nadal had the talent to accomplish.

Oh, and the point isn't that Nadal has 20 Masters Shields, but the fact he's in his prime and has 20 (heading for something absurd like 30+), while Federer is fading and has 19. Nadal is 25-years-old, almost 26. It is crazy what Nadal is doing, given that he has many years left (sorry, tendinitis didn't end him). I guess they didn't ask you kindly enough....

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

Semi-final records? You are seriously reaching. Semi and QF records don't even come close to the 81 straight single-surface wins

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

We don't see top 10 lists of 'consecutive weeks at number one'

.

10straightconsecutivefails

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

I never said the Gold Medal was more valuable than 6 WTFs. I said the Gold Medal is valuable now because Nadal has it. If Nadal didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Please, guys, do something, before your fellow poster says something else, that your community has been trying to reject for years.

[FlashFlare11]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

I think it's an excellent post and one I would have been proud to have written if I was a Federer fan. Great points, and no holes in your rationale. This is the most salient part of your post, imo. Nobody can count chickens until they are hatched.

I don't particularly care about who is the greatest player of all time. I watch tennis for entertainment purposes only. These guys are so polarizing because they've done so many unbelievable things. I say, let's just enjoy them.

These last seven years have been a blast! As tennis fans we have been blessed and spoiled.

But, I understand your need to write it, many times I feel the same way and want to apologize to the Fed Fans that I enjoy and respect when the need to address certain issues cross my monitor.

That was good stuff regardless of what side of the fence you're on.

Thanks! I'm glad everyone approved. I didn't want to see this thread devolve into something it wasn't meant to. And I agree with everything you've said. We've witnessed some of the greatest tennis ever in our lifetimes!

Okay, let's take this piece by piece:

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

Semi-final records? You are seriously reaching. Semi and QF records don't even come close to the 81 straight single-surface wins and winning 3 slams on 3 completely different surfaces in a Calendar Year. And winning 2 events 7 times each. See, Nadal's records are WINNING records, not losing records (losing in the semis and quarters etc.).

That semifinal record points to making at least the semifinals, which comes in addition to Federer's QF streak and streak of 18 of 19 finals made until 2010. Again, this is a consective record made in Grand Slams, not across 250s, 500s, 1000s, or a combination of those. Slams only, which is greater than doing it over a combination of tournaments of various importance and magnitude.

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

And consecutive weeks at number one is nice, but Sampras has more weeks at number one, and inevitably the weeks a player spends at number one is THE RECORD. We don't see top 10 lists of 'consecutive weeks at number one'. I never said Federer didn't have records. It's just that Nadal has the more valuable records. The records unthinkable for others to accomplish.

You don't believe spending the most amount of consecutive weeks at No. 1 (and being one week behind the record) is important. This is only showing that you are being very subjective in picking and choosing which records are important to you.

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

I never said the Gold Medal was more valuable than 6 WTFs. I said the Gold Medal is valuable now because Nadal has it. If Nadal didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

I never said you did. But, then, doesn't Federer having a World Tour Finals win (let alone 6) diminish Nadal for not having one?

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

Another example of Nadal lowering Federer's legacy. And of course Federer can win 3 slams in a year, multiple times. He's great on his fast surfaces. But that doesn't make a versatile player. A far more convincing display of versatility is to win on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar year (not to mention actually beating Nadal at Roland Garros, as Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon and twice at the Australian Open). That is the valuable record, and the record only Nadal had the talent to accomplish.

Now, you're contradicting yourself. Above, all you could go on about was "clay this" or "surface streak that", and now you're saying that Federer winning 3 slams across two different surfaces (three times in his career) doesn't show any versatility? You are aware that Federer was also making the French Open final continually, losing only to one player. That shows much more versatility than winning 3 slams (albiet across three different surfaces) and a one-surface streak (the one you love so much).

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

Oh, and the point isn't that Nadal has 20 Masters Shields, but the fact he's in his prime and has 20 (heading for something absurd like 30+), while Federer is fading and has 19. Nadal is 25-years-old, almost 26. It is crazy what Nadal is doing, given that he has many years left (sorry, tendinitis didn't end him).

Like I said, you can't assume Nadal is greater than Federer because "he will" add more to his tally. Nothing is decided.

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

I guess they didn't ask you kindly enough....

Believe me, they did. But don't think for one second that inaccurate posts like yours are going to go unchecked.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

And of course Federer can win 3 slams in a year, multiple times. He's great on his fast surfaces. But that doesn't make a versatile player. A far more convincing display of versatility is to win on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar year.

sorry but no, it proves you were able to win on all surfaces in ONE year. That doesn't point to overall versitility like winning 3 slams multiple times and making all 4 finals of 5 different surfaces multiple times. Basically you can have luck and form go your way. If Nadal was injured in 2006 or 2007 instead of 2009, Federer gets the luck needed for a calendar slam for instance.

Nadal has actually done more for his all surface versatility in reaching another AO and USO final than he did by simply winning RG, W and the USO in 2010. I mean anti Fed fans like to count the USO and AO as the same surface so Nadal had already won a slam on hardcourt, how was winning 3 slams on surfaces he'd won before, adding to his versatility? It just meant everything was in place in 3 slams in a row, we already knew he could win on Clay, Grass and Hardcourt.

If Djokovic does the calendar slam this year and never wins either RG or W again, are you going to be saying he has greater versatility than Nadal? Cos that would be clearly untrue if Nadal has overall more wins and finals accross the surfaces. One year shows a period where everything goes right. Your whole career shows who has the greater versatilty. not making this an anti nadal argument cos nadal still has plenty of time to increase his achievements, as well as having things he's far and away the best and as I said hes ahead of Djokovic right now in all surface achievements even if Novak does a calendar slam.

[Crisstti]

Something like the semifinals streak is something Rafa couldn't do, given his problems with chronic injuries... just think AO 2011.

If a players doesn't play a certain slam, would a streak like that continue or not?.

Anyway, not sure if anyone posted this: "Rafa Nadal gives keys to car auction winner" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwYVO...eature=related

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Something like the semifinals streak is something Rafa couldn't do, given his problems with chronic injuries... just think AO 2011.

If a players doesn't play a certain slam, would a streak like that continue or not?.

Anyway, not sure if anyone posted this: "Rafa Nadal gives keys to car auction winner" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwYVO...eature=related

No, if the player does not play in a slam for whatever reason, the streak does not continue.

[vernonbc]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

Thanks! I'm glad everyone approved. I didn't want to see this thread devolve into something it wasn't meant to.

Okay, let's take this piece by piece:

No. Let's not.

[CMM]

http://www.rogerfedererfans.com/foru...r-eight-years/

[FlashFlare11]

Originally Posted by vernonbc

No. Let's not.

Again, I'm really sorry for posting that.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by CMM

http://www.rogerfedererfans.com/foru...r-eight-years/

that's nice to see

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by vernonbc

No. Let's not.

To be fair, it was a Nadal fan who brought it up, and if someone brings it up, why shouldn't someone answer...?.
I say let's just not make it an endless discussion here.

Originally Posted by CMM

http://www.rogerfedererfans.com/foru...r-eight-years/

That's very nice

[FlashFlare11]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

To be fair, it was a Nadal fan who brought it up, and if someone brings it up, why shouldn't someone answer...?.
I say let's just not make it an endless discussion here.

Thanks Crisstti! I won't be responding to anymore of his posts in this thread. He can continue, if he'd like, but I won't.

Originally Posted by CMM

http://www.rogerfedererfans.com/foru...r-eight-years/

That was a wonderful read! Thanks for posting!

[vernonbc]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

To be fair, it was a Nadal fan who brought it up, and if someone brings it up, why shouldn't someone answer...?.
I say let's just not make it an endless discussion here.

It was the endless discussion aspect I was objecting to...his 'let's take this point by point'. Nadal/Federer arguments are always tedious mostly because from the Fedfan perspective, no one can ever be as wonderful as their religious experience Roger. I could cite any number of stats attesting to Rafa's superiority in many different areas. Let's wait until their careers are over and then we can compare because of course five more years on tour will affect the numbers now.

Gawd, that Nadal "poem" was the worst attempt at poetry I've ever seen. I suppose the concept was noble - lord knows there aren't many Fedfans that try to be civil about Rafa - but that was baaaaaaad. (And I don't mean bad in a good way! )

[nadal_slam_king]

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

That semifinal record points to making at least the semifinals, which comes in addition to Federer's QF streak and streak of 18 of 19 finals made until 2010. Again, this is a consective record made in Grand Slams, not across 250s, 500s, 1000s, or a combination of those. Slams only, which is greater than doing it over a combination of tournaments of various importance and magnitude.

Everybody knows that. You didn't need to specify that it was in slams. We've heard it a thousand times. A thousand redundant Federer fans just like you have posted this before. And you know what it amounts to? Nothing. He dominated that 'in-between era', that era before Djokovic had freed himself of gluten. That era when Nadal was still struggling at the US Open, still learning to adapt to grass, and was an exclusive claycourt specialist. People say Nadal was an early-bloomer. It's rubbish. Nadal was an early-bloomer on clay. On grass he developed gradually, and his hardcourt prime at the slams began in 2009 and is still going now. And regarding that typically trivial reach of a Federer stat.....why are you so impressed with a guy who keeps losing in semi-finals? Were you impressed with his last 2 US Open losses, where he had matchpoints in each? A REAL match streak is all about VICTORIES. 81 straight victories on one surface. That's a REAL match streak.

Originally Posted by FlashFlare11

Now, you're contradicting yourself. Above, all you could go on about was "clay this" or "surface streak that", and now you're saying that Federer winning 3 slams across two different surfaces (three times in his career) doesn't show any versatility? You are aware that Federer was also making the French Open final continually, losing only to one player. That shows much more versatility than winning 3 slams (albiet across three different surfaces) and a one-surface streak (the one you love so much).

Like I said, you can't assume Nadal is greater than Federer because "he will" add more to his tally. Nothing is decided.

Believe me, they did. But don't think for one second that inaccurate posts like yours are going to go unchecked.

Losing in French Open finals shows versatility? Now I've heard it all. First you talk up Federer's ability to lose in SF/QFs and now his ability to lose in Roland Garros Finals? Is this really impressive to you?

There is a reason why no other man in history apart from Nadal has won slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year. The reason being, it's the most difficult feat of versatility known to man. Federer didn't have the talent to achieve it. Heck, Federer almost failed to win the Career Grand Slam. He can thank Nadal for that 2009 gift.

And here's another versatility feat Federer didn't have the talent to achieve - beating Nadal at clay and hardcourt slams. He's only beat him at Wimbledon. Federer had 2 shots at the Australian Open, and was the odds on favorite in 2009. He was also the favorite in 2012, and came in on fire, while Nadal came in adjusting to a new racquet weight. Federer even managed to win the 1st set! So Federer had plenty of chances to beat Nadal on the 3 slam surfaces, and simply wasn't talented enough to achieve it. And the Australian Open is Nadal's worst slam surface, by a mile. The surface that keeps injuring Nadal more than any other, and forcing Nadal into platelet treatment before the clay season. Nothing more damaging than long rallies on a hardcourt. So why couldn't Federer even get a win over Nadal there? Isn't Federer a contender for hardcourt GOAThood?

Bring on the redundancy, keep posting your "Nadal News", I've seen it all before. You are one of a thousand, meaningless posters, all with the same trivial stats about QF streaks and SF streaks, wow how impressive....losing those big matches is so impressive, TRULY.

[Towser83]

Nadal's dominance on one surface is above Federer's for sure, but in terms of all surface versatility he still has a way to go to match Federer, though he has time to do it and looks to be gaining ability as an all surface player.

winning on clay, grass and hardcourt in one season only gives you claim to the most versatile SEASON, not career. Federer has multiple titles at 3 out of 4 slams and 4 finals to back up the sole win at his worst slam. Nadal has only 2 slams where he has multiple titles and one of his multiple-won slams is only 2 wins. to back up his single wins at the AO and US Open he has one final as of now (almost certain to be more)

Federer has at least 5 finals at every slam, and at least 4 wins at 3 of them. nadal is on single wins at half of the slams.

Again he has time to add many slams but as of now, his greater versatility only applies to one season, not his whole career. If you (nadal slam king) were actually a nadal fan, you would have faith in him achieving this, or enough pride in the areas in which he is the greatest, so that you would not have to make stuff up that isn't true yet. No player is the greatest in all ares, but people like you must be so insecure that they cannot really admit this. It's ridiculous, becuase it's not as if Nadal won't be great enough when all is said and done, he already is now.

players strengths AND weaknesses are what make them interesting, and the fact that nadal has won on all surfaces whilst not being the most naturally versatile player, is one thing that makes him the great player he is.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by vernonbc

It was the endless discussion aspect I was objecting to...his 'let's take this point by point'. Nadal/Federer arguments are always tedious mostly because from the Fedfan perspective, no one can ever be as wonderful as their religious experience Roger. I could cite any number of stats attesting to Rafa's superiority in many different areas. Let's wait until their careers are over and then we can compare because of course five more years on tour will affect the numbers now.

Gawd, that Nadal "poem" was the worst attempt at poetry I've ever seen. I suppose the concept was noble - lord knows there aren't many Fedfans that try to be civil about Rafa - but that was baaaaaaad. (And I don't mean bad in a good way! )

well the same can be said for certain nadal fans too I guess... in reality anyone who can't recognise flaws in all players, whoever they support, are probably missing a few screws. Nadal Slam King is one such crazy who believes Nadal is best in every aspect, which is quite obviously insane. You are right, now is not the time to judge really, it is still being played out.

You SUPPOSE it was a noble gesture? How gernerous of you it was terrible poetry but it was a lovely gesture. I kind of get the feeling certain Nadal fans like Fed fans being nasty so they can act like one fanbase is better than the other, you know some Fed fan goes out of his way to write dubious poetry about Nadal and it's met with begrudging acknowledgement. I would be touched if a nadal fan wrote poetry about federer no matter how bad it was, and you would probably hold it up as an example of how nice rafa fans are. we need more of this inter-fanbase love and/or appreciation, no matter how awful the poetry, artwork, fan fiction, plays, novels, statues etc may be!

It was cool of Crissti for posting that, so to her, thank you. Nadal fans always say this place is so horrible, so surely it's nice to see rafa being praised in some artistic form on a fed forum?

[nadal_slam_king]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Nadal's dominance on one surface is above Federer's for sure, but in terms of all surface versatility he still has a way to go to match Federer, though he has time to do it and looks to be gaining ability as an all surface player.

winning on clay, grass and hardcourt in one season only gives you claim to the most versatile SEASON, not career. Federer has multiple titles at 3 out of 4 slams and 4 finals to back up the sole win at his worst slam. Nadal has only 2 slams where he has multiple titles and one of his multiple-won slams is only 2 wins. to back up his single wins at the AO and US Open he has one final as of now (almost certain to be more)

Federer has at least 5 finals at every slam, and at least 4 wins at 3 of them. nadal is on single wins at half of the slams.

Again he has time to add many slams but as of now, his greater versatility only applies to one season, not his whole career. If you (nadal slam king) were actually a nadal fan, you would have faith in him achieving this, or enough pride in the areas in which he is the greatest, so that you would not have to make stuff up that isn't true yet. No player is the greatest in all ares, but people like you must be so insecure that they cannot really admit this. It's ridiculous, becuase it's not as if Nadal won't be great enough when all is said and done, he already is now.

players strengths AND weaknesses are what make them interesting, and the fact that nadal has won on all surfaces whilst not being the most naturally versatile player, is one thing that makes him the great player he is.

"Make stuff up that isn't true yet"? My post is the cruel PRESENT reality that surrounds you, the reality where Federer's steady bandwagoning fan base has to resort to pathetic trivial stats like SEMI final appearance streaks and QUARTER final appearance streaks. You clowns hang your hats on Federer's "appearance stats" in opposed to the rarest and most difficult feat in history, Nadal winning slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year. Winning 21 straight slam matches on THREE different surfaces in a Calendar Year. Winning 81 consecutive matches on a singular surface. Winning TWO Channel slams. Only being broken 5 times at the US Open! Nadal can do it all, on every surface. While Federer can pray for a Nadal injury, that's all he can do. Federer can whoop Roddick, unstable Marat, Gonzo, Baggy, Scud, Hewitt, Murray, "I can't beat 2 top guys in one event" Soderling, Old-timer-Agassi on TWO slam surfaces per year. Wow, awe-inspiring.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Towser83

It was cool of Crissti for posting that, so to her, thank you. Nadal fans always say this place is so horrible, so surely it's nice to see rafa being praised in some artistic form on a fed forum?

Wasn't me who posted it, it was CMM .

[CMM]

[vernonbc]

Looks like Rafa's playing in the middle of a swimming pool.





Hah! Just looking at the picture again, and if he's playing in the middle of a pool, does that mean he's walking on water???