Can Nadal complete 16 slams or more?

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by davey25

That is why Laver is the GOAT though. He has no flaws:

-versatility and success across all surfaces that were available at the time. Check.
-dominance over all main rivals. Check.
-longevity. Check (Rosewall and Gonzales actually have more but Laver still excellent in this area)
-extreme dominance of the game for a period. Check
-consistency. Check
-all court game. Check
-peak level of play. Check

So he didnt have to play a hard court slam. So what, there were many hard court or indoor tournaments and he dominated those too during his better years.


I picture Federer playing a prime Laver. Lets see a fragile backhand, not much comfort or reliability at the net, an overly defensive return game, and a fragile pysche against tough competition. Honestly I think Laver would eat Federer up most of the time. Heck if Federer fans put Nadal and his abilities down so much, well if even mediocre little Nadal (according to them) does so much damage to Federer, imagine what Grand Slammer at age 31 Laver and his near faultless all around/all court/all surface game and mental toughness would do to Federer.

But Laver got beaten by a 40 years Gonzalez.

So 40 year old Gonzalez = GOAT
wat u tink?

[TheLoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Bud

Agreed... one would have to consider the technology (strings, racquets, etc), playing surfaces... plus how dominant a leading player was over all competition during his reign at the top.

Federer has a huge problem... the lopsided (7-14) record across all surfaces with Nadal... with many of Federer's losses occurring during his prime.

Yes, Federer has that huge problem. Even if we don't talk about the GOAT, with Nadal being superior in H2H, if Nadal were to achieve close to the number of slams Fed got, it would make everyone declaring Fed as a superior player (without qualifications) to Nadal look a little silly.

[TheLoneWolf]

Originally Posted by DragonBlaze

But Laver got beaten by a 40 years Gonzalez.

So 40 year old Gonzalez = GOAT
wat u tink?

Pancho was The Man. I'm still waiting for Ron Howard or some Hollywood top dog to come out with a movie about him.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by TheLoneWolf

But every player is also a product of his time. Laver is lucky that Gonzalez wasn't exactly his contemporary (even though they did play some matches.)
Similarly, if Fed and Laver had been contemporaries, they would have had to share all those trophies, making their achievements seem less spectacular individually.

There is just no such thing as a GOAT in my opinion.

One can speculate how Laver would have fared vs a prime Gonzales of course. However he did still face a slew of great players and dominated all available to him.

What makes you sure Federer would even hold his own vs Laver? He cant even hold his own vs Nadal today as the lopsided head to head and mismatch of a rivalry shows. Federer doesnt have as complete a game as Laver, mentally he is nowhere near as strong, and looking at how his game is falling off drastically in his late 20s after only coming into his own at 22 his longevity is not likely to even scrape the surface either (it is starting to look like even Nadal will surpass Federer in longevity unbelievably).

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by TheLoneWolf

But every player is also a product of his time. Laver is lucky that Gonzalez wasn't exactly his contemporary (even though they did play some matches.)
Similarly, if Fed and Laver had been contemporaries, they would have had to share all those trophies, making their achievements seem less spectacular individually.

There is just no such thing as a GOAT in my opinion.

That is a damn good point, I did not think of it that way.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by DragonBlaze

But Laver got beaten by a 40 years Gonzalez.

So 40 year old Gonzalez = GOAT
wat u tink?

So, he still dominated the aging Gonzales and won the vast majority of their matches, and Gonzales while older was still an amazing player. It is possible he would have had alot more trouble with a prime Gonzales but nobody can really know for sure. The point is everyone Laver DID face, rather than speculation, he did dominate, while Federer gets dominated to embarassing degrees by Nadal who is not yet even established as a first tier all time great (though he could well get there).

[abmk]

Originally Posted by davey25

That is why Laver is the GOAT though. He has no flaws:

-versatility and success across all surfaces that were available at the time. Check.
-dominance over all main rivals. Check.
-longevity. Check (Rosewall and Gonzales actually have more but Laver still excellent in this area)
-extreme dominance of the game for a period. Check
-consistency. Check
-all court game. Check
-peak level of play. Check

So he didnt have to play a hard court slam. So what, there were many hard court or indoor tournaments and he dominated those too during his better years.


I picture Federer playing a prime Laver. Lets see a fragile backhand, not much comfort or reliability at the net, an overly defensive return game, and a fragile pysche against tough competition. Honestly I think Laver would eat Federer up most of the time. Heck if Federer fans put Nadal and his abilities down so much, well if even mediocre little Nadal (according to them) does so much damage to Federer, imagine what Grand Slammer at age 31 Laver and his near faultless all around/all court/all surface game and mental toughness would do to Federer.

I see a dominant - much better FH, a clearly better serve and as good movement if not better, as versatile a BH as any, more than decent enough at the net, a more complete baseline game - good enough to pass laver enough times .....

P.S. I am dead sure you haven't watched more than 1-2 matches of laver.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by DragonBlaze

But Laver got beaten by a 40 years Gonzalez.

So 40 year old Gonzalez = GOAT
wat u tink?

A H2H assessment of two players is not based on a single match.

14-7 is 21 matches and enough of a sample size to determine a pattern... especially as it's across all surfaces, as well.

Originally Posted by davey25

I am pretty sure he did. All the records I look up say so. The only thing I am not sure of is his head to head with Rosewall on clay. It might have been a losing one, but he still beat Rosewall alot of times on clay too, it wasnt like he was ever his pigeon on clay like Federer is to Nadal on clay (and I know Nadal is now considered greater than even the great Rosewall on clay, but still doesnt change the relevance). There are people in the Former Pro section much more versed in all the stats than I would be though.

Be interesting to see their H2H and the matches.

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by Bud

A H2H assessment of two players is not based on a single match.

14-7 is 21 matches and enough of a sample size to determine a pattern... especially as it's across all surfaces, as well.

Pancho also had some 27 slams

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Bud

A H2H assessment of two players is not based on a single match.

14-7 is 21 matches and enough of a sample size to determine a pattern... especially as it's across all surfaces, as well.

considering 12 of the 21 matches have been on clay, its very balanced and not at all skewed, no ?

[abmk]

As far as the thread question is concerned, don't think so, he'll probably end up with 12-13 slams

[Bud]

Originally Posted by davey25

...and looking at how his game is falling off drastically in his late 20s after only coming into his own at 22 his longevity is not likely to even scrape the surface either (it is starting to look like even Nadal will surpass Federer in longevity unbelievably).

That is a bit ironic, actually

Federer turned pro in 1998... Nadal 2001 (even though they are 5 years apart in age)

[abmk]

Originally Posted by davey25

Federer doesnt have as complete a game as Laver, mentally he is nowhere near as strong, and looking at how his game is falling off drastically in his late 20s after only coming into his own at 22 his longevity is not likely to even scrape the surface either (it is starting to look like even Nadal will surpass Federer in longevity unbelievably).

LOL, LOL , LMAO. Don't worry, I'll bring up this bound to be an epic failure of a post sometime in the future

[Bud]

Originally Posted by abmk

considering 12 of the 21 matches have been on clay, its very balanced and not at all skewed, no ?

That's barely more than half... and two of those clay meetings Federer defeated Nadal, IIRC... Plus Federer is a 4 time consecutive finalist at the FO (06-09) and 1-time winner (09). So, enough with this bogus argument and the excuses about Federer on clay.

Also, according to your logic... the H2H should be 12-9 with Nadal winning just the clay meetings and Federer winning everything else. This isn't reality... each has beat the other on every surface (multiple times in Federer's case beating Nadal on grass).

[davey25]

Originally Posted by abmk

LOL, LOL , LMAO. Don't worry, I'll bring up this bound to be an epic failure of a post sometime in the future

yes just like you were going to bring up my comment about Federer failing to pass Sampras's weeks at #1 as the epic fail in the future. Do what you want, bring up whatever you want in some attempt at a childish game, and it certainly wont bother me. You delude yourself into thinking anyone other than the worst of your fellow ******* trolls (eg- TMF) even care what you think about anything.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by Bud

That's barely more than half... and two of those clay meetings Federer defeated Nadal, IIRC... Plus Federer is a 4 time consecutive finalist at the FO (06-09) and 1-time winner (09). So, enough with this bogus argument and the excuses about Federer on clay.

not to mention that 17 year old Nadal was already beating Federer on hard courts. Federer cant own Nadal on any surface the way Nadal has owned Federer on clay despite that they began playing when Nadal was 17 and when Federer was in his prime. That already cements his ownage of Federer to anyone with a brain, but *******s will continue to roam for excuses rather than just atleast accepting a simple truth and arguing around that.

[TheLoneWolf]

Originally Posted by davey25

One can speculate how Laver would have fared vs a prime Gonzales of course. However he did still face a slew of great players and dominated all available to him.

What makes you sure Federer would even hold his own vs Laver? He cant even hold his own vs Nadal today as the lopsided head to head and mismatch of a rivalry shows. Federer doesnt have as complete a game as Laver, mentally he is nowhere near as strong, and looking at how his game is falling off drastically in his late 20s after only coming into his own at 22 his longevity is not likely to even scrape the surface either (it is starting to look like even Nadal will surpass Federer in longevity unbelievably).

Yes, it's all speculation. Gonzales was an unbelievable force, however. He won against Laver when he was 40. Something like that is unthinkable of today.

As for Fed, he might as well recover and continue winning Slams. I really don't think we can say Fed would have been a match for Laver, or viceversa. It's all speculation.

[TheLoneWolf]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

That is a damn good point, I did not think of it that way.

It's good that you think it's a good point, because that shows you are more intelligent than most people. It will be the year 2200 and we will continue having discussions about who the GOAT is. The answer is that there is no fricking GOAT.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by TheLoneWolf

Yes, it's all speculation. Gonzales was an unbelievable force, however. He won against Laver when he was 40. Something like that is unthinkable of today.

As for Fed, he might as well recover and continue winning Slams. I really don't think we can say Fed would have been a match for Laver, or viceversa. It's all speculation.

I agree it is speculation in both cases. And I agree Gonzales was an unbelievabl e force in the game too, and a very underated player today. However you have to admit the way Federer crumbles under the psyschological pressure of his ONLY real rival of this era- Nadal, does not exactly suggest great things going up other past legends of the game.

Even if Federer recovers and wins slams will he turn around his head to head with Nadal? Almost certainly not, that aspect is likely to only get worse from here. And that is thing, we do know Federer was owned by the only other truly great player of his own generation, and we know Laver handled anyone in his own era that was available which included some truly great players.

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by davey25

I agree it is speculation in both cases. And I agree Gonzales was an unbelievabl e force in the game too, and a very underated player today. However you have to admit the way Federer crumbles under the psyschological pressure of his ONLY real rival of this era- Nadal, does not exactly suggest great things going up other past legends of the game.

Even if Federer recovers and wins slams will he turn around his head to head with Nadal? Almost certainly not, that aspect is likely to only get worse from here. And that is thing, we do know Federer was owned by the only other truly great player of his own generation, and we know Laver handled anyone in his own era that was available which included some truly great players.

So according to you the fact that Nadal is a bad matchup has NOTHING to do with the reason Fed loses to Nadal? It's ONLY because hes mentally weak?

You see, I cant see anybody else being such a bad matchup for Roger as Nadal is.