Why do people say Nadal is the undisputed clay GOAT?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I dont believe Nadal is the GOAT at this point but this is stupid reasoning. Nadal still has a winning career record vs said player. By your logic no way could Federer be considered the GOAT when he is owned lifetime, espeicaly in slams, by by far his biggest rival, who is also a top 5 player all time. Who else was owned by even one of their main rivals, and had something anywhere near as bad a 2-8 record in slams, not Sampras, not Laver, not Gonzales, not Borg, not Nadal himself. Nadal was owned by Djokovic for 1 year, Federer has been owned by Nadal for almost a decade now.

You seem to forgotten the rule of thumb that they are the last people who ever want to try building up the importance of head to head are Federer fans. Atleast other Federer fans on this site are good at reminding themselves of that and downplaying all its importance constantly, as nobody is hurt as much by it becoming a topic of conversation as Federer.

How is it possibly shameful for a player to only start losing Grand Slam matches off-clay to Nadal (who is indisputably one of the 5 greatest players of all time and the Clay-God) when he was past-his-prime and Nadal entered his, even if he's the GOAT? Especially considering how well Nadal matches up against him? Even then, Federer has bageled Nadal across all surfaces (including clay). That's insanely impressive. And let's not forget, 5 of Federer's 8 Grand Slam losses were on Clay, where Nadal is the God-Of-All-Time. Put things in perspective. All things considered, Federer's record is pretty good against Nadal. Especially because it's 4-0 in Federer's favor on Federer's best surface (indoor hard, which also happens to be Nadal's worst) while it's 12-2 in Nadal's favor on Nadal's best surface (Clay, which also happens to be Federer's worst). Federer, atleast so far, is the guy with the unbeaten record on their respective best surfaces. How would the head-to-head look if 14 matches were played on Indoor Hard and just 4 on Clay? 13-1 and 4-0, maybe? So when you combine the two, it goes from 12-6 in Nadal's favor to 13-5 in Federer's favor. That should show you how skewed the head-to-head is. Just because pre-prime-Nadal wasn't good enough to make it to the later rounds off-clay in Federer's prime while past-prime-Federer is good enough to make it to the later rounds in Nadal's prime.

[NadalAgassi]

Baby Nadal aged 17-19 won 6 of his first 7 matches with peak of peaks Federer, including 2 of their first 3 non clay matches, and the only one he lost he choked away a HUGE lead 2 sets to 0, 5-3, 5-3 in the tiebreak. Nadal has always owned Federer period since day 1 and has never looked back since. The various excuses, too many matches on clay, not in prime, mono, are becomes rudanant after awhile. Even the various Fed backers who proclaim him GOAT like McEnroe never deny for a moment that Nadal has always owned Federer when it comes to H2H.

This of course does not make Nadal the GOAT. What it does do however is bring a very strong case that Federer is not, if you choose to make H2H vs opponents a priority (which is why I laugh seeing that it was a Federer fan who chose to do so, bring up the H2H argument). No other potential GOATs were owned by their main rival in such a way.

PS- was Nadal in his prime during most of Federer's dominance either, NO. Was so called hard court GOAT Federer even reaching quarterfinals of hard court slams at the same ages so called (according to ****s) hard court mug Nadal is blamed for not reaching hard court slam finals. You get the picture.

[cknobman]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I dont believe Nadal is the GOAT at this point but this is stupid reasoning. Nadal still has a winning career record vs said player. By your logic no way could Federer be considered the GOAT when he is owned lifetime, espeicaly in slams, by by far his biggest rival, who is also a top 5 player all time. Who else was owned by even one of their main rivals, and had something anywhere near as bad a 2-8 record in slams, not Sampras, not Laver, not Gonzales, not Borg, not Nadal himself. Nadal was owned by Djokovic for 1 year, Federer has been owned by Nadal for almost a decade now.

You seem to forgotten the rule of thumb that they are the last people who ever want to try building up the importance of head to head are Federer fans. Atleast other Federer fans on this site are good at reminding themselves of that and downplaying all its importance constantly, as nobody is hurt as much by it becoming a topic of conversation as Federer.

Please read the thread. My post was a sarcastic response to The Dark Knight and his ******** post. You either did not get my point or are taking my post out of context.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Baby Nadal aged 17-19 won 6 of his first 7 matches with peak of peaks Federer, including 2 of their first 3 non clay matches, and the only one he lost he choked away a HUGE lead 2 sets to 0, 5-3, 5-3 in the tiebreak. Nadal has always owned Federer period since day 1 and has never looked back since. The various excuses, too many matches on clay, not in prime, mono, are becomes rudanant after awhile. Even the various Fed backers who proclaim him GOAT like McEnroe never deny for a moment that Nadal has always owned Federer when it comes to H2H.

This of course does not make Nadal the GOAT. What it does do however is bring a very strong case that Federer is not, if you choose to make H2H vs opponents a priority (which is why I laugh seeing that it was a Federer fan who chose to do so, bring up the H2H argument).

It took a while for Federer to learn to deal with Nadal. If, today, both were to re-enter their primes, Federer would probably do better. But hey, that's my opinion and I can't back it up. Anyway, I believe that if peak-Federer played peak-Nadal evenly across all surfaces, Nadal would lead the head-to-head. That's because he's the ultimate kryptonite. Just because Superman has a weakness doesn't mean he's not the strongest man on the universe. Tennis is about beating the field, not about beating an individual player. And saying Federer isn't the GOAT begs the question : Who is? Rod Laver? 36 year-old Gonzales beat 26 year-old Laver 8 times to 5 in a Calander year. And Gonzales doesn't even have the career Grand Slam (never won the French Pro among the Pro tournaments). Bjorn Borg? He was made to quit by McEnroe. And it's not like he's got the career Grand Slam either (he only got halfway through). Pete Sampras? Simply not good enough (or atleast not successful enough) on Clay to be the GOAT. Nadal? His claim to be the GOAT doesn't look too bad at the moment but what if he kept playing till 30 and what if he ended up with a losing head-to-head against Djokovic? He'd be defeating his own claim, right? And it's not like he's ever utterly dominated the field. 31 year-old Federer got to #1 with prime Djokovic and 26 year-old Nadal around. That should be embarrassing for the GOAT. Even more so than having a losing head-to-head against a guy 5 years younger who's basically made to beat you.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

And Gonzales doesn't even have the career Grand Slam.

Rather difficult when you're banned from the mainstream majors from age 21 to age 40.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Rather difficult when you're banned from the mainstream majors from age 21 to age 40.

He hasn't won the French pro, either.

[PrinceMoron]

King of clay would have to include blue clay, and Nadal said he can't play on it, so he is well down the list, not even top ten.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by PrinceMoron

King of clay would have to include blue clay, and Nadal said he can't play on it, so he is well down the list, not even top ten.

They don't call you prince moron for nothing!

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by cknobman

Please read the thread. My post was a sarcastic response to The Dark Knight and his ******** post. You either did not get my point or are taking my post out of context.

Sorry, my apologies. I didnt notice who you were replying to.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

It took a while for Federer to learn to deal with Nadal. If, today, both were to re-enter their primes, Federer would probably do better. But hey, that's my opinion and I can't back it up. Anyway, I believe that if peak-Federer played peak-Nadal evenly across all surfaces, Nadal would lead the head-to-head. That's because he's the ultimate kryptonite. Just because Superman has a weakness doesn't mean he's not the strongest man on the universe. Tennis is about beating the field, not about beating an individual player. And saying Federer isn't the GOAT begs the question : Who is? Rod Laver? 36 year-old Gonzales beat 26 year-old Laver 8 times to 5 in a Calander year. And Gonzales doesn't even have the career Grand Slam (never won the French Pro among the Pro tournaments). Bjorn Borg? He was made to quit by McEnroe. And it's not like he's got the career Grand Slam either (he only got halfway through). Pete Sampras? Simply not good enough (or atleast not successful enough) on Clay to be the GOAT. Nadal? His claim to be the GOAT doesn't look too bad at the moment but what if he kept playing till 30 and what if he ended up with a losing head-to-head against Djokovic? He'd be defeating his own claim, right? And it's not like he's ever utterly dominated the field. 31 year-old Federer got to #1 with prime Djokovic and 26 year-old Nadal around. That should be embarrassing for the GOAT. Even more so than having a losing head-to-head against a guy 5 years younger who's basically made to beat you.

For me Rod Laver is the GOAT. You mention him losing sometimes to an old Gonzales, but he still has a winning record vs him, and a winning record vs all his main rivals who include some of the all time greats of the sport- Gonzales, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, and some other great players on a lower scale, all muti slam winners as well- Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Santana, Kodes. Most of all though he won the Grand Slam twice, and while the first one was kind of a joke practically speaking (the best players were pro at the time, and Laver would not be the best pro in 1963 the next year, not until 1964), officialy he did achieve it, and practically speaking he swept the 3 1967 pro slams when all the best guys were pro (apart from Emerson whow as prime Laver's beetch) so would have mostly likely have won it in 1967 just as likely as he probably wouldnt have in 1962 anyway, and still had 2. Nobody else has even been good enough to manage 1 since the post World War 1 years. Federer couldnt even manage it in the year Nadal didnt win the French, losing in hard court slams to so called hard court mug Nadal, and Del Potro who managed his only title above 500 level thus far that day. Federer won 4 of 6 slams during this stretch so the way past his prime excuse doesnt fly easily either, not to mention Laver managed a Grand Slam at 31 (the game was far less physical then making players last longer, but then again that negates Gonzales's age and its meaning too). Laver managed his 2nd Grand Slam by crushing Ken Rosewall, the 2nd or 3rd best clay courter of all time behind only Nadal, in the 69 French Open final, amongst his other strong wins, and the 69 field is one of the deepest fields of all time, far stronger than anything Federer ever faced, and still failed to win a Grand Slam over.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

For me Rod Laver is the GOAT. You mention him losing sometimes to an old Gonzales, but he still has a winning record vs him, and a winning record vs all his main rivals. Most of all though he won the Grand Slam twice, and while the first one was kind of a joke practically speaking (the best players were pro at the time, and Laver would not be the best pro in 1963 the next year, not until 1964), officialy he did achieve it, and practically speaking he swept the 3 1967 pro slams when all the best guys were pro (apart from Emerson whow as prime Laver's beetch) so would have mostly likely have won it in 1967 just as likely as he probably wouldnt have in 1962 anyway, and still had 2. Nobody else has even been good enough to manage 1 since the post World War 1 years. Federer couldnt even manage it in the year Nadal didnt win the French, losing in hard court slams to so called hard court mug Nadal, and Del Potro who managed his only title above 500 level thus far that day. Federer won 4 of 6 slams during this stretch so the way past his prime excuse doesnt fly easily either, not to mention Laver managed a Grand Slam at 31 (the game was far less physical then making players last longer, but then again that negates Gonzales's age and its meaning too). Laver managed his 2nd Grand Slam by crushing Ken Rosewall, the 2nd or 3rd best clay courter of all time behind only Nadal, in the 69 French Open final, amongst his other strong wins, and the 69 field is one of the deepest fields of all time, far stronger than anything Federer ever faced.

I'm not necessarily deriding Rod Laver. He has possibly got the best claim to being the GOAT, when you only look at the story on-paper. But I am of firm belief that players today are significantly better than they were back then. Again, I can't prove it. Nobody can. It's just how I see it and for me it looks obvious. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, though. That's the reason I believe Federer is definitely better than Rod Laver. It's only since the 70s and 80s that players have become more athletic and more professional than they were back in Laver's time (again, in my opinion, I can't prove it). The reason I brought up Gonzales is just to show that no player has a perfect record. Not so far, never in the future. Federer's ONLY real blemish is a bad head-to-head against Nadal. Rod Laver has his own. Nadal has many (none as major as Federer's but they add up to make his claim less strong than Federer's). So does Borg, so does Sampras. Federer just seems to have the best claim so far.

On a related topic, didn't Laver say he believed Gonzales to be a better player than he was? Or maybe I misunderstood it.

ETA : And you're really selling Del Potro short, there. He was on fire that tournament, crushing Nadal in the semifinal. And it's not like Federer was in his prime or anything. Everything needs to come together for that to happen. And Federer was just a few points away from the Federer-Slam, which to me is just as impressive as the Calander year Grand Slam.

[NadalAgassi]

Other than bias against players of the past I dont see what Laver's blemish is. People say majors only being on grass and clay, but that isnt his fault, it would be like blaming the players today for the slow grass. Laver's best surface was actually hard courts, it isnt his fault there wasnt a major on it.

Laver probably said Gonzales was better than him. He pretty much says any player with 4 or more slams was better than himself. The most humble champion ever by far.

[TMF]

Basically, every ex-pro players have conceded that the depth and strength of field is stronger than in the past, and certainly far more stronger than in the 60s when tennis was less international. Laver's accomplishment over 40 yrs ago was great if it's comparing to his peers, however, it just doesn't have the same weight as to today because the standard is a lot higher. Besides having a smaller pool, the pre-era was splitted into two circuits(pro & amateur), which makes it even more depleted.

About Pancho beating prime Laver, he was almost 42 years old at that time. I can't imagine a player today that old can beat a prime Federer or Nadal because it's virtually impossible. 42 years old player can only qualify for a senior tour, and that's not even a given that he can win a tournament.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Other than bias against players of the past I dont see what Laver's blemish is. People say majors only being on grass and clay, but that isnt his fault, it would be like blaming the players today for the slow grass. Laver's best surface was actually hard courts, it isnt his fault there wasnt a major on it.

Laver probably said Gonzales was better than him. He pretty much says any player with 4 or more slams was better than himself. The most humble champion ever by far.

It's not bias. Like I said, on paper, he probably looks the best (but again he needs the "he'd have won everything if he had been allowed to play Slams" argument, though it's not his fault). But really, do you really think the general level of play was higher then than it is now? If you do, there's no point having this argument anymore, because neither of us will concede.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The most humble champion ever by far.

The essential point some--namely Federer fans--miss: Laver once said he thought McEnroe could be the greatest--depsite John not coming close to winning the Grand Slam, then he said the same of Sampras--again, he too not winning the GS, and he's flip flopped on Federer. He thinks he's supporting the sport by promoting the the current "face" of tennis, but in the objectivity of history, none have accomplished what Laver has, and never will, thus others are great players, but not the greatest of all time.

[Talker]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Other than bias against players of the past I dont see what Laver's blemish is. People say majors only being on grass and clay, but that isnt his fault, it would be like blaming the players today for the slow grass. Laver's best surface was actually hard courts, it isnt his fault there wasnt a major on it.

Laver probably said Gonzales was better than him. He pretty much says any player with 4 or more slams was better than himself. The most humble champion ever by far.

Laver's a great guy, who could not like him?

You're right that it wasn't Laver's fault about the surfaces or that there was problems with the field being split. Different equipment and so on.

But because of those problems the records he has are suspect and don't have the meaning of records in the open ERA.

Again, it is not his fault, but credit can't be given either.

Nothing wrong with looking at Laver and his ERA in this way and it doesn't degrade what he has done in the least.

[PrinceMoron]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

They don't call you prince moron for nothing!

What other kind of night is there?