How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

All they remember is that he is a multiple slam winner .

Yes because he was not nr 1, logical isn't it?

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by Numenor

No GOAT candidate can be dominated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces by his main rival.

But, at the same time, a GOAT candidate can be 2-8 in slams against his main 'rival', and be 10-18 overall?

[Numenor]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

But, at the same time, a GOAT candidate can be 2-8 in slams against his main 'rival', and be 10-18 overall?

Sorry, I have no idea who you're talking about. Can you elaborate?

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Oh, perhaps I am too deep and intellectual. And the misrepresenting and big fonts?

Well they say the size of a mans font is equal to the size of his ......

And there was no misreping

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Well they say the size of a mans font is equal to the size of his ......

And there was no misreping

Here we go. Go ahead and spill out the rest of your argument, intellectual!

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

It all depends on who is the Judge doesn't it?

But history has already proven that slams are the only thing it remembers .

Boris Becker is my favorite example. He is a goat by every ones standards. Yet he was never the year end #1 player in the world .

It's actually sort of a trivia statistic because no one really cares. All they remember is that he is a multiple slam winner .

But let's take the analogy further . Becke beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat him right after that at the US Open . And yet somehow Lendl was the #1 player in the world .

No one agreed with it . There were tons of articles about it......why?? Because even though on paper Lendl was the better player everyone knew in reality Becker was the best player that year.

He beat Lendl Mano a Mano in two consecutive slams.
It's paper vs reality argument.

Becker is only ONE of the GOATs if you have 40 people you call "one of the GOATs." He is nowhere near the vicinity of being in even the off-thought discussions of being THE GOAT.

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

But, at the same time, a GOAT candidate can be 2-8 in slams against his main 'rival', and be 10-18 overall?

How about 0-3 in GS finals last year? and 0-1 at AO this year? so by that standard, should we also elevate Djoker above your invicible GOAT?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

You mean at Hamburg? Nadal was so tired he could not hold his racket in that third set.

And Nadal beat Federer on Grass when Federer was suffering from a Heart-Attack. Now prove me wrong.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Of course not. It's through no fault of his own.

He is clearly a goat and would win slams in any era and will continue to do so. In fact he was my pick to win Wimbledon.

But the only thing you guys hang your hat on is Feds 17 slams......like that should automatically make him the goat.

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe .

The answers has never been so cut and dry . Certainly 17 slams adds to Federers argument . It's a gigantic feat.......but I don't think that automatically means he is the goat.

The fact that Nadal dominates him is a huge problem for Federer. I'm sorry but you can't say he is the greatest player that has ever lived when in front of our eyes he is just utterly dominated .

We have never had a situation like this before. Laver , Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated their opponents.

But when the alleged greatest player that ever lived gets beaten on his favorite surface , gets beaten on his equally greatest surface ( hard) and loses 6-3,6-1,6-0 at the French and dominated like I believe four other times at the FO......it gets really difficult to say he is the greatest player that ever lived .

There is Nadal who beats the crap out of Federer in front of your eyes. How can you just ignore that???

Does Federer have the greatest record of all time : YES......but does that mean he is the greatest player that ever lived ? I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.

I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're like a parrot, the same old "head-to-head" argument ad nauseum, which doesn't really mean anymore than Nadal's record against Davydenko. Federer is the GOAT and, deep down, you know it. Which is why you spend so much time with the same (worn off) argument. See ya!

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal is rapidly approaching GOAT candidacy. (If hes not considered that already)

11 slams
Career Grand Slam
#1 in the world
Has owned another GOAT candidate his whole career
positive h2h with his main rivals
Already hands down GOAT on clay

Hes just missing a YEC and perhaps a bit of a longer stint at #1

Thats enough for GOAT consideration. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless. The guy has a GOAT-like resume "

I

11 slams. How about 17?
Career Grand Slam? Fed doesn't have it? LOL
#1 in the world? So does Fed. Now how long for Rafa? And how long for Fed?
Owned Fed his whole career? A H2H of 18-10 hardly qualifies as OWNING. Come back and tell me when it's like 100-10. That's OWNING. That's DOMINATION. 18-10. HARDLY!
"Thats enough for GOAT consideration." And not Fed? Humm...
"GOAT-like resume". "LIKE" is the keyword. How about simply a GOAT resume. Hardly there yet. Let's talk over in a few years when he racks up to 17.

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I'm not arguing with you anymore. See ya!

Wise decision! Second that.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by VPhuc tennis fan

11 slams. How about 17?
Career Grand Slam? Fed doesn't have it? LOL
#1 in the world? So does Fed. Now how long for Rafa? And how long for Fed?
Owned Fed his whole career? A H2H of 18-10 hardly qualifies as OWNING. Come back and tell me when it's like 100-10. That's OWNING. That's DOMINATION. 18-10. HARDLY!
"Thats enough for GOAT consideration." And not Fed? Humm...
"GOAT-like resume". "LIKE" is the keyword. How about simply a GOAT resume. Hardly there yet. Let's talk over in a few years when he racks up to 17.

Hence why I said it was GOAT-like.. And hes also crapped on the guy with 17 slams for his entire career Fed is in GOAT consideration or course. But Nadal definitely should be.. Afterall, half of his slam count (or a little over) he has beaten Roger.

However, the majority of Fed's slam hes had to AVOID Nadal to win them. ROFL

[PSNELKE]

Originally Posted by kiki

Is there a nº 1 that has had such a lousy record against his main opponent in the history of the game? I really would be curious.Certainly, not Borg,Laver and Sampras, and I don´t think so about Kramer,Wilding and Tilden.maybe Budge or Perry?

Another great point by kiki.
And we certainly shouldn't forget about all the champs during mediaeval times when tennis was known as Jeu de Paume.
I highly doubt these N°1's had a losing record against their main rivals.
What's your take on that kiki? You got some insider facts on that?

[kishnabe]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Hence why I said it was GOAT-like.. And hes also crapped on the guy with 17 slams for his entire career Fed is in GOAT consideration or course. But Nadal definitely should be.. Afterall, half of his slam count (or a little over) he has beaten Roger.

However, the majority of Fed's slam hes had to AVOID Nadal to win them. ROFL

More like Nadal FAILING to reach Federer. ROFL....XD

[90's Clay]

Well I think the point is if someone is hands down GOAT supposedly to so many people... Why does he have to avoid his main rival in the hope to win slams? Shouldn't the hands down GOAT be so great he shouldn't have to "avoid" anyone?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Well I think the point is if someone is hands down GOAT supposedly to so many people... Why does he have to avoid his main rival in the hope to win slams? Shouldn't the hands down GOAT be so great he shouldn't have to "avoid" anyone?

Avoiding is falling in the 2nd round or the Quarterfinals. Not making it to the finals like a boss.

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

History only looks at slams.

How many tournaments did Noah win? All you remember is that he won the FO. No one remembers all history remembers is the slams. How many games during the season did the Yankees win? Who cares all that matters is the World Series .

Any matches during the regular season are just that matches to determine your ranking for the slams. It's no different that being in 1st place in the Anerican league and making the World Series.

Baseball has its World Series which consists of 7 games. Tennis has te slams which consists of four tournaments . The rest are all merely "regular season" matches to determine your ranking .

The only slams Fed was able to beat Nadal on were grass....and that's when he was still labeled a clay court specialist . You can't call him a clay court specialist and then be surprised he lost on grass.

In any event Nadal beat him on grass on hard and on clay.....that's domination in my book.

Ok so it's slams only.

17>11. Yep.

Your circular argument holds no grounds. Either the majors are NOT the only thing that count, and the h2h is much close and far moer competitive, or the majors are the only thing that matters, at which point Federer has a sizeable advantage compared to Nadal..

Which will you go with?

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

he shouldn't have to "avoid" anyone?

What kind of English are we using here? Perhaps TDK and you should explain this to us: When Fed won all these GS titles against these supposedly very lousy, weak, lucky players such as Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Philippoussis, Fed was there in these finals. Now in these EXACT SAME tournaments, where was Rafa? By your definition, that's how Fed avoided Rafa? WT**** is that? Fed was in these finals, Rafa was nowhere to be found, and you claimed FED AVOIDED RAFA!!! Again, let me emphasize this point: Fed was there in these finals. Where was Rafa? If the other lousy players made it to the finals, and not Rafa. Then should Rafa be above or below them? Who avoided who here?
Wow! Welcome up to the bandwagon.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Ok so it's slams only.

17>11. Yep.

Your circular argument holds no grounds. Either the majors are NOT the only thing that count, and the h2h is much close and far moer competitive, or the majors are the only thing that matters, at which point Federer has a sizeable advantage compared to Nadal..

Which will you go with?

He goes with both and doesn't go with both at the same time

[kiki]

Originally Posted by PSNELKE

Another great point by kiki.
And we certainly shouldn't forget about all the champs during mediaeval times when tennis was known as Jeu de Paume.
I highly doubt these N°1's had a losing record against their main rivals.
What's your take on that kiki? You got some insider facts on that?

Oh, I would love to know the results of the main events held during the Jeu de Pomme years.A Davis Cup jeu de Pomme contest must have been the most exciting and probably bleeding event ever held...thanks for bringing it up.