How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

In 1968, those 5 matches Emerson beat Laver in, he won them all in straight sets. Think about it, beating an absolute peak laver 5 times in straight sets! What that tells me that Emerson was up there in ability. if he had gone pro in 1963, like Laver, I think he would have held his own. Emerson faded after that mainly due to age.

Don´t forget that Laver and Emerson knew each other game by memory and were so close friends.That has an effect on a particular H2H that equalizes things ( unless you are Borg and Gerulaitis, of course), specially when there is not such a big difference of level of play.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

It is not disqualifying for a goat to have a negative h2h against a surface goat. The era stuff is hypothetical (and beaten to death) and contradicted by 31 year old post peak Federer being nr 1.

Age means nothing.Tilden won majors past 35, so did Rosewall and, in the pros, Gonzales, against one of the fiercest cast of competitors ever gathered.Laver won the second GS in one of the most difficult eras ever, where such a gifted player as Tony Roche could not win a big title.Connors, in the middle of the Golden Era, recovered the nº 1 position and he was well over his 30´s.And Sampras and Agassi were past their 30´s when they won their last slam titles.it means nothing if you are in shape, and it certainly helps against less experienced players.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Hello TheFifthSet, I am getting tired of defending TMF, but I again fail to see all of the contradictions you mention. The problem is in the definition of the GOAT in "GOAT lists." Do you really think that the number one player in that list wouldn't have at least one player throughout all of time who couldn't beat him more often than not? What I'm trying to say is, I don't think it would be possible to make a list in that manner (with the idea that the number one would defeat every player from any time period at least 6/10 times) due to contrasting styles, match up issues, etc.. Therefore, everyone has additional criteria in order to make a list that doesn't contain loops that defy logic.

Back to the point, what exactly is your issue with giving Laver a high ranking due to his record but still being of the opinion that many players today would eat him alive? History is history, but comparing across eras is speculation, which is why you would give him his due in your rankings.

As for the Ferrer comparison, I really wouldn't even go there.

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?

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by kiki

Age means nothing.

I dont quite agree. But it does not detract from Federers status.

[Povl Carstensen]

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?

Its a surface goat we are talking about. It is ok.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

You ranked him as better than many modern players, including Sampras I believe, Nadal etc.....

David Ferrer is number five in the world. That's an elite player. He's one inch taller than Laver. One inch. One inch and -1000 less talent.

Your arguments really aren't making much sense here.

(sigh) I'm talking about apple and you're talking about oranges.

The height issues playing in modern tennis that I've explained has nothing to do with the goat debate. It's not about career achievements, not about how much a player dominated his generation. Do you understand?

And Ferrer is not an elite player. In that case Del Potro must one of all time great then. Even if a player managed to win 1 slam, I wouldn't call that an elite player. You got to do a whole lot better than be an elite player.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

So basically federer's wins don't count because nadal is a quitter ok.

No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

Age means nothing.Tilden won majors past 35, so did Rosewall and, in the pros, Gonzales, against one of the fiercest cast of competitors ever gathered.Laver won the second GS in one of the most difficult eras ever, where such a gifted player as Tony Roche could not win a big title.Connors, in the middle of the Golden Era, recovered the nº 1 position and he was well over his 30´s.And Sampras and Agassi were past their 30´s when they won their last slam titles.it means nothing if you are in shape, and it certainly helps against less experienced players.

Ignorant post is ignorant. Your basic premise that Tennis today works the same way as Tennis in the 60s is absolutely absurd.

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.

You make a very sound argument there buddy. And I agree.
But if Nadal is to contend for the GOAT status #1, he has to win more
GS/ Majors (for those who want to always be 'politically' correct) out of Clay and get to number 1 ranking longer, maybe 200+ more. Just my 2¢

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.

31 year-old Federer is world #1 "with today's competition."

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

No it's just some of his wins are not that great.

Nadal in less time and in less slams has actually done more than Federer . He has also beaten Federer In his own house and on every surface .

Federer is considered the greatest by some because he has 17 slams.

But some of those slams were really not that big of a deal.

The slams Nadal won were mainly against Federer himself . So I don't see how logically you can possibly say that Federer is the greatest player that ever lived when there is a player who is alive and dominates him.

Feds slams came mainly before Nadal or as Nadal was developing.

No way he can possibly win 17 slams with today's competition .....no way in hell.

You do realize he's 31 years old now right. And as I said before GOAT does not mean you own everyone it means your more successful than everyone and fed has the best resume. So even if he cant win 17 with todays competition it doesnt matter cause he has 17 no matter what. And Nadal never met him in the hardcourt slams when federer was in HIS prime. Imagine if nadal met fed in 2007 final on rebound ace. He wouldve gotten beaten SO BADLY!!! but no it never happened. So basically he beats someone who is 5 years older to him on plexicushion on a surface that suits him more so federer cannot be GOAT

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

31 year-old Federer is world #1 "with today's competition."

Yeah, it would almost be ugly if he was in his prime now. At least, the Safins, Roddicks, Hewitts, and Nalbandians put up some fight at the time. I don't even want to imagine what a circa 2006-Federer would have done with "today's competition". Win a couple of calendar grand slams in a row, maybe...

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Yeah, it would almost be ugly if he was in his prime now. At least, the Safins, Roddicks, Hewitts, and Nalbandians put up some fight at the time. I don't even want to imagine what a circa 2006-Federer would have done with "today's competition". Win a couple of calendar grand slams in a row, maybe...

hmm, Roddick is Fed's turkey, lost like what 20 matches, won 2 if I remember correctly. doesn't belong in that 'list'. and no, no Calendar GS. He would still need to deal with Nadal etc.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

You do realize he's 31 years old now right. And as I said before GOAT does not mean you own everyone it means your more successful than everyone and fed has the best resume. So even if he cant win 17 with todays competition it doesnt matter cause he has 17 no matter what. And Nadal never met him in the hardcourt slams when federer was in HIS prime. Imagine if nadal met fed in 2007 final on rebound ace. He wouldve gotten beaten SO BADLY!!! but no it never happened. So basically he beats someone who is 5 years older to him on plexicushion on a surface that suits him more so federer cannot be GOAT

That's what goat may mean to you and I respect it.

However that's not at all what it means to me and I ask you to respect that as well.

To me the greatest player that ever lived means that no one else could beat them. It's really simple.

Yes Federer is 31 today and its incredible . The man has not lost a step. He is as great as he ever was . In fact he says he is playing the best tennis of his life.

Furthermore , Federer at 31 is I'm far better shape than Nadal is at 26.

Nadal has in my opinion done far more in reality than Federer. Nadal has won more with less opportunies. He has won 11 slams but skipped I think 6 plus the Olympics.

By coincidence the number of slams Federer has is also 6 more than Nadal but at 31 he has never missed a slam an has had way more opportunities . Fed has even had more opportunities at the Olympics but never could win .

Add to that Nadal has beaten Fed in slams on grass and hard while Federer has not even come close to touching Nadal at the FO.

Yeah Fed has his 17 on paper but that's all he has over Nadal.....nothing else. Feds 17 slams mainly happened becaise he avoided Nadal.

This is the first time in history that the number one is dominated by his main rival......so you really can't use generalities like most slams becaise this situation is an exception to the general rule.

And it's a pretty glaring exception. Federer has been very fortunate in his career to avoid Nadal......very fortunate indeed.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Yeah, it would almost be ugly if he was in his prime now. At least, the Safins, Roddicks, Hewitts, and Nalbandians put up some fight at the time. I don't even want to imagine what a circa 2006-Federer would have done with "today's competition". Win a couple of calendar grand slams in a row, maybe...

He has always lost to Nadal....even when Nadal was a young developing player at 18 years old.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

That's what goat may mean to you and I respect it.

However that's not at all what it means to me and I ask you to respect that as well.

To me the greatest player that ever lived means that no one else could beat them. It's really simple.

Yes Federer is 31 today and its incredible . The man has not lost a step. He is as great as he ever was . In fact he says he is playing the best tennis of his life.

Furthermore , Federer at 31 is I'm far better shape than Nadal is at 26.

Nadal has in my opinion done far more in reality than Federer. Nadal has won more with less opportunies. He has won 11 slams but skipped I think 6 plus the Olympics.

By coincidence the number of slams Federer has is also 6 more than Nadal but at 31 he has never missed a slam an has had way more opportunities . Fed has even had more opportunities at the Olympics but never could win .

Add to that Nadal has beaten Fed in slams on grass and hard while Federer has not even come close to touching Nadal at the FO.

Yeah Fed has his 17 on paper but that's all he has over Nadal.....nothing else. Feds 17 slams mainly happened becaise he avoided Nadal.

This is the first time in history that the number one is dominated by his main rival......so you really can't use generalities like most slams becaise this situation is an exception to the general rule.

And it's a pretty glaring exception. Federer has been very fortunate in his career to avoid Nadal......very fortunate indeed.

1. The Olympics mean NOTHING compared to the Grand Slams as far as achievement in Tennis goes.

2. Federer is NOT playing his best Tennis? Have you, like, started watching Tennis in late 2010?

3. Davydenko and Rosol have winning head-to-heads against Nadal. So he can't be the GOAT by your logic.

4. Federer's got 17 Slams. 17. Seventeen. Seven... teen... That is all.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

1. The Olympics mean NOTHING compared to the Grand Slams as far as achievement in Tennis goes.

2. Federer is NOT playing his best Tennis? Have you, like, started watching Tennis in late 2010?

3. Davydenko and Rosol have winning head-to-heads against Nadal. So he can't be the GOAT by your logic.

4. Federer's got 17 Slams. 17. Seventeen. Seven... teen... That is all.

1- maybe to you the Olympics mean nothing . But they mean a lot to a lot of other people.

2- Federer says he is playing the best tennis of his life . Your argument is with him not me.

3- davydenko and Rosol are on paper head to head . Again you take the simplistic view . For example Davydenko has never played Nadal on anything but a hardcourt . Furthermore all the matches are a best of the three. And there's a difference of a ba match up like Rosol. Thy happens once in a blue moon .....but Nadal was beating everyone including Federer. It's not some weird thing that happens once in a blue moon.

4- 17 slams....yup that's all you got. An on paper and a robotic view your right. But a deeper more intellectual approach show that he got a majority of those slams by avoiding Nadal in some way.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

That's what goat may mean to you and I respect it.

However that's not at all what it means to me and I ask you to respect that as well.

To me the greatest player that ever lived means that no one else could beat them. It's really simple.

Agreed!! ok I see your point!

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

Yeah Fed has his 17 on paper but that's all he has over Nadal.....nothing else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...d_achievements
Apart from that your arguing is just a lot of ifs. Quite robotical with your fixation with h2h.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

1- maybe to you the Olympics mean nothing . But they mean a lot to a lot of other people.

2- Federer says he is playing the best tennis of his life . Your argument is with him not me.

3- davydenko and Rosol are on paper head to head . Again you take the simplistic view . For example Davydenko has never played Nadal on anything but a hardcourt . Furthermore all the matches are a best of the three. And there's a difference of a ba match up like Rosol. Thy happens once in a blue moon .....but Nadal was beating everyone including Federer. It's not some weird thing that happens once in a blue moon.

4- 17 slams....yup that's all you got. An on paper and a robotic view your right. But a deeper more intellectual approach show that he got a majority of those slams by avoiding Nadal in some way.

1. You agree it isn't worth the same as a Slam, right?

2. Federer said he was playing "some" of his best Tennis, which means just that. Some. In bursts. Not consistently.

3. Nadal still lost to Rosol. And bringing up the HC argument is ironic coming from you, when you keep bringing up the Nadal-Federer head-to-head who've played half their matches on Clay.

4. And 24 Slam finals (including 5 at every Slam). And 6 YE championships, 2 of them in Djokovic's and Nadal's primes. And 23 consecutive SFs. And over 300 weeks at #1 Since Nadal's first Slam, Federer has won 13 Slams. And a 4-0 record against Nadal on indoor Hards. A triple-surface Bagel on Nadal. A 2-1 lead at Wimbledon. And he never lost to the Rosol. Seriously, what are you on about?