Nadal had the weakest competition out of any player in history

The_Order

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Can't believe these idiotic threads are STILL going on here.

So over it.

Just use common sense people, no one is going to convince a Fed fan that Nadal had it tougher and no one is going to convince a Nadal fan that Fed had it tougher. But of course, no one will listen to this anyway because logic doesn't exist on here.
 
FatFedererFanTurnsSlim

FatFedererFanTurnsSlim

Semi-Pro
tennis_pro said:
I am a huge fan of the Nadal but I can admit the truth - he was a transitional champion. Each time he won a Slam outside of the FO he was aided by weak draws and Federer/Djokovic being injured or in poor form.

2008 Wimbledon - weak draw and mono Federer with very low confidence due to lack of training in the final
2009 AO - weak draw and Federer with an injured back in the final (back problems at the end of 2008 and withdrew from Dubai after the AO)
2010 US - legendary weak draw and Djokovic who just posted his first top 10 win of the season the day before, was pre-prime and had a very tough match in the SF. Yes, Nadal served great against Youzhny, Lopez and Verdasco.
2013 US - very weak draw and Djokovic in poor form in the final, lost in both Canada/Cincinnati to naps Isner/Robredo and was tired from the long SF against Wawrinka
2017 US - very weak draw and a very weak draw, Anderson nuff said

It pains me to say this but he never beat peak Federer or peak Djokovic in a Slam outside of the FO.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
K

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Sport said:
I am a huge fan of Federer and Michael Jackson but I can accept the truth.

Wimbledon 2008: According to this New York Times' article doctors said Federer was recovered from the adverse effects of mononucleosis as soon as late February. He received medical clearance to play normally the 27th of February 2008. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/sports/07iht-arena.3.10811374.html?pagewanted=all

Federer arrived to the Wimbledon final in July (more than 4 months after the medical clearance). Federer was moving perfectly in Wimbledon 2008, and he arrived to the final without losing any set. He was 26 and didn't look less fast than in 2007. So he was at his peak. Even the 2007 final was kinda close, Nadal had 4 break points in the 5th set. 26 years old Roger was 100% healthy and at his peak in the 2008 Wimbledon final.

Australian Open 2009: healthy Federer who was only 27 years old, peak version. 4 out of 4 GS finals for 2009 Federer. 2009 Federer arrived to the Australian Open final (lost to Nadal), won the French Open, won Wimbledon against an inspired Roddick, and arrived to the US Open final (lost to peak Del Potro).

US Open 2013: 26 years old peak and healthy Djokovic. Djokovic's 2013 could have been one of his best years if not for Nadal. If not for Nadal, Djokovic could have won 3 GS + the WTF in 2013. He still had a good year by winning Australian Open and WTF, but lost to Nadal at the French Open and US Open.
Click to expand...
Federer visibly wasn’t at his best in that final. His returning was atrocious for his usual grass standards.
 
J

Jonas78

Legend
As i have said earlier, It evens out In the long run. If you keep playing for a long time, you will have easy/tough draws and easy/tough competition.

How many more slams could Nads win 2008-2013 without Fedr/Nole? It's an absolute maximum of 3 slams (2011-2012). But he could lose to Tsonga at W11. Probably takes USO11. Then he would face Tsonga/Delpo/Murray at AO12.

Cant see he has had it any tougher than the other two. In 2008, 2010 and 2013 Fedr was off. 2008/2010 was pre peak Djoker. 2008, 2010 and 2013 wasnt strong years.
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
Nadal didn't meet Federer in any Majors outside of clay while Federer was in his peak, and met Djokovic only in three outside of clay while Djokovic was in his peak form.

Meeting players when they play at their best is the definition of having stiff competition.

Playing them mostly in conditions/circumstances that favour one is not.

Djokovic didn't become the ATG player that he now is considered before the beginning of 2011, and even then he was removed from Nadal's path at RG.

Basically, the only serious opponent to Nadal at RG was a guy, who, thanks to disadvantage in the equipment had a horrible match up problem with Nadal. That is 9 years.

Also, after Federer exited his peak, Nadal had 3 years of no stiff competition at the Majors from his peers from his age group (2008-2010).

Finally, Nadal specialised at avoiding meeting those peers anywhere but on clay (sounds familiar?), when they were peaking.

The one year when he didn't do that Djokovic ripped him a new one.

:cool:
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
mike danny said:
I feel bad for the narrowly-minded and idiotic people such as you.
Click to expand...
Very sad situation, what’s it like being in a padded room mumbling nonsense all day about how none of Nadal’s majors count but all of Fed’s including 03-06’s were totally legit top notch competition.
 
Plamen1234

Plamen1234

Hall of Fame
I disagree he had the weakest competition.Now Nadal is bad match up for Federer - Nadal is lucky in this sense.But look at Nadal-Djokovic match up for example.In the Djokovic 2 best seasons Nadal lost all of their matches.Now you can make excuse for 2015 because Nadal wasnt in good form there but what about 2011 then.Nadal came in 2011 as the winner of 3 GS and Djokovic defeated him in all of their 6 matches - 2 of them on clay
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
Slightly D1 said:
Very sad situation, what’s it like being in a padded room mumbling nonsense all day about how none of Nadal’s majors count but all of Fed’s including 03-06’s were totally legit top notch competition.
Click to expand...

Don't both Hewitt and Roddick have more wins against Nadal than they have against Federer as a percentage of their number of matches?

That competition can't have been that bad.

:cool:
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
Tennis_Hands said:
Don't both Hewitt and Roddick have more wins against Nadal than they have against Federer as a percentage of their number of matches?

That competition can't have been that bad.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Hewitt and Roddick.... a whopping total of 3 majors combined. Empty era following the 90’s. An uncomfortable truth.
 
Vish13

Vish13

Semi-Pro
Sport said:
I am a huge fan of Federer and Michael Jackson but I can accept the truth.

Wimbledon 2008: According to this New York Times' article doctors said Federer was recovered from the adverse effects of mononucleosis as soon as late February. He received medical clearance to play normally the 27th of February 2008. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/sports/07iht-arena.3.10811374.html?pagewanted=all

Federer arrived to the Wimbledon final in July (more than 4 months after the medical clearance). Federer was moving perfectly in Wimbledon 2008, and he arrived to the final without losing any set. He was 26 and didn't look less fast than in 2007. So he was at his peak. Even the 2007 final was kinda close, Nadal had 4 break points in the 5th set. 26 years old Roger was 100% healthy and at his peak in the 2008 Wimbledon final.

Australian Open 2009: healthy Federer who was only 27 years old, peak version. 4 out of 4 GS finals for 2009 Federer. 2009 Federer arrived to the Australian Open final (lost to Nadal), won the French Open, won Wimbledon against an inspired Roddick, and arrived to the US Open final (lost to peak Del Potro).

US Open 2013: 26 years old peak and healthy Djokovic. Djokovic's 2013 could have been one of his best years if not for Nadal. If not for Nadal, Djokovic could have won 3 GS + the WTF in 2013. He still had a good year by winning Australian Open and WTF, but lost to Nadal at the French Open and US Open.
Click to expand...

I always believed FO 2008 final had lot to do with the outcome of Wimbledon 2008. The momentum Nadal had in the rivalry in 2008 helped him cross the line in AO 2009 as well. Probably that was the reason that Federer broke down during the ceremony because it was more of Nadal getting into his head rather than his own level of play that resulted in the heartbreaking loss.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Slightly D1 said:
Very sad situation, what’s it like being in a padded room mumbling nonsense all day about how none of Nadal’s majors count but all of Fed’s including 03-06’s were totally legit top notch competition.
Click to expand...
Really sad that you actually believe this is my impression of Nadal.

Really sad that you actuallt completely dominish an athlete's achievements just to make his rivals seem better. It's like they haven't earned anything on their own and Fed needs to be put down for them to look good.

And what's the saddest is that you actually believe I do nothing else in life than to think of Nadal and Federer's majors :D
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
Tennis_Hands said:
That doesn't say anything about the competition, because, how come so inferior competition has better results against the strong era champion than the weak era champion?

:cool:
Click to expand...
I mean beating a teenager is cool and all but Nadal only lost 2 times to Roddick after 2006 (Dubai 2008, Miami 2010) and Hewitt never won after 2006.
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
Slightly D1 said:
I mean beating a teenager is cool and all but Nadal only lost 2 times to Roddick after 2006 (Dubai 2008, Miami 2010) and Hewitt never won after 2006.
Click to expand...

How pathetic your excuses are: Nadal was already a multiple Major champion in 2006 and #2 in the world.

"Only" 2 times for Roddick constitute 50% of all his wins against Nadal.

You might want to check in which year Hewitt started having massive injury problems.

:cool:
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
Tennis_Hands said:
How pathetic your excuses are: Nadal was already a multiple Major champion in 2006 and #2 in the world.

"Only" 2 times for Roddick constitute 50% of all his wins against Nadal.

You might want to check in which year Hewitt started having massive injury problems.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Dang super pathetic that a 19 year old wasn’t crushing everybody and remaining undefeated against the apparent top “veteran” established talent at the time. That’s shocking.

Hewitt won 2 matches in 2004 and then another at the 2005 AO. Completely shows that the competition of that era was too much for 18/19 year old Nada who was obviously peaking. That’s 75% of his victories.

Absolutely nowhere near his prime please stop fooling yourself.
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
True Fanerer said:
You're amazing knack for never running out of excuses for Nadal.
Click to expand...
Ah yes it’s a total excuse that of his grand total of 7 losses between the two players who were allegedly considered top competition of that era, only 2 came after he was no longer a teenager.

Complete shock! How could a teenager lose to veterans on less preferred surfaces?!
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
Slightly D1 said:
Dang super pathetic that a 19 year old wasn’t crushing everybody and remaining undefeated against the apparent top “veteran” established talent at the time. That’s shocking.

Hewitt won 2 matches in 2004 and then another at the 2005 AO. Completely shows that the competition of that era was too much for 18/19 year old Nada who was obviously peaking. That’s 75% of his victories.

Absolutely nowhere near his prime please stop fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

Ahh, because Roddick and Hewitt were in their primes in 2005/6 onwards.

I forget, it only applies to Nadal, if it strengthens his case.

Wasn't Hewitt turning on the screws in their match at Queen's, when Nadal retired with a shoulder "injury". The same Nadal who reached the Wimbledon final the same year?

:cool:
 
pame

pame

Hall of Fame
REKX said:
Look at the field during 2003-2008, very weak. Philipousis, Roddick, Agassi, (old) Keurten, Henman, Schuller, Fish were all in the top 20.

In 2010 it was Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Soderling (amazing form during that time), Roddick, Berdych, Cilic, Ferrer, Verdasco, Tosonga etc were top 20.

The 2010 completely mops the floor with the 2003 field, how can anyone possibly argue that the 2003 field was stronger is beyond me. They must be deluded because I don't know.
Click to expand...
We've already established that you're the deluded one. No need for us to make the point over and over :)
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Plamen1234 said:
I disagree he had the weakest competition.Now Nadal is bad match up for Federer - Nadal is lucky in this sense.But look at Nadal-Djokovic match up for example.In the Djokovic 2 best seasons Nadal lost all of their matches.Now you can make excuse for 2015 because Nadal wasnt in good form there but what about 2011 then.Nadal came in 2011 as the winner of 3 GS and Djokovic defeated him in all of their 6 matches - 2 of them on clay
Click to expand...
That was one year. In the long run Djokovic proved no threat
Slightly D1 said:
Dang super pathetic that a 19 year old wasn’t crushing everybody and remaining undefeated against the apparent top “veteran” established talent at the time. That’s shocking.

Hewitt won 2 matches in 2004 and then another at the 2005 AO. Completely shows that the competition of that era was too much for 18/19 year old Nada who was obviously peaking. That’s 75% of his victories.

Absolutely nowhere near his prime please stop fooling yourself.
Click to expand...
Neither was Federer after AO 2010, but you guys don't give a zhit about that.
 
Last edited:
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
Tennis_Hands said:
Ahh, because Roddick and Hewitt were in their primes in 2005/6 onwards.

I forget, it only applies to Nadal, if it strengthens his case.

Wasn't Hewitt turning on the screws in their match at Queen's, when Nadal retired with a shoulder "injury". The same Nadal who reached the Wimbledon final the same year?

:cool:
Click to expand...
You’re literally trying to claim that the competition of Hewitt and Roddick was significantly greater than that of Nadal’s prime because Nadal lost a total of 5 times to them between the ages of 17 and 19. You people will create a million different mental hoops to jump through and then ignore all reason and logic to avoid acknowledging this.

Also, please share where I claimed that Roddick or Hewitt were in their primes from 06 onwards? That’s a fabrication of yours. I’m pointing out that your gloating about winning percentages is illogical.
 
True Fanerer

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Slightly D1 said:
Ah yes it’s a total excuse that of his grand total of 7 losses between the two players who were allegedly considered top competition of that era, only 2 came after he was no longer a teenager.

Complete shock! How could a teenager lose to veterans on less preferred surfaces?!
Click to expand...
Nadal was a teenage phenom. You can't brag about his ability to win the FO and beat the #1 player in the world as a teenager yet use it as an excuse for other matches. You want your cake and to walk it too just like your idol.
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
True Fanerer said:
Nadal was a teenage phenom. You can't brag about his ability to win the FO and beat the #1 player in the world as a teenager yet use it as an excuse for other matches. You want your cake and to walk it too just like your idol.
Click to expand...
Real original, have fun rambling on and on how it doesn’t count when he passes your God.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Slightly D1 said:
Please stop that Agassi nonsense. The dude was 30 in 2000. Best years were behind him.
Click to expand...
Please stop that "aw Agassi was old" nonsense.

1999-2003 was Agassi's most consistent, fruitful and successful period. And that isn't just because "weak era". He never dropped outside the top 10 within that timeframe and won a whopping 5 majors (nearly all of them).

So yeah dude, please stop. He was a legit threat and a legit rival of Lleyton Hewitt when he was No. 1 in the world.
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
Sabratha said:
Please stop that "aw Agassi was old" nonsense.

1999-2003 was Agassi's most consistent, fruitful and successful period. And that isn't just because "weak era". He never dropped outside the top 10 within that timeframe and won a whopping 5 majors (nearly all of them).

So yeah dude, please stop. He was a legit threat and a legit rival of Lleyton Hewitt when he was No. 1 in the world.
Click to expand...
Yes 2000’s Agassi was the best he had ever played ever in his careeer.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Slightly D1 said:
Real original, have fun rambling on and on how it doesn’t count when he passes your God.
Click to expand...
And if he doesn't pass him keep rambling on and on how Federer was just a lucky player who only has the slam record due to a weak era.

You guys have it all figured out :D
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Slightly D1 said:
Yes 2000’s Agassi was the best he had ever played ever in his careeer.
Click to expand...
I never said that. I said that it was his most consistent period and an obvious prime period of his. It can't be dismissed.

He ended 1999 at No. 1, 2000 at No. 6, 2001 at No. 3, 2002 at No. 2, 2003 at No. 4. That's consistent as hell.
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
Slightly D1 said:
You’re literally trying to claim that the competition of Hewitt and Roddick was significantly greater than that of Nadal’s prime because Nadal lost a total of 5 times to them between the ages of 17 and 19. You people will create a million different mental hoops to jump through and then ignore all reason and logic to avoid acknowledging this.

Also, please share where I claimed that Roddick or Hewitt were in their primes from 06 onwards? That’s a fabrication of yours. I’m pointing out that your gloating about winning percentages is illogical.
Click to expand...

What is the matter?

Wasn't Nadal beating Federer at 16 years of age on HC?

How come he is able to do that, but suddenly his age later explains his losses to arguably lesser opponents?

Make up your minds already.

Well, if you point out that Nadal was not in his prime when he met those players and lost, you surely have to account for the fact that they were also not in theirs, which you failed to do.

:cool:
 
Slightly D1

Slightly D1

Professional
Sabratha said:
I never said that. I said that it was his most consistent period and an obvious prime period of his. It can't be dismissed.

He ended 1999 at No. 1, 2000 at No. 6, 2001 at No. 3, 2002 at No. 2, 2003 at No. 4. That's consistent as hell.
Click to expand...
In a trash era anything is possible
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Slightly D1 said:
In a trash era anything is possible
Click to expand...
Same goes for old man Fed then.

See how stupid that is? Agassi was consistent for a reason. You don't stay ranked that high for that long because it's a "weak era". You do because you're good enough.

If that's not the case why isn't Djokovic still ranked high now? It's a garbage era after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

REKX
  • Poll
Nadal had the toughest competition out of any player in history
35 36 37
Replies
2K
Views
53K
Sunny014
Sunny014
Third Serve
The toughest draw of all time: Nadal at Wimbledon 2022
2 3
Replies
108
Views
3K
Pheasant
Pheasant
Sport
The toughest draw of all time: Nadal at Wimbledon 2019
10 11 12
Replies
563
Views
29K
Deleted member 771911
D
GasquetGOAT
  • Poll
Which of These Slam Wins Had The Weakest Competition?
2
Replies
98
Views
6K
Sid_Vicious
S
D
Nadal is lucky to be No.1 in the weakest era of tennis history.
2 3
Replies
131
Views
8K
junior74
junior74
Top