I'm dreaming of the USO.Winning 11 years after his last title, he'll have the record there and 6 titles at 3 majors. And then just the fact that it's the last Slam in the season, and the feeling of victory will carry until the end of the season unlike if he won Wimby and then lost at the USO.
Do you or do you not have issues with Nadal's celebrations?This is an example of how ridiculous this forum is. I have no issues with Nadal's celebrations? You just can't believe it, huh? Flabbergasted, are you?
You don't determine player's diversity at Slams by taking one of them away, but by looking how much they contribute to a player's Slam total. Djokovic's AO titles make 47% of his total, Nadal's FO titles make 65% of his total. Less than a half compared to nearly two thirds... Right there it's already obvious that Djokovic's diversity is better, which is a fair point, considering their totals are not far apart. And if he manages to get close to Federer, he would have pretty comparable diversity to his as well, since it's too late to rely on just one event to boost his Slam total.
There is only one clay slam as opposed to two hard court slams. You are not comparing like with like.
Yeah, the two best players. Who won less. Very objective there. Indisputable. By the numbers.
Honestly I have no idea why anyone would be triggered over either a guy wagging his finger or a guy ripping his shirt off in celebration. Both are harmless and pretty cool. Why is everyone a big girl's blouseBecause you're a Nole fan. I'm sure you have issues with the harmless "celebration" shown below because it came at the expense of your favorite. This is supposed to be massively disrespectful and horrifying, but is utterly phlegmatic compared to the Gorilla antics. no? There's no comparison in shoving it in someone's face.
My problem with Fed's celebration is that it seemed to be aimed at his opponent, while Novak's wasn't.
It probably was aimed at Djoker, but they're all big boys. I wouldn't mind if Djok did something like that to Fed in the heat of the moment either. It's often nice that tennis is civil, but sometimes it does get a bit sterile. You have a point that most of Novak's celebrations are rarely aimed at the opponent, although I suspect he uses them to instil fear and reduce confidence sometimes. I don't have a problem with that either really.
Whether you prefer dominance on one surface or balance across all of them is up to you. I am not "punishing" Nadal for anything, he is the way he is.
I said a couple of posts back that diversion means something IF the two players' Slam totals are close. Obviously in your example everyone would prefer to be player B, but I think 15 and 17 are pretty close.
How are the 20 Rome titles going btw?
Djokovic and Nadal both have 3 titles at the USO, and 1 at their least successful Slam. So the difference that supposedly reflects negatively on Nadal's resume, or 'means something' as you put it, is that he won 2 titles fewer at Wimby while winning 4 more titles at his favorite Slam than Djokovic's won at his. Do you think 2 titles at one Slam are greater or as great an achievement as 4 titles at another Slam just because they make for a more even distribution?
You could have just asked me if I prefer better distribution over a slightly higher number of Slams. I don't consider Djokovic greater than Nadal at the moment if that's where you're getting at. But I do prefer that he has reached such a high number of Slams by "spreading" them more evenly across the four tournaments rather than "boosting" his total considerably at one event. And it's a 100% guarantee that this will remain true in any scenario where he ties Nadal's 17, while it is likely that his distribution would improve even further.
I just wanted to sort of convert the 'more diversity' feat into titles for a more clear comparison. Preferring "better distribution over a slightly higher number of Slams" is rather vague. And I thought you were getting at Djokovic's record at Slams being at least equal to Nadal's because you wrote that "diversion means something IF the two players' Slam totals are close...I think 15 and 17 are pretty close." So that's why I asked.You could have just asked me if I prefer better distribution over a slightly higher number of Slams. I don't consider Djokovic greater than Nadal at the moment if that's where you're getting at. But I do prefer that he has reached such a high number of Slams by "spreading" them more evenly across the four tournaments rather than "boosting" his total considerably at one event. And it's a 100% guarantee that this will remain true in any scenario where he ties Nadal's 17, while it is likely that his distribution would improve even further.
Don't bring up those Nadal's US Open titles again btw.
Interesting observation. Why do you propose that we remove clay from the conversation and not hard or grass? Clay of course being the second most prolific surface on the tour. It is curious that you didn't pick grass for example that has only about five or six tournaments on the circuit and arbitrarily removed results on that surface when comparing results of the ATG's.....
You could have just asked me if I prefer better distribution over a slightly higher number of Slams. I don't consider Djokovic greater than Nadal at the moment if that's where you're getting at. But I do prefer that he has reached such a high number of Slams by "spreading" them more evenly across the four tournaments rather than "boosting" his total considerably at one event. And it's a 100% guarantee that this will remain true in any scenario where he ties Nadal's 17, while it is likely that his distribution would improve even further.
Don't bring up those Nadal's US Open titles again btw.
Interesting observation. Why do you propose that we remove clay from the conversation and not hard or grass? Clay of course being the second most prolific surface on the tour. It is curious that you didn't pick grass for example that has only about five or six tournaments on the circuit and arbitrarily removed results on that surface when comparing results of the ATG's.....
This.
I think the bigger problem with Nadal is he has never defended a title off clay. Maybe if he had 10 RGs (still a record) to go with a couple more AOs it wouldn't look so bad.
So returning incredibly well is not tennis ability but physical and mental strength?
So returning incredibly well is not tennis ability but physical and mental strength?
If u remove clay from Nadal's resume, he has 6 slams....Weak
A slam is a slam but can't be goat when you've mainly won 1 event and no world tour finals.
HC is the most prevalent surface on tour, so this is normal.
6 slams is great. As in Edberg /Becker great. Not what is being debated, right?
Grass and clay don't have tough competition. HC is the surface that provides that.
