Nadal way ahead of Djokovic at US Open...being a better loser does not make one better. Nadal 2-1 Djokovic is massive for Nadal.
"Nadal piling more RG titles only cements more and more his Clay GOAT status"
- Thread starter Standaa
- Start date
Nadal comfortably GOAT now by a distance tbh.
Benjamin Rio
Professional
Novak winning the last match at RG is massive.
Benjamin Rio
Professional
Clay Goat nothing less nothing more.
12/18 GS on clay.
25 MS 1000 out of 34 on clay.
0 WTF
Many early losses to average players in GS
Less weeks as number 1
Never played all slams final in one calendar year.
Far frome being GOAT. Lefty Goat and clay goat.
ScottleeSV
Hall of Fame
He is the best on clay by some distance.
On hard courts and grass he is a decent player but literally country miles behind Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, and countless others.
This is a three surface sport, ultimately. To suggest Nadal is the greatest tennis player of all time when he's only really feared on 1/3 of the tour is stretching credibility. You'd have to be a fanboy to truly believe that.
If he sneaked in a few more non-clay majors maybe he could still convince a jury, but I'm not sure it will be many at this point.
On hard courts and grass he is a decent player but literally country miles behind Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, and countless others.
This is a three surface sport, ultimately. To suggest Nadal is the greatest tennis player of all time when he's only really feared on 1/3 of the tour is stretching credibility. You'd have to be a fanboy to truly believe that.
If he sneaked in a few more non-clay majors maybe he could still convince a jury, but I'm not sure it will be many at this point.
Ann
Hall of Fame
No Fed fans aren't a mess.Why? Maestronians are a mess but I still like Fed.
No hope for Imhotep tho
Ann
Hall of Fame
Who is "y'all" please list names, thank you.why are y'all so worried about Nadal having 12 RG titles?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
It doesn't matter that he didn't win Wimbledon. The topic was multiple slams on all 3 surfaces and I'll add that you are the LAST person on this entire board that should be trying to give out history lessons on tennis. My patience with you has worn extremely thin for the time being and I won't be responding to anymore of your clown *ss posts until further notice.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, the competition on hardcourt is great indeed. Just think about that, Djokovic won the last 2 slams on hardcourt with his toughest opponent being Medvedev. Such "great" competition, just WOW!
Last edited:
So, the guy who has lost at the USO to Blake, Youzhny, Ferrer, Fognini and Pouille would make mince meat out of a guy who won the US Open 5 times?
Come on, let's at least be vaguely realistic.
Nadal has had great success at USO.
Sampras has had great success at USO.
If you went with "I think he could beat Sampras" or even "I think he would beat Sampras" I could see that. But suggesting that it basically wouldn't be competitive is way past anything supportable.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I think you will find that is clearly a minoritys opinion.
Benjamin Rio
Professional
True Medvedev was tougher to beat than Nadal at the last AO.
Having to play Youznhy Gasquet Rublev as main contenders to win his 3 Us opens i kind of find your remark as funny against Novak's wins.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol, Nadal's USO 2010 and 2013 paths were harder than Djokovic's USO 2018 and AO 2019. He had to beat a pretty good Djokovic both times. USO 2017 was weaker though.
As people amass GOAT resumes for their favorite and their rivals, I often come back to two thoughts:
1) You can either start by asking "who do I think is the best" then chasing the stats and explanations that make that case, or you can start by asking "what are the criteria that I would use to compare players" and then see how different players do on those criteria. The latter produces much more objective, meaningful analysis. The former is what results in cherry picked data, "bespoke stats", etc.
2) The criteria you use to compare A vs B should be the same as the criteria you use to compare C vs D and E vs F (with the obvious exception that different eras may have some unique aspects).
If you've got a test that you think applies to Nadal vs Djokovic or Djokovic vs Federer, then the same test should apply to Borg vs Connors or Agassi vs Sampras, or even Borg vs Agassi.
If you think a careerGS is a monumental achievement that trumps more overall slams, more weeks and years at #1 etc, then great, but apply that Agassi vs Sampras.
If you think more slams means better player, if you said Sampras passed Borg when he got #12 because "he has more slams, case closed", did you previously think Emerson was greater than Borg?
If you think winning on all surfaces is a pre-req for the greatest, then great, but apply that to Connors vs Borg.
If you think weeks and years at #1 is the most important stat in comparing great players, then great, but apply that to Becker vs Edberg.
If you don't like the results that you got applying the same tests to other comparisons, then your test probably isn't good.
Personally, I think almost all the things I just mentioned are important, but none is a trump card. There is no stat that says "whoever wins this stat deserves to be considered GOAT".
By bespoke stats I mean ones that seem tailored to display one player's greatness, instead of being just generally informational. For example "He became the first player to win 5 different titles 5 times in a row." There are some good tests for bespoke stats:
1) had you ever heard this stat before, or is it brand new when discussing this player? If it's brand new, it may be a bespoke stat.
2) could you answer the question "how do others fare on this stat?" If not, it may be a bespoke stat.
3) does it have seemingly arbitrary cutoffs? (like the above example: why 5 and 5? why not 4 titles 6 times or 6 titles 4 times?) If so, it may be a bespoke stat.
If a stat is failing those tests, it's probably a bespoke stat and not that valuable in comparisons. Maybe really fascinating and demonstrative of one player's greatness, but not useful for comparison.
1) You can either start by asking "who do I think is the best" then chasing the stats and explanations that make that case, or you can start by asking "what are the criteria that I would use to compare players" and then see how different players do on those criteria. The latter produces much more objective, meaningful analysis. The former is what results in cherry picked data, "bespoke stats", etc.
2) The criteria you use to compare A vs B should be the same as the criteria you use to compare C vs D and E vs F (with the obvious exception that different eras may have some unique aspects).
If you've got a test that you think applies to Nadal vs Djokovic or Djokovic vs Federer, then the same test should apply to Borg vs Connors or Agassi vs Sampras, or even Borg vs Agassi.
If you think a careerGS is a monumental achievement that trumps more overall slams, more weeks and years at #1 etc, then great, but apply that Agassi vs Sampras.
If you think more slams means better player, if you said Sampras passed Borg when he got #12 because "he has more slams, case closed", did you previously think Emerson was greater than Borg?
If you think winning on all surfaces is a pre-req for the greatest, then great, but apply that to Connors vs Borg.
If you think weeks and years at #1 is the most important stat in comparing great players, then great, but apply that to Becker vs Edberg.
If you don't like the results that you got applying the same tests to other comparisons, then your test probably isn't good.
Personally, I think almost all the things I just mentioned are important, but none is a trump card. There is no stat that says "whoever wins this stat deserves to be considered GOAT".
By bespoke stats I mean ones that seem tailored to display one player's greatness, instead of being just generally informational. For example "He became the first player to win 5 different titles 5 times in a row." There are some good tests for bespoke stats:
1) had you ever heard this stat before, or is it brand new when discussing this player? If it's brand new, it may be a bespoke stat.
2) could you answer the question "how do others fare on this stat?" If not, it may be a bespoke stat.
3) does it have seemingly arbitrary cutoffs? (like the above example: why 5 and 5? why not 4 titles 6 times or 6 titles 4 times?) If so, it may be a bespoke stat.
If a stat is failing those tests, it's probably a bespoke stat and not that valuable in comparisons. Maybe really fascinating and demonstrative of one player's greatness, but not useful for comparison.
Last edited:
Benjamin Rio
Professional
Pretty good Novak at the USO? He almost lost first round in 2010.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
You really have no idea that players can improve their form during tournaments, huh?
And beat #21, #19 and #2 in the world to get to the Final.
These kinds of threads are just filled with nonsensical cherry picking.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
The competition on hard courts will always be tougher than it is on clay. That's just the way it is I'm afraid.
CosmosMpower
Hall of Fame
You just don't know when to stop, no?
Ann
Hall of Fame
Great Post.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, because you can't deal with the fact that Djokovic also sometimes have very easy draws. RG 2019 was a much more competitive slam than USO 2018 and AO 2019.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
RG this year was boring as usual and don't even get me started on the organisation. At least there's only three more weeks 'til Wimbledon.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
It would be extremely fun had Djokovic won it I guess. But looks like the so called "easy competition" was not so easy for him. His main competition in the last two hardcourt slams was Medvedev, that pretty much says it all.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Distribution is justification for player preference is all. As is number 1 weeks, H2H, weighted titles overall to come up with some score. It is also arbitrary to a degree because people all value things differently in those things. So in the very basic world of GOAT discussion, it is about GS titles and how many someone has. The math is finite and there is always a Hierarchy.
Fed is the GS title GOAT with Raf second and Djo third.
That's it.
Distribution was an important stat back in an era when not all the majors were as big and many players skipped Australian and you had clay court specialists vs grass court specialists, etc.
We really don't have that situation anymore.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
That's one way of putting it. Btw what happened to your prediction of Djokovic easily winning the tournament?I see you are really a hater.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Glad I was wrong.That's one way of putting it. Btw what happened to your prediction of Djokovic easily winning the tournament?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Lol, you knew fine well you would be.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
Not really. Thiem actually tried his best to choke in the fifth set and gift him the match.
Pandora Mikado
Semi-Pro
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
And then Djokovic would've beaten Nadal in the final, right?
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
If Nadal played like he did against Thiem then no, he wouldn't. But Nadal usually has mental problems in the matchup against Djokovic so he would probably play worse. Anyway, we can't know since it really looks like Djokovic really didn't want to meet Nadal in RG 2017-2019.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I didn't even bother watching the final so I wouldn't have a clue how Nadal played. And given that Djokovic has already met Nadal 7 times(!!) at RG you could hardly blame him for not wanting yet another rendezvous there. It's a shame they didn't meet more often at the AO over the years to balance things out a bit more. Oh well.
StrongRule
Talk Tennis Guru
In AO it wasn't always Nadal's fault though. Djokovic didn't reach him a few times as well.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Djokovic was there far more often to fulfil his side of the deal.
VaporDude95
Banned
HAHAHAHA
18 < 20 with 12/18 on the same surface at the same slam (LOL) and 0 WTF.
Yep, he’s GOAT alright
Benjamin Rio
Professional
I get it.
He started poorly and according to you played his absolut peak in the final and Nadal managed to beat him.
Please be serious.
In 2011 he was at his peak and Nadal waa beaten each time.
Benjamin Rio
Professional
In 16 Nadal fulfilled his side of the deal. He lost 1st round to Verdasco.
racquetreligion
Hall of Fame
can someone please tell me why the no1 seed didnt play first up while the no2 seed eventually ended up with a 2 day rest?
Djoko and Thiem should have competed before Nadal`s Rogeriatric oponent and would have not been debilitated like the top seed.
Djoko and Thiem should have competed before Nadal`s Rogeriatric oponent and would have not been debilitated like the top seed.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Winning a M1000 is very different to winning a slam. Ask Zverev or Thiem, they will confirm that for you.
3 - 1 record at the AO in Rafa's favour suggests that Fed should be grateful that they didn't meet more often or it could have gotten really embarrassing. Also, the grass GOAT couldn't stop a 22 year old on his weakest surface from beating him on his own turf? Really? Rafa shows how a real surface GOAT deals with that v Federer at RG 6 - 0. There was no losing to your major rival for Rafa on his court.
I do respect Fed, he is a very good player, he has done amazing things for the sport of tennis and brought a lot of attention to it. He's just not the GOAT and the record books will show us that over the next couple of years.
Ann
Hall of Fame
Another one to put on ignore for sheer nuttiness.
Eventually I will like this board again.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Are you comparing the 2nd greatest player of all time and KOC to Thiem and Zverev? LMAO.
Always the same. Just more H2h drivel to cover up the fact that Nadal is inferior to Federer on grass and HC as proven by their winning %, titles, and slams on both surfaces.
Federer:
HC - 83.6%with 70 titles and 11 Slam titles
Nadal:
HC - 77.4%with 19 titles and 4 Slam titles
Federer:
Grass - 87.1% with 19 titles and 8 Slam titles
Nadal:
Grass - 77.6% with 4 titles and 2 Slam titles
The records books may show us that eventually, but it won't be Nadal unless he starts winning Wimbledons and AO that he hasn't won in nearly a decade. Also WTF
that he has never won at all ever. Zilch. Wait, almost forgot weeks at #1
Last edited:
Grampa
Semi-Pro
I guess you hold the 2-1 Djokodal h2h in high esteem as if it’s any indication of who will win on the surface. Nadal rarely makes it to Fedovic but they always get there regardless of form. But that argument has been beaten to death. You guys are just recycling old arguments now, better hope that Nadal doesn’t end up third in this era.
To answer your question more objectively:
(open era)
0 men have more total slams than federer
0 men have more hard court slams than federer
0 men have more grass slams
6 or so? men have more clay slams
0 men have more WTF's
2 men have more master 1000 and they are both tier 1 ATG's
1 man has more YE no 1 (sampras)
0 men have more weeks no 1
1 more man has more ATP titles
GOAT resume much?
now do the same for Rafa. Also note how the other men above Fed are basically only tier 1 ATG's. Do above list with Nadal and it isn't just tier 1 ATG's above Nadal
if anyone breaks these records of fed then at worse 1 man will be above federer... e.g. 1 man will have more HC slams (Djokovic) and all will be ATG's
Players that won 1 or more slams on clay: 29
Players that won 6 or more slams outside clay: 9
Guess who is in the more exclusive category among the Big3
LMAO another nail in the coffin for DJokovic, the eternal third wheel behind Federer and Nadal. Yet another way Nadal is better than Djokovic. It's Big 2 + sideshows Djokovic and Murray
Similar threads
- Deleted member 762343
- General Pro Player Discussion
- Poll
