Can Nadal complete 16 slams or more?

What it be folks

  • It could very well happen, time will tell

    Votes: 89 54.3%
  • Ain't going to happen, every year I claim his career is over

    Votes: 75 45.7%

  • Total voters
    164
  • Poll closed .

abmk

Bionic Poster
OK, read closely (and slowly)...

21 total meetings between Nadal and Federer.

Nadal has won 10 of the 21 meetings on clay (less than 50%).

Federer who is supposedly stronger on HC and grass had the opportunity to win the other 11 (2 on clay which he won and 9 on non-clay), making their H2H 11-10.

He couldn't win their 9 non-clay meetings.

Federer will never be GOAT as he can't even dominate his own generation.

The End.

:-D

read this carefully, you are delusional to think federer should've won all of their non-clay meetings when rafa himself couldn't win all of their clay meetings

you are delusional enough to think that fed fans/fanatics think he should've won all of their non-clay meetings

you are delusional enough to think nadal didn't even benefit a bit from the majority of their matches being on clay.

That's the case with many *******s like you anyways
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
what some don't realise is that when they mention the H2H time and again, they're double counting, most of their slam meetings were in the finals and federer's losses in those matches already cut into his slam tally ( he'd have been favoured to win had there been anyone else across the net in most of those slams )
 
Would you cut out all of this crap. Nadal never met Roger one freaking time during the summer(US Open series). That's how huge it is. Roger did him a huge favor by showing up in the final during the clay season but Rafa never once did Roger a favor(6 times Roger was waiting at the USO finals).

But now it's too late b/c Roger has his prime. This is pretty similar to Sampras avoiding so many clay courter in the 90s to prevent a bad h2h.

33jh7vm.gif
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
OK, read closely (and slowly)...

21 total meetings between Nadal and Federer.

Nadal has won 10 of the 21 meetings on clay (less than 50%).

Federer who is supposedly stronger on HC and grass had the opportunity to win the other 11 (2 on clay which he won and 9 on non-clay), making their H2H 11-10.

He couldn't win their 9 non-clay meetings.

Federer will never be GOAT as he can't even dominate his own generation.

The End.

:-D

Nadal has dominated the generation to a much smaller degree than Federer. He must REALLY suck then. :(
 

cueboyzn

Professional
If Nadal wins on sunday, he will be setting a very strong trend suggeting that he very well may be able to lock down at least 2 slams a year.

Nadal would only need to win 2 slams a year for 4 years to match Roger.

We have to consider that ;
1) Every time people say it is over for Rafa, he comes back better and badder.
2) Nadal still has room for improvement, very scary thought, and continues to do so
3) Consider Aggasi who played many years with severly F'ed up back, I believe that Nadal will play until he dies and that is the only force that can stop him
4) Nadal could skip all hard court games and play for a very long time on the natural surfaces where he dominates


Every time people say it's over for Roger, he comes back and wins more slams. Don't be surprised when he retires with 18, 19 or 20 slams.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
So poor Roger is supposably past his prime at only 26 (since heaven forbid he was in his prime when Nadal began dominating in 2008 ) yet Nadal was in his prime and should have been starting to make the U.S Open final every year at age 17 beginning in 2003. Nice one.

Nadal began beating Federer on hard courts at 17, and posted multiple wins in relatively # of matches over Federer on hard courts from ages 17-19. If Federer were as tough an opponent for Nadal as Nadal is for Federer he should likewise be able to hold his own and post some wins over Nadal on clay at ages 28 and 29.

Continue to spin things the way you want but fact is Federer is Nadal's little lapdog and always has been.



Yet *******s like to argue Nadal's prime began in 2005 at 18 (which is actually ridiculous but still their vantage point). So by that logic Nadal's prime is already twice or three times as long as Roger's.

Anyway I thought prime Federer's excuse for getting owned by a much younger Nadal and dropping to 1-6 early (including 1-2 on hard courts) was that Nadal matured much earlier than Federer so was already in his prime along with Federer. And wasnt the reason the achievements by age comparision was ruled invalid was Nadal matured much earlier, yet now you are comparing them directly by their ages. Interesting change of course.

Nadal in 2005 won 11 titles at the age of 19 and never came close to doing it again. So you can't say Nadal wasn't a force during that time. How many titles Roger won in 2001(age 19) beside having a big win over Sampras at SW19? If you have been watching Roger throughout his career, Roger was at his best in 2005/06, or around 24/25 years old. Anyone who say he's still in his prime today has no clue. As far as Rafa today, he's at his prime at the age of 24. He's not going to be playing his peak level when he's nearly 29. History is not on his side.

You're really hard on Roger and it's no surprise b/c you hate the guy. Sampras at 28/29 years old got own by young players too. Lendl 8 straight USO final streak was snapped by Sampras. Let's wait til Rafa reach this age, I guarantee you the young players will have many wins over him too.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I hope Federer can start getting far enough to play Nadal again so Nadal can lead Federer in head to head on hard courts and be atleast tied with him on grass. It is up to Federer to make that happen though. :)

Again, it's too late. Roger is nearly 5 years older than him. Nadal wasn't there in the final at the US Open Series for Roger to improve the h2h. Now you want a past prime Fed to improve h2h agains Rafa at his ideal age for tennis? Get real.

Keep in mind Roger also won 4 Master Cup, where Rafa was good enough to only met Roger one time. Guess who won that match?
 

dmt

Hall of Fame
Again, it's too late. Roger is nearly 5 years older than him. Nadal wasn't there in the final at the US Open Series for Roger to improve the h2h. Now you want a past prime Fed to improve h2h agains Rafa at his ideal age for tennis? Get real.

Keep in mind Roger also won 4 Master Cup, where Rafa was good enough to only met Roger one time. Guess who won that match?

actually they played twice at the masters cup
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Serena still leads Dementieva head to head. That is all that matters. Furthermore Dementieva is still slamless which makes her basically an irrelevance.

Only slam winners count for h2h comparison?

Classic double standard by Davey.
 

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
Well we can take away the if, now since Nadal won today and now has 8 slams at age 24.

We will have to wait and see if Nadal can relisticly continue in this trend.
 

davey25

Banned
Again, it's too late. Roger is nearly 5 years older than him. Nadal wasn't there in the final at the US Open Series for Roger to improve the h2h. Now you want a past prime Fed to improve h2h agains Rafa at his ideal age for tennis? Get real.

If you want to seriously argue that Nadal's win over Roger in the future dont count then all of Roger's wins before 2008 over Nadal dont count either as that was clearly "pre prime" Nadal like it or not. In which case Roger has no wins over Roger on hard courts and grass and Nadal leads those surfaces 4-0. Nice try. Any future wins over Roger count for Nadal since Roger benefited from playing a teenaged Nadal while still in his own prime (not that this even helped him that much as he still quickly went down in head to head). End of.

And who cares about Roger's "prime" when you basically admited he had only a 2 year prime and are claming Nadal has already had a 5 or 6 year one.
 
Last edited:

davey25

Banned
Nadal in 2005 won 11 titles at the age of 19 and never came close to doing it again. So you can't say Nadal wasn't a force during that time. How many titles Roger won in 2001(age 19) beside having a big win over Sampras at SW19? If you have been watching Roger throughout his career, Roger was at his best in 2005/06, or around 24/25 years old. Anyone who say he's still in his prime today has no clue. As far as Rafa today, he's at his prime at the age of 24. He's not going to be playing his peak level when he's nearly 29. History is not on his side.

You're really hard on Roger and it's no surprise b/c you hate the guy. Sampras at 28/29 years old got own by young players too. Lendl 8 straight USO final streak was snapped by Sampras. Let's wait til Rafa reach this age, I guarantee you the young players will have many wins over him too.

I agree Roger isnt in his prime today. I do think it could be easily argued he was still in his prime in 2008 and 2009 though. You dont win 3 out of 4 slams as Roger did from 2009-early 2010 by being "past your prime" that is unless you are admiting the only reason Roger won that many at that point was Nadal's injuries in mid 2009 (in which case you would have a real point). In 2008 he played great tennis and was denied winning 3 of 4 slams by a healthy and on fire Nadal who was just starting his prime yers as a player.

And if you think 2005 or 2006 was prime Nadal you have even less clue. Nadal was owned by guys like Blake, Berdych, Youzhny, these years. Berdych as we saw again today is playing his best tennis EVER and still cant make a dent on Nadal on any surface these days. Nadal's slam results in 2005 were 4th round of Australia, 2nd round at Wimbledon where he lost to Gilles Muller, and 3rd round of the U.S Open. And you are trying to argue this was prime Nadal. Truly insane. As for the 11 titles, well just goes to show what a crap group the Federer contemporary era was that they allowed an 18 and 19 year old boy who couldnt even make a slam quarterfinal anywhere but clay and who was owned then by every flat ball hitter to win that many tournaments. The same group that allowed grandpa Agassi to win so many slams, Masters, and make so many slam finals. Truly a joke group as many of us said all along.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If you want to seriously argue that Nadal's win over Roger in the future dont count then all of Roger's wins before 2008 over Nadal dont count either as that was clearly "pre prime" Nadal like it or not. In which case Roger has no wins over Roger on hard courts and grass and Nadal leads those surfaces 4-0. Nice try. Any future wins over Roger count for Nadal since Roger benefited from playing a teenaged Nadal while still in his own prime (not that this even helped him that much as he still quickly went down in head to head). End of.

And who cares about Roger's "prime" when you basically admited he had only a 2 year prime and are claming Nadal has already had a 5 or 6 year one.

Nadal at 19 in 2005 won 11 titles, including a slam and 4 MS. That is as dominant as you can get. If not for Roger, he's undispute #1 in 2005. Stop making sound like Rafa was trash during 2005 b/c he never won 11 titles in a year again. My point still stand...Roger past his prime. From now on it's prime rafa vs. past prime roger. It's not their fault they are almost 5 years apart. And of course it's not Roger's fault when Nadal doesn't do well at the US Open Series(when he was winning slam and a clear #2).
 

davey25

Banned
Nadal at 19 in 2005 won 11 titles, including a slam and 4 MS. That is as dominant as you can get. If not for Roger, he's undispute #1 in 2005. Stop making sound like Rafa was trash during 2005 b/c he never won 11 titles in a year again. My point still stand...Roger past his prime. From now on it's prime rafa vs. past prime roger. It's not their fault they are almost 5 years apart. And of course it's not Roger's fault when Nadal doesn't do well at the US Open Series(when he was winning slam and a clear #2).

2005 or 2006 was not prime Nadal and to argue so is ********. You can argue all you want but there is no way you are going to be able to convince anyone 2005 was already a prime Nadal. I did not say Nadal was thrash in 2005, Federer isnt thrash now eithr otherwise he wouldnt have won a slam this year. So if Nadal's wins over Roger in the future dont count, then none of Roger's wins over Nadal before 2008 count. And even if we discounted all of Roger's wins over Nadal in just 2005 and 2006 (despite that even in 2007 he had yet to make his first hard court slam semis) it would still now leave Nadal with a 4-2 head to head lead over Federer on non clay surfaces now. If Nadal's wins from here are discounted because of a "post prime" Federer then Federer sure as heck doesnt get credit for any wins over the Nadal that was owned by Berdych, Blake, Youzhny and made only 1 slam quarterfinal on hard courts.

So a baby Nadal would have been undisputed #1 in 2005 even with a 6-3 record in the other 3 slams outside the French had Federer not existed? All you do is continue to prove what a joke group Federer's contemporaries were anyway, hence why so many of us said what easy competition he had during his dominance.
 

Blinkism

Legend
I'd love it if Nadal does win 16 or more slams, but the that would be crazy.

The fact that he's won 8 slams, already, is so far beyond what I expected him to do in his career when I just first saw him all those years ago.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
2005 or 2006 was not prime Nadal and to argue so is ********. You can argue all you want but there is no way you are going to be able to convince anyone 2005 was already a prime Nadal. I did not say Nadal was thrash in 2005, Federer isnt thrash now eithr otherwise he wouldnt have won a slam this year. So if Nadal's wins over Roger in the future dont count, then none of Roger's wins over Nadal before 2008 count. And even if we discounted all of Roger's wins over Nadal in just 2005 and 2006 (despite that even in 2007 he had yet to make his first hard court slam semis) it would still now leave Nadal with a 4-2 head to head lead over Federer on non clay surfaces now. If Nadal's wins from here are discounted because of a "post prime" Federer then Federer sure as heck doesnt get credit for any wins over the Nadal that was owned by Berdych, Blake, Youzhny and made only 1 slam quarterfinal on hard courts.

So a baby Nadal would have been undisputed #1 in 2005 even with a 6-3 record in the other 3 slams outside the French had Federer not existed? All you do is continue to prove what a joke group Federer's contemporaries were anyway, hence why so many of us said what easy competition he had during his dominance.

I'm not arguing with you anymore. It's pretty clear their H2H doesn't paint a clear picture b/c:

1. They are nearly 5 years apart
2. Their best/worst surface are the opposite.
3. Their meetings were not equally balance across all 3 surfaces
4. Roger's best years are over and now it's Rafa's time
5. Besides past his prime Roger lost motivation b/c he's got nothing more to prove
6. If having better H2H prove to be a better player, then nadal should have won more slams since 2005.

An accurate h2h comparison would be like Fed vs. Roddick. They both are nearly the same age, peak the same time, and most importantly, their best/worst surface are identical. Roger has the edge in H2H, but he's also way ahead in slam count.
Make sense to you now???
 

robin7

Hall of Fame
Why not?

3AO (2 more) - possibly
8FO (3 more) - very likely
4WC (2 more) - very likely
1USO (at least 1) - possibly

:shock:That gives 16 GS!
 

statto

Professional
When I first joined this board I posted that I thought Nadal could end up on 12-14 slams, and was roundly mocked for it.

Less than a year later and most people would probably admit that 12 is very doable. That speaks volumes about Nadal's performances over the past 4 months.

EDIT: Just checked and it was actually just 12, not 12-14 (2 more AO, 3 more RG, 3 more W, 0 USO). Two down, six to go. :)
 
Last edited:

davey25

Banned
I'm not arguing with you anymore. It's pretty clear their H2H doesn't paint a clear picture b/c:

1. They are nearly 5 years apart
2. Their best/worst surface are the opposite.
3. Their meetings were not equally balance across all 3 surfaces
4. Roger's best years are over and now it's Rafa's time
5. Besides past his prime Roger lost motivation b/c he's got nothing more to prove
6. If having better H2H prove to be a better player, then nadal should have won more slams since 2005.

An accurate h2h comparison would be like Fed vs. Roddick. They both are nearly the same age, peak the same time, and most importantly, their best/worst surface are identical. Roger has the edge in H2H, but he's also way ahead in slam count.
Make sense to you now???

1. They are nearly 5 years apart Up to now this made things harder on Nadal, not Federer. Nadal was SEVENTEEN years old when he first played Federer starting his dominance and prime years. Their final non clay meeting to date was when Nadal was still 22 and Federer 27. Yet despite this Nadal still managed to completely own Federer on clay over many meetings yet be 4-5 on non clay surfaces, and 3-3 on hard courts which is Federer's best surface and Nadal's worst- and those even include 2 Nadal losses indoors which is a non slam surface that Nadal really struggles on.

2. Their best/worst surface are the opposite. This is true. And this is the point. Nadal owned Federer on his surface right from when he was 18 years old, while prime Federer could never own even a teenaged Nadal on his.

3. Their meetings were not equally balance across all 3 surfaces

Since Nadal wins almost every clay court meeting, and has won about half the non clay meetings, Nadal would still have a clear head to head edge even if only a third of the matches were on clay.

4. Roger's best years are over and now it's Rafa's time

That logic could be applied to 2004-2007. It was not Rafa's best years yet and it was Roger's time. It didnt stop Rafa from shutting Federer out of any big clay court titles, and beating him on other surfaces too.

5. Besides past his prime Roger lost motivation b/c he's got nothing more to prove

Yes, but this explains nothing to any of their past meetings other than one additional clay meeting this year.

6. If having better H2H prove to be a better player, then nadal should have won more slams since 2005.

Nadal was 18 years old at the start of 2005. What did Federer win between ages 18-21? Nadal has won more slams since turning he turned 22 in during the 2008 French than Federer too. In fact between the time of Nadal turning 21 and before Federer even turned 27 Nadal won 3 slams to Federer's 2 and far more tournaments overall if you want to do it that way as well.
 

Aykhan Mammadov

Hall of Fame
If Nadal wins on sunday, he will be setting a very strong trend suggeting that he very well may be able to lock down at least 2 slams a year.

Nadal would only need to win 2 slams a year for 4 years to match Roger.

We have to consider that ;
1) Every time people say it is over for Rafa, he comes back better and badder.
2) Nadal still has room for improvement, very scary thought, and continues to do so
3) Consider Aggasi who played many years with severly F'ed up back, I believe that Nadal will play until he dies and that is the only force that can stop him
4) Nadal could skip all hard court games and play for a very long time on the natural surfaces where he dominates

I think Federer will finish his career with 17 or 18 slams. By the way, if I'm not wrong Agassi whom u mentined here got just 8 slams for his long career. Nadal already has 8 slams, so that I think he will beat that possible record.
 

piece

Professional
Why is it always the h2h that would be used to decide the greater player if they have a similar number of slams? What about other records? I'm not saying h2h isn't important, especially when two players has same number of slams, but I can't think why it'd be more important than other records.

Would Nadal have more weeks at no1? Or more consecutive weeks? Or more YECs? Or 5 consecutive of any one slam (let alone two)? Or 3 slams in a year? Or Federer's crazy winning percentages in his best years? Or even just Federer-like domination? or win 24 straight finals? or not lose to a top 10 player for like a year and a half? or get 10 straight slam finals? or have the winning streak record on two of three surfaces? Surely these records put Federer on at least equal footing with Nadal even with equal GS titles.

Oh, and there's plenty more where that came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer
 
Last edited:

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
2005 or 2006 was not prime Nadal and to argue so is ********. You can argue all you want but there is no way you are going to be able to convince anyone 2005 was already a prime Nadal.

If Nadal wasn't in his prime in 2005 INSPITE of winning 1 slam and 11 titles Roger hasn't been in his prime after 2007.Deal with it.Anything to the contrary is "********" logic


So if Nadal's wins over Roger in the future dont count, then none of Roger's wins over Nadal before 2008 count.
Wrong.If Roger's wins over Nadal prior to 2008 don't count then NONE of
Nadal wins since 2008 count.That afterall is coincidently the year Roger was not only plagued by mono but his level in itself had seen a more significant drop than any other years.


And even if we discounted all of Roger's wins over Nadal in just 2005 and 2006 (despite that even in 2007 he had yet to make his first hard court slam semis) it would still now leave Nadal with a 4-2 head to head lead over Federer on non clay surfaces now.


If Nadal's wins from here are discounted because of a "post prime" Federer then Federer sure as heck doesnt get credit for any wins over the Nadal that was owned by Berdych, Blake, Youzhny and made only 1 slam quarterfinal on hard courts.

Like I said if Roger's wins since 2005 when Nadal was winning slams is discounted then Nadal wins since 2008(so what if Roger was winning slams?)
SHOULD be discounted as well.


So a baby Nadal would have been undisputed #1 in 2005 even with a 6-3 record in the other 3 slams outside the French had Federer not existed?
So what? You yourself said slam records and results are overrated.Nadal won 11 titles.
All you do is continue to prove what a joke group Federer's contemporaries were anyway, hence why so many of us said what easy competition he had during his dominance.

Ah..you just had to bring that crap in :lol:

Response in bolded parts.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
I rated this 1 star, because the poll choices are so damn stupid. Talk about a tunnel vision discussion

I rated it 5 stars to balance out your irrational 1-star rating :)

Don't take it so seriously... it's a freakin Internet poll :wink:
 

piece

Professional
2005 or 2006 was not prime Nadal and to argue so is ********. You can argue all you want but there is no way you are going to be able to convince anyone 2005 was already a prime Nadal. I did not say Nadal was thrash in 2005, Federer isnt thrash now eithr otherwise he wouldnt have won a slam this year. So if Nadal's wins over Roger in the future dont count, then none of Roger's wins over Nadal before 2008 count. And even if we discounted all of Roger's wins over Nadal in just 2005 and 2006 (despite that even in 2007 he had yet to make his first hard court slam semis) it would still now leave Nadal with a 4-2 head to head lead over Federer on non clay surfaces now. If Nadal's wins from here are discounted because of a "post prime" Federer then Federer sure as heck doesnt get credit for any wins over the Nadal that was owned by Berdych, Blake, Youzhny and made only 1 slam quarterfinal on hard courts.

So a baby Nadal would have been undisputed #1 in 2005 even with a 6-3 record in the other 3 slams outside the French had Federer not existed? All you do is continue to prove what a joke group Federer's contemporaries were anyway, hence why so many of us said what easy competition he had during his dominance.

Hahahahahahahahahahah....


ahahahahahahahah
 

powerangle

Legend
Why is it always the h2h that would be used to decide the greater player if they have a similar number of slams? What about other records? I'm not saying h2h isn't important, especially when two players has same number of slams, but I can't think why it'd be more important than other records.

Would Nadal have more weeks at no1? Or more consecutive weeks? Or more YECs? Or 5 consecutive of any one slam (let alone two)? Or 3 slams in a year? Or Federer's crazy winning percentages in his best years? Or even just Federer-like domination? or win 24 straight finals? or not lose to a top 10 player for like a year and a half? or get 10 straight slam finals? or have the winning streak record on two of three surfaces? Surely these records put Federer on at least equal footing with Nadal even with equal GS titles.

Oh, and there's plenty more where that came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer

I know right? For a lot of *******s, that's what they hang their hat on. The head-to-head argument, because that's the only thing they've got going for them right now. Nadal has all the potential in the world, but head-to-head is not the end-all-be-all. Other stats do exist, and Nadal will be considered more accomplished when he has achieved more than Federer. Nadal is on pace right now and that's it, and I'm a Nadal fan.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
1. They are nearly 5 years apart Up to now this made things harder on Nadal, not Federer. Nadal was SEVENTEEN years old when he first played Federer starting his dominance and prime years. Their final non clay meeting to date was when Nadal was still 22 and Federer 27. Yet despite this Nadal still managed to completely own Federer on clay over many meetings yet be 4-5 on non clay surfaces, and 3-3 on hard courts which is Federer's best surface and Nadal's worst- and those even include 2 Nadal losses indoors which is a non slam surface that Nadal really struggles on.


How did Nadal have it hard at all? Nadal was an early bloomer as you have been told numerous times.It's hardly surprising he was doing well at 17 (especially when there have been so many players who had their slams during
their teenage years.Early bloomers in other words.)
And what do you mean by "still 22"? Like I said the guy was already winning slams by that point.As player he matured much earlier than Roger did(at 21).
As for the "non-slam surface" stuff-you keep saying slams are overrated,slam counts are overrated and yet you bring this point up.Atleast be consistent with your..uhm...arguments.


2. Their best/worst surface are the opposite. This is true. And this is the point. Nadal owned Federer on his surface right from when he was 18 years old, while prime Federer could never own even a teenaged Nadal on his.
Well first of all there was NO ownage.Yeah Nadal got his won over Roger pretty early.So what?If anything this is just further proof of how poor a match-up Nadal is for Roger.Now no one is saying Nadal wouldn't get his wins on a prime Roger on HC.All they're saying is that so many wins on a surface where Roger has MINIMUM chances to beat Nadal hasn't gone well for Roger's confidence over other surfaces especially in the recent years.
Roger would still have better chances to level-up or bring close their H2H if they did not meet on clay so many times..



3. Their meetings were not equally balance across all 3 surfaces

Since Nadal wins almost every clay court meeting, and has won about half the non clay meetings, Nadal would still have a clear head to head edge even if only a third of the matches were on clay.

We might never know that.For one you could argue that NOT playing Nadal on clay all the time would've maybe been better for Roger in terms of his confidence.Nadal himself took a lot of confidence out of beating Roger on clay so often.

4. Roger's best years are over and now it's Rafa's time

That logic could be applied to 2004-2007. It was not Rafa's best years yet and it was Roger's time. It didnt stop Rafa from shutting Federer out of any big clay court titles, and beating him on other surfaces too.

Sure it could.

5. Besides past his prime Roger lost motivation b/c he's got nothing more to prove

Yes, but this explains nothing to any of their past meetings other than one additional clay meeting this year.

It probably dosen't.

6. If having better H2H prove to be a better player, then nadal should have won more slams since 2005.

Nadal was 18 years old at the start of 2005. What did Federer win between ages 18-21? Nadal has won more slams since turning he turned 22 in during the 2008 French than Federer too. In fact between the time of Nadal turning 21 and before Federer even turned 27 Nadal won 3 slams to Federer's 2 and far more tournaments overall if you want to do it that way as well.
It dosen't matter that Nadal was 18,he was an early bloomer.And it certainly matters NOT what Fed won during that period because he was not an early bloomer.We'll see what Nadal has to offer at 29.
Yes,sure 2008 was Nadal's best year in terms of slam results and Roger's "bad year" for his standards.Naturally Nadal won more slams and titles in that period and is doing so now.
Anyway,what does it matter?
.

response in bolded parts
 
Last edited:

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Hahahahahahahahahahah....


ahahahahahahahah

Davey manages to slide in that bit all the time dosen't he?Using that logic anybody who could win slams and titles in their teenage years did so thanks to weak competition :lol:

Seriously though-this just shows how insecure fans like davey are. :lol:
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
^^^
Thanks guys for bringing this thread back to Earth again after Davey have taken it to a "twilight zone". I know it's incredibly difficult to deal with him rationally.
 

davey25

Banned
People keep calling Nadal an "early bloomer". While on the surface that makes sense, especialy when said in the past, we are now seeing evidence he isnt as much an early bloomer as people said. What I mean by that is sure he was much better as a teenager than Roger and many others. On the other hand his prime years were not 2005 into his early 20s as people assumed. This is evidenced by the fact that his greatest achievements in tennis have come from 2008-today, especialy when healthy. He is winning hard court slams, he is winning grass court slams, he is even more brutally dominant on clay. In 2005 and 2006 he was producing weak results in all the slams outside the French and 1 Wimbledon. In 2007 he still couldnt even make a hard court slam semi yet. In hindsight it should be clear that was definitely not prime level Nadal yet. So while he was better at those ages than many, he still was at the disadvantage, the same way Roger will be at a disadvantage in any future meetings.

Seriously it is dumb to suggest this was prime Nadal all along:

Australian Open 2005-2007: 4th round, DNP, quarters
Wimbledon 2005-2007: 3rd round, finals, finals, but eked past atleast 3 different low ranking guys in 5 sets for the 2 finals
U.S Open 2005-2007: 3rd round, quarters, 4th round

Not to mention Blake, Youzhny, and Berdych had a combined 8-3 record over Nadal before the 2007 clay court season began, with all matches taking place in 2005 or later. This would never happen to prime Nadal, as we see this year Berdych is playing the tennis of his life and still cant buy a set off Nadal.
 
Last edited:

TheLoneWolf

Banned
People keep calling Nadal an "early bloomer". While on the surface that makes sense, especialy when said in the past, we are now seeing evidence he isnt as much an early bloomer as people said. What I mean by that is sure he was much better as a teenager than Roger and many others. On the other hand his prime years were not 2005 into his early 20s as people assumed. This is evidenced by the fact that his greatest achievements in tennis have come from 2008-today, especialy when healthy. He is winning hard court slams, he is winning grass court slams, he is even more brutally dominant on clay. In 2005 and 2006 he was producing weak results in all the slams outside the French and 1 Wimbledon. In 2007 he still couldnt even make a hard court slam semi yet. In hindsight it should be clear that was definitely not prime level Nadal yet. So while he was better at those ages than many, he still was at the disadvantage, the same way Roger will be at a disadvantage in any future meetings.

Seriously it is dumb to suggest this was prime Nadal all along:

Australian Open 2005-2007: 4th round, DNP, quarters
Wimbledon 2005-2007: 3rd round, finals, finals, but eked past atleast 3 different low ranking guys in 5 sets for the 2 finals
U.S Open 2005-2007: 3rd round, quarters, 4th round

Not to mention Blake, Youzhny, and Berdych had a combined 8-3 record over Nadal before the 2007 clay court season began, with all matches taking place in 2005 or later. This would never happen to prime Nadal, as we see this year Berdych is playing the tennis of his life and still cant buy a set off Nadal.
I've thought about that before, and that's the way it would seem, yes.

I think it all comes down to Nadal's incredible work ethic, and to the training of Uncle Toni. Nadal is like a beast that continues evolving and becoming better and better.

The only question is whether injuries can be managed, or they will be a trouble that will keep him from achieving even more impressive goals.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
People keep calling Nadal an "early bloomer". While on the surface that makes sense, especialy when said in the past, we are now seeing evidence he isnt as much an early bloomer as people said.
Nadal IS an early bloomer.He's still only 24-you could say this is his peak but on clay as well as grass I'd say he's done better before than he did this time inspite of winning everything.

What I mean by that is sure he was much better as a teenager than Roger and many others.
On the other hand his prime years were not 2005 into his early 20s as people assumed.This is evidenced by the fact that his greatest achievements in tennis have come from 2008-today, especialy when healthy.
Yes,you could say that just as you could say that Roger's greatest achievements came from 2004-2007.

He is winning hard court slams,
He got one slam in his one final.Yes.
he is winning grass court slams, he is even more brutally dominant on clay.
Yeah he won two grass slams.Clay I disagree.I feel he did much better quality-wise in 2008.
In 2005 and 2006 he was producing weak results in all the slams outside the French and 1 Wimbledon.
You yourself said slam results are overrated.He got 11 titles in 2005.
In 2007 he still couldnt even make a hard court slam semi yet. In hindsight it should be clear that was definitely not prime level Nadal yet.
LOL funny how won't give the same benefit of doubt to Roger against Kuerten on clay :lol: So while he was better at those ages than many, he still was at the disadvantage, the same way Roger will be at a disadvantage in any future meetings.
Using your logic Roger has been at a disadvantage since 2008.

response in bolded parts.
 
Last edited:

robin7

Hall of Fame
Assuming x & y are the # of GS to be won by Rafa & Roger respectively in the next 4 years (2011 to 2014). By that time Rafa & Roger will be 28 & 33 respectively.

To overtake Roger in GS count, Rafa needs to win 2 GS more than Roger each year.

8+x > 16+y
x-y > 8
1/4 (x-y) > 2

Meaning if Roger wins 1, Rafa has to win 3 each year etc.

Having said that, I don't think Roger will win any GS 2012 onwards while Rafa has a few more years left to win a couple more (of course barring from any injuries).
 
Last edited:

Bud

Bionic Poster
Primes

People keep calling Nadal an "early bloomer". While on the surface that makes sense, especialy when said in the past, we are now seeing evidence he isnt as much an early bloomer as people said. What I mean by that is sure he was much better as a teenager than Roger and many others. On the other hand his prime years were not 2005 into his early 20s as people assumed. This is evidenced by the fact that his greatest achievements in tennis have come from 2008-today, especialy when healthy. He is winning hard court slams, he is winning grass court slams, he is even more brutally dominant on clay. In 2005 and 2006 he was producing weak results in all the slams outside the French and 1 Wimbledon. In 2007 he still couldnt even make a hard court slam semi yet. In hindsight it should be clear that was definitely not prime level Nadal yet. So while he was better at those ages than many, he still was at the disadvantage, the same way Roger will be at a disadvantage in any future meetings.

Seriously it is dumb to suggest this was prime Nadal all along:

I agree.

I think Nadal will go through a number of 'primes' in his career. He changes and evolves (see 2005, 2008, 2010), constantly staying ahead of those who seem to figure out his 'current' playing style.

In 2010, he improved what needed improvement and recognized he needed to amend his playing schedule to ease the stress on his knees. He also lost some weight to benefit the knees, as well. Now once again, 2010 is shaping up to be a stellar year... like 08 and 05.

However, when all seems right and Rafa gains momentum once again, something happens to set him back. He then adapts, retrains and comes back stronger during the next iteration.

IMO, this is a whole new class of player that nobody has witnessed up to this point (without sounding too dramatic). I'm really curious to see if this 'treatment' on his right knee removes all the pain as it did in his left knee. If so, it appears the sky's the limit for Rafa.

Rafa has already won 3 big tournaments on DecoTurf (2x Canada Masters and the Olympic GM in Shanghai)... He's made the SF 2x in a row at the USO and was also a finalist on the DecoTurf at Shanghai in 09 (at his low point). So, the USO is absolutely attainable for him. IMO, once he breaks through there, after a huge break post-Wimby... he'll win a number of US Open titles.
 

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
I agree.

I think Nadal will go through a number of 'primes' in his career. He changes and evolves (see 2005, 2008, 2010), constantly staying ahead of those who seem to figure out his 'current' playing style.

In 2010, he improved what needed improvement and recognized he needed to amend his playing schedule to ease the stress on his knees. He also lost some weight to benefit the knees, as well. Now once again, 2010 is shaping up to be a stellar year... like 08 and 05.

However, when all seems right and Rafa gains momentum once again, something happens to set him back. He then adapts, retrains and comes back stronger during the next iteration.

IMO, this is a whole new class of player that nobody has witnessed up to this point (without sounding too dramatic). I'm really curious to see if this 'treatment' on his right knee removes all the pain as it did in his left knee. If so, it appears the sky's the limit for Rafa.

Rafa has already won 3 big tournaments on DecoTurf (2x Canada Masters and the Olympic GM in Shanghai)... He's made the SF 2x in a row at the USO and was also a finalist on the DecoTurf at Shanghai in 09 (at his low point). So, the USO is absolutely attainable for him. IMO, once he breaks through there, after a huge break post-Wimby... he'll win a number of US Open titles.


I don't know about a number. There are roughly six guys who I would favour on US Open hard courts

Del Potro
Murray
Soderling
Djokovic
Davydenko
Federer if he can find his form

Nadal has had an awesome 3 months but you're forgetting he was losing to guys like Roddick and Ljubicic on slow hard court earlier in the year.
 

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
You yourself said slam results are overrated.He got 11 titles in 2005.
Of which 6 were less-than-MS tournaments, many of which he doesn't even play anymore.

Slams+MS+WTF results (winner/runner-up):

2005: 1/1 Slam 4/5 MS
2006: 1/2 Slam 2/2 MS
2007: 1/2 Slam 3/5 MS
2008: 2/2 Slams 3/4 MS
2009: 1/1 Slam 3/5 MS
2010 YTD: 2/2 Slams 3/3 MS

I think Nadal will go through a number of 'primes' in his career. [...] IMO, this is a whole new class of player that nobody has witnessed up to this point (without sounding too dramatic).

It sounds a bit like Lendl.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
People should stop minimize Nadal's playing level in 2005 just b/c he's 19 years old. Most players don't reach high level at 19 but only a few exception. Like Borg or Seles, he's an early bloomer, and plus, he join the ATP tour at 15, so it's not like he's a rookie in 2005. Besides the 11 titles, it was the only year he won 4 MS. Not to mention he skipped the Master Cup. Nadal's results was good enough to end the year #1 most likey in any year, but since Roger was so dominant he had to settle #2. If you go back and look at the year when Roddick, Hewitt and Agassi end the year #1, can you dare to say Rafa's #2 in 2005 was less stellar than him? No way!
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Of which 6 were less-than-MS tournaments, many of which he doesn't even play anymore.Slams+MS+WTF results (winner/runner-up):

2005: 1/1 Slam 4/5 MS

.
Dosen't matter.Looking at the MS-slam combo that's still an excellent year.4 out 5 MS and losing one final in five sets to Roger-all sounds very good.
 

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
It does. I just was trying to provide a more comparable statistic across years since he did win a bunch of mickey mouse clay events that year as well.

IMO the difference between the results of 2005 Rafa and 2007 Rafa (two relatively injury-free years) was due to scheduling and better competition at the top due to the rise of Novak Djokovic (although Ljubo was mighty in 2005 too, Novak was a better competitor).
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
It does. I just was trying to provide a more comparable statistic across years since he did win a bunch of mickey mouse clay events that year as well.

Even if he try to win 11 titles in a year it's not a certain that he can do it today. The fact remain is both Roger and Rafa won 11 titles in 2005 and an undispute #1 and #2 respectively.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
I have doubts that Nadal can maintain his fitness long enough to do it. His game is much more physically demanding on his body than most.
 

Praetorian

Professional
Anyone here with so much certainty that they'll be their house? I'm not, but anything can happen.

Hell, for all we know, some Junior may come out next to convert he *******s to bandwagontard when he comes along.
 

samboy01

Banned
16 slams...

What if Nadal ends with more master series titles, more overall titles, a very convincing head-to-head lead against Federer and wins 14 slams including the calendar grandslam next year, would he be GOAT? I'd say yes.
 

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
16 slams...

What if Nadal ends with more master series titles, more overall titles, a very convincing head-to-head lead against Federer and wins 14 slams including the calendar grandslam next year, would he be GOAT? I'd say yes.

Possibly but is that assuming Federer remains at 16? Also, if his 14 slams contain 10 French Opens that does not do him any favours. Federer's grand slams are evenly dispursed aside from the FO where he would likely have 5 of those had it not been for Nadal. Rog has 6 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens and 4 Aussie Opens which is pretty diversified. The majority of Nadal's slams on the other hand have come from 1 tournament.
 
Top