How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...

RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
The Dark Knight said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :rolleyes:
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Prisoner of Birth said:
31 year-old Federer is world #1 "with today's competition." :lol:
Click to expand...

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... :roll:
 
Evan77

Evan77

Banned
merlinpinpin said:
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... :roll:
Click to expand...
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

The Dark Knight

Legend
RF20Lennon said:
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 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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

The Dark Knight

Legend
merlinpinpin said:
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... :roll:
Click to expand...

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

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
The Dark Knight said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

The Dark Knight

Legend
Prisoner of Birth said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
The Dark Knight said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :lol: 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?
 
Last edited:
V

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
The Dark Knight said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fed...avoid Nadal. Really? Back to the comparo that I asked. Where was Rafa when Fed won against Hewitt, Safin, and other supposedly weak players? Oh, I remember. Rafa skipped here, skipped there, injured here, injured there, still wore development diapers. Who was avoiding who?
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
The Dark Knight said:
He has always lost to Nadal....even when Nadal was a young developing player at 18 years old.
Click to expand...

You should tray and learn:
- what "always" means
- what the results of tennis matches are

So, to recap, Nadal *has* always lost to Rosol, but Federer is far from having always lost to Nadal.
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
VPhuc tennis fan said:
Fed...avoid Nadal. Really? Back to the comparo that I asked. Where was Rafa when Fed won against Hewitt, Safin, and other supposedly weak players? Oh, I remember. Rafa skipped here, skipped there, injured here, injured there, still wore development diapers. Who was avoiding who?
Click to expand...

He avoided having to play Rafa for one reason or another through no fault of his own.

But the facts are the facts . He simply has been dominated by Rafa and his 17 slams came mainly by not having to deal with Rafa for one reason or another.

If you just want to add up the slams and declare that Fed is the goat then you are absolutely right.

However for me it's a far more complicated issue than simply adding up the numbers in a robotic fashion.

I just cannot logically call someone the greatest player that ever lived when he keeps losing to someone . It just defys logic .
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
merlinpinpin said:
You should tray and learn:
- what "always" means
- what the results of tennis matches are

So, to recap, Nadal *has* always lost to Rosol, but Federer is far from having always lost to Nadal.
Click to expand...

Nadal beat Federer in their very first meeting on a hardcourt . So yes Nadal has been beating Federer since their very first meeting ....for Nadals entire career he has always Dominated Federer. Yet somehow Federer is better than Nadal? How does that make sense?
 
Last edited:
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
The Dark Knight said:
He avoided having to play Rafa for one reason or another through no fault of his own.

But the facts are the facts . He simply has been dominated by Rafa and his 17 slams came mainly by not having to deal with Rafa for one reason or another.

If you just want to add up the slams and declare that Fed is the goat then you are absolutely right.

However for me it's a far more complicated issue than simply adding up the numbers in a robotic fashion.

I just cannot logically call someone the greatest player that ever lived when he keeps losing to someone . It just defys(sic) logic .
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure you do :)
 
P

Prisoner of Birth

Banned
The Dark Knight said:
Nadal beat Federer in their very first meeting on a hardcourt . So yes Nadal has been beating Nadal since their very first meeting ....for Nadals entire career he has always Dominated Federer. Yet somehow Federer is better than Nadal? How does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, right. When that "first meeting" happens, let me know.
 
V

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
merlinpinpin said:
You should tray and learn:
- what "always" means
- what the results of tennis matches are

So, to recap, Nadal *has* always lost to Rosol, but Federer is far from having always lost to Nadal.
Click to expand...

Nah. Always = clay, clay clay clay ... to the infinity. Results= RG preferably. In no case, WTF or HC or grass. Too biaised,no?
 
M

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
The Dark Knight said:
Nadal beat Federer in their very first meeting on a hardcourt . So yes Nadal has been beating Federer since their very first meeting ....for Nadals entire career he has always Dominated Federer. Yet somehow Federer is better than Nadal? How does that make sense?
Click to expand...

It does when you understand how professional tennis works.
 
V

VPhuc tennis fan

Professional
The Dark Knight said:
He avoided having to play Rafa for one reason or another through no fault of his own.

But the facts are the facts . He simply has been dominated by Rafa and his 17 slams came mainly by not having to deal with Rafa for one reason or another.

If you just want to add up the slams and declare that Fed is the goat then you are absolutely right.

However for me it's a far more complicated issue than simply adding up the numbers in a robotic fashion.

I just cannot logically call someone the greatest player that ever lived when he keeps losing to someone . It just defys logic .
Click to expand...

He ( Fed) avoided... No, he didn't. He was in these GS finals.Where was Rafa? Funny how you understand the meaning of "avoid". FYI, it was RAfa. DO NOT twist things around to sui your purposes.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
Nadal is rapidly approaching GOAT candidacy. (If hes not considered that already)

11 slams
Career Grand Slam
#1 in the world
Has owned another GOAT candidate his whole career
positive h2h with his main rivals
Already hands down GOAT on clay


Hes just missing a YEC and perhaps a bit of a longer stint at #1

But hes accomplished everything there is just about and did so before he was 26-27 years old.. Thats enough for GOAT consideration. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless. The guy has a GOAT-like Resume

If people consider someone like Borg a GOAT candidate for instance, how the hell can't you consider Nadal? Nadal has already surprised Borg IMO. He's just trailing behind a few other guys like Laver, Pancho, Tilden, Rosewall, Fed, and Sampras. All GOAT candidates themselves. But one of those (Federer) he has owned his whole career

If Nadal can just get maybe 2 more slams (preferably off of clay) his GOAT candidacy should be universal
 
Last edited:
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
Prisoner of Birth said:
Yep, Federer has made 24 Grand Slam finals and he's so talented that he planned his finals so he wouldn't have to face Nadal there :)
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's through no fault of his own.

He is clearly a goat and would win slams in any era and will continue to do so. In fact he was my pick to win Wimbledon.

But the only thing you guys hang your hat on is Feds 17 slams......like that should automatically make him the goat.

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe .

The answers has never been so cut and dry . Certainly 17 slams adds to Federers argument . It's a gigantic feat.......but I don't think that automatically means he is the goat.

The fact that Nadal dominates him is a huge problem for Federer. I'm sorry but you can't say he is the greatest player that has ever lived when in front of our eyes he is just utterly dominated .

We have never had a situation like this before. Laver , Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated their opponents.

But when the alleged greatest player that ever lived gets beaten on his favorite surface , gets beaten on his equally greatest surface ( hard) and loses 6-3,6-1,6-0 at the French and dominated like I believe four other times at the FO......it gets really difficult to say he is the greatest player that ever lived .

There is Nadal who beats the crap out of Federer in front of your eyes. How can you just ignore that???

Does Federer have the greatest record of all time : YES......but does that mean he is the greatest player that ever lived ? I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.
 
Last edited:
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
Just by analogy ..,,

Jankovic ,Azerenka ,Safina all ranked as the best players earth....#1 in the world . Their records were better than Serena.....but were they really better? No way Serena beat them an was the better player even though her record was worse.

I'll even go a step further.....I don't know the numbers but I think Grafs numbers were better than Serena's..... I personally think Serena is a better player. In fact ill go as far as saying that Serena Williams is the greatest female tennis player that ever lived
 
Cup8489

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
The Dark Knight said:
Of course not. It's through no fault of his own.

He is clearly a goat and would win slams in any era and will continue to do so. In fact he was my pick to win Wimbledon.

But the only thing you guys hang your hat on is Feds 17 slams......like that should automatically make him the goat.

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe .

The answers has never been so cut and dry . Certainly 17 slams adds to Federers argument . It's a gigantic feat.......but I don't think that automatically means he is the goat.

The fact that Nadal dominates him is a huge problem for Federer. I'm sorry but you can't say he is the greatest player that has ever lived when in front of our eyes he is just utterly dominated .

We have never had a situation like this before. Laver , Mcenroe, Lendl, Sampras all dominated their opponents.

But when the alleged greatest player that ever lived gets beaten on his favorite surface , gets beaten on his equally greatest surface ( hard) and loses 6-3,6-1,6-0 at the French and dominated like I believe four other times at the FO......it gets really difficult to say he is the greatest player that ever lived .

There is Nadal who beats the crap out of Federer in front of your eyes. How can you just ignore that???

Does Federer have the greatest record of all time : YES......but does that mean he is the greatest player that ever lived ? I say no.....and so do a heck of a lot of other people.
Click to expand...

Utterly dominated... must you continue to engage in hyperbole? Federer has won 10 matches of 28. That's not being utterly dominated. You're just exaggerating the effect it's had.. and it's not a correct way to make an argument. Federer has denied Nadal majors. That's not being dominated.. end of story.
 
J

jokinla

Hall of Fame
90's Clay said:
Nadal is rapidly approaching GOAT candidacy. (If hes not considered that already)

11 slams
Career Grand Slam
#1 in the world
Has owned another GOAT candidate his whole career
positive h2h with his main rivals
Already hands down GOAT on clay


Hes just missing a YEC and perhaps a bit of a longer stint at #1

But hes accomplished everything there is just about and did so before he was 26-27 years old.. Thats enough for GOAT consideration. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless. The guy has a GOAT-like Resume

If people consider someone like Borg a GOAT candidate for instance, how the hell can't you consider Nadal? Nadal has already surprised Borg IMO. He's just trailing behind a few other guys like Laver, Pancho, Tilden, Rosewall, Fed, and Sampras. All GOAT candidates themselves. But one of those (Federer) he has owned his whole career

If Nadal can just get maybe 2 more slams (preferably off of clay) his GOAT candidacy should be universal
Click to expand...

Radiohead has a great song, you'd probably like it, it's called "Nice Dream"
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
Cup8489 said:
Utterly dominated... must you continue to engage in hyperbole? Federer has won 10 matches of 28. That's not being utterly dominated. You're just exaggerating the effect it's had.. and it's not a correct way to make an argument. Federer has denied Nadal majors. That's not being dominated.. end of story.
Click to expand...

History only looks at slams.

How many tournaments did Noah win? All you remember is that he won the FO. No one remembers all history remembers is the slams. How many games during the season did the Yankees win? Who cares all that matters is the World Series .

Any matches during the regular season are just that matches to determine your ranking for the slams. It's no different that being in 1st place in the Anerican league and making the World Series.

Baseball has its World Series which consists of 7 games. Tennis has te slams which consists of four tournaments . The rest are all merely "regular season" matches to determine your ranking .

The only slams Fed was able to beat Nadal on were grass....and that's when he was still labeled a clay court specialist . You can't call him a clay court specialist and then be surprised he lost on grass.

In any event Nadal beat him on grass on hard and on clay.....that's domination in my book.
 
Last edited:
L

ledwix

Hall of Fame
The Dark Knight said:
History only looks at slams.

How many tournaments did Noah win? No one remembers all history remembers is the slams. How many games during the season did the Yankees win? Who cares all that matters is the World Series .
Click to expand...

It's never been about the number of slams. If it were them Emerson would be considered greater than Laver if it were then Borg would be considered greater than Mcenroe.
Click to expand...

Um, you just blatantly contradicted yourself. How could slam H2H, a smaller scope of the big picture, ever mean more than total accomplishment and performance in slams? That's like saying it doesn't matter how many WS the Yankees won, but it is all about who won the WS when the Yanks played the D'backs. Because the WS is all that matters and where all the glory is. So I guess the D'backs are a better team than the Yanks. Since they showed up in 1997 they "dominated" the Yanks in the World Series in '01.
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
ledwix said:
Um, you just blatantly contradicted yourself. How could slam H2H, a smaller scope of the big picture, ever mean more than total accomplishment and performance in slams? That's like saying it doesn't matter how many WS the Yankees won, but it is all about who won the WS when the Yanks played the D'backs. Because the WS is all that matters and where all the glory is. So I guess the D'backs are a better team than the Yanks. Since they showed up in 1997 they "dominated" the Yanks in the World Series in '01.
Click to expand...

Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?
 
Last edited:
P

Povl Carstensen

Legend
And it doesn't make you more right.
"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
The Dark Knight said:
Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?
Click to expand...

By analogy that's what happened in tennis...

Young Nadal beats Fed at wimby , then defends his title the next year and ten skips Wimbledon .

Federer then wins wimby beat Roddick yet again for the same old story.
Fed adds yet another slam in the records.

Sort of a hollow win if you ask me.
 
P

Povl Carstensen

Legend
With good reason. It was Federer who was (and is) nr one for almost 6 years. A far bigger blemish on Nadals record than a loosing head to head on clay on Federers.
 
L

ledwix

Hall of Fame
The Dark Knight said:
Not a good example.

A better example would be is that before the diamondbacks the Yankees won 5 WS in a row. Then the diamond backs a brand new team entered the major leagues and lost to the yankess in the regular season.

The diamond backs a rookie team actually make it to the World Series and barely lose.

The very next year after their rookie season they beats the yanks in the WS and continue to beat the Yanks for the next 5 years.

But then the diamond backs star pitcher gets injured and they don't make it to the series. The yanks end up beating the dodgers in the World Series that year.

So the yanks have more World Series .....but who is really the better team?
Click to expand...

Federer was world #1 five times, Nadal twice, and Djokovic soon to be twice as well. Slams between the two best players aren't the only criteria. That ignores consistency, something Nadal doesn't have at the top of the game. A slam final is not the WS. There are four of them plus other points to be had, including a neat summary of all data, called the ranking, which shows who was the best player overall for that season. Nadal has dominated two tennis seasons, Federer five.
 
The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

Legend
ledwix said:
Federer was world #1 five times, Nadal twice, and Djokovic soon to be twice as well. Slams between the two best players aren't the only criteria. That ignores consistency, something Nadal doesn't have at the top of the game. A slam final is not the WS. There are four of them plus other points to be had, including a neat summary of all data, called the ranking, which shows who was the best player overall for that season. Nadal has dominated two tennis seasons, Federer five.
Click to expand...

It all depends on who is the Judge doesn't it?

But history has already proven that slams are the only thing it remembers .

Boris Becker is my favorite example. He is a goat by every ones standards. Yet he was never the year end #1 player in the world .

It's actually sort of a trivia statistic because no one really cares. All they remember is that he is a multiple slam winner .

But let's take the analogy further . Becke beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat him right after that at the US Open . And yet somehow Lendl was the #1 player in the world .

No one agreed with it . There were tons of articles about it......why?? Because even though on paper Lendl was the better player everyone knew in reality Becker was the best player that year.

He beat Lendl Mano a Mano in two consecutive slams.
It's paper vs reality argument.
 
N

Numenor

Rookie
:lol: No GOAT candidate can be dominated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces by his main rival. Too bad nadal had to wait until Novak's level decreased, was emotionally distraught, and on clay to finally end his losing streak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

_maxi
Nadal has still a lot to prove, can't be GOAT candidate YET.
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Manus Domini
M
M
Can Nadal even be considered the GOAT?
3 4 5
Replies
221
Views
15K
abmk
abmk
A
Nadal never defended Slam title outside of RG yet.
Replies
29
Views
3K
Egoista
E
JennyS
If Federer dominated Nadal, his era would be weak and he wouldn't be GOAT!
Replies
15
Views
1K
Nadalfan89
Nadalfan89
M
How important is defending a tournament
Replies
23
Views
2K
jelle v
jelle v
Top