kiki
Banned
*******s most hated number is 3, that is, the nº of true calendar GS Laver has under his belt
How can Nadal be a GOAT candidate if...
- Thread starter Mike Sams
- Start date
*******s most hated number is 3, that is, the nº of true calendar GS Laver has under his belt
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I didn't say I was god, but if you want to, go ahead.
You act all the time like your opinion is the only one that matters, and you make so many crap threads because of your arrogance, so why not throw some of it back in your face?
Can't honestly count the amateur one.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Sorry you feel that way.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Sorry you think Nadal is GOAT.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
True that.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I'm not sure if he is but I just don't think that Fed can be.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Fed's more qualified than Nadal.
More majors, more YE#1, more weeks at number 1, same number of medals, career slam, more wtf's.
In fact.. what does Nadal have on Federer that ISN'T H2H and/or clay GOAT?
Not too much.. in fact.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I'm not saying it's Nadal.....I'm saying it cannot be Fed.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
If tennis was about only two men, obviously that would be true.
Fortunately, tennis encompasses many thousands of players.. of whom Federer has proven the most successful at the largest events in the world.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Well Nadal did miss 6 slams , an Olympics and still managed to win 11 slams an an Olympics by age 26. Pretty amazing.
Crisstti
Legend
There's also him having won his slams against tougher opposition.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
By tougher opposition you mean Fed himself, of course. Other than that, they have generally played and lost to the same players. I see what you mean though, how can you have tougher opposition than the GOAT?
Crisstti
Legend
Fed himself, and Novak.
I mean, really, lots of people have no problem pointing out the players Rafa beat in RG and Wimbledon in 2010.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Fed was the one who had to face Novak in an unbelievable amount of semifinals (defying the odds). Don't blame Fed for the fact that you don't consider Nadal tough competition, or that you lack faith in his ability to make it past the second round.
I can't dispute your overall point though, of course Fed is the toughest competition of them all.
Crisstti
Legend
Fed was the one who had to face Novak in an unbelievable amount of semifinals (defying the odds). Don't blame Fed for the fact that you don't consider Nadal tough competition, or that you lack faith in his ability to make it past the second round.
I can't dispute your overall point though, of course Fed is the toughest competition of them all.
Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.
Right, he only had to beat the players who pummeled poor clay court specialist Rafito
. Poor Nadal, he has been robbed his whole career. If only he was a better player.Apparently, you don't grasp the concept of a tournament. Perhaps, in time, you will realize how tennis is played and how champions are crowned.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.
Pretty sure Federer beat the guy who beat rafa multiple times. Soderling, Murray, Gonzalez, etc.
It's not his fault Rafa didn't make it to him, but instead got beat by these 'lesser' players.
Crisstti
Legend
... When he hadn't quite yet the level on hard courts.
Lesser players indeed, no doubt (good as they are).
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Why is there always an excuse?
RF20Lennon
Legend
TRUE THAT!!!
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Baseline play was all the rage when Borg came? You know NOTHING. NOTHING. That's the most ignorant thing I've heard on here, and that's saying something. Borg was the one who made it popular.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Fed didn't have to face Novak (nor Rafa) much when he won most of his slams. Not at all the case with Nadal.
That's the thing, Crisstti--why does the Nadal fanbase insist on spouting absolute nonsense like, all the time?
Let's not talk about the guys Nadal didn't have to face (and Federer did) as he was too young, as this would disprove your point too fast, obviously. And we wouldn't want that, would we? Nadal faced Federer in five slams off clay and Federer faced Nadal in five slams on clay, so I would say this kind of evens things out (I won't go into the age issue, but if we went there, we would see that things aren't even--still, let's forget about that, too).
Now, Djokovic. You're right, Nadal has been awfully unlucky, he's had to face Djokovic 9 times in slams. Fed, the lucky guy who had no competition at all, had to face him... 11 times.
So I guess you learned maths in the same school Trolling Day & Knight did, ie 9 > 11 as far as you're concerned, but still...
So, even forgetting the players from the past that Federer had to face and Nadal didn't (Agassi, strong Hewitt and Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick when he was #1), even forgetting the fact that, when they started playing on surfaces that favour Federer, he was already past his prime, just using your own parameters and allowing for your usual contingent of excuses, it turns out that Federer faced stiffer competition than Nadal did at the slams (which I guess everyone knew anyway).
Nice way of owning yourself. Way to go, Crisstti!
PSNELKE
Legend
Same here I wonder how many CGS Laver would have won.
Roswell's BH slice would probably be at 1million mph.
btw it's Jeu de Paume dawg. Pomme is an apple.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Borg 11 slams
_____________
1) 1 GS, Manuel Orantes, 1974 French Open.....baseliner
2) 4 GS, Guillermo Vilas, 1975 French Open.......baseliner
3) 2 GS, Ilie Nastase, 1976 Wimbledon..............all courter
4) 8 GS, Jimmy Connors, 1977 Wimbledon..........baseliner
5) 4 GS, Guillermo Vilas, 1978 French Open..........baseliner
6) 8 GS, Jimmy Connors, 1978 Wimbledon.............baseliner
7) 0 GS, Victor Pecci, 1979 French Open................baseliner
8] 1 GS, Roscoe Tanner, 1979 Wimbledon................serve and volley
9) 1 GS, Vitas Gerulaitis, 1980 French Open..............serve and volley
10) 7 GS, John McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon..................serve and volley
11) 8 GS, Ivan Lendl, 1981 French Open.....................baseliner
As you will see only at the end of his career did he face Mcenroe and gerulatis , serve and volleyers. He did fave tanner....who was more of just a serve similar to Roddick....but ok .
Crisstti
Legend
You mean, an explanation you don't like?.
That's the thing, Crisstti--why does the Nadal fanbase insist on spouting absolute nonsense like, all the time?
Let's not talk about the guys Nadal didn't have to face (and Federer did) as he was too young, as this would disprove your point too fast, obviously. And we wouldn't want that, would we? Nadal faced Federer in five slams off clay and Federer faced Nadal in five slams on clay, so I would say this kind of evens things out (I won't go into the age issue, but if we went there, we would see that things aren't even--still, let's forget about that, too).
Now, Djokovic. You're right, Nadal has been awfully unlucky, he's had to face Djokovic 9 times in slams. Fed, the lucky guy who had no competition at all, had to face him... 11 times.
So I guess you learned maths in the same school Trolling Day & Knight did, ie 9 > 11 as far as you're concerned, but still...
So, even forgetting the players from the past that Federer had to face and Nadal didn't (Agassi, strong Hewitt and Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick when he was #1), even forgetting the fact that, when they started playing on surfaces that favour Federer, he was already past his prime, just using your own parameters and allowing for your usual contingent of excuses, it turns out that Federer faced stiffer competition than Nadal did at the slams (which I guess everyone knew anyway).
Nice way of owning yourself. Way to go, Crisstti!
No, it wouldn't...
Yeah, right.
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Basliners would be the ones he faced in French Open finals, it's clay. You except people to S/V there? :lol: Jimmy Connors is the one exception. Lendl came after so you can't use him to argue, "Baseline-play was all the rage when Borg came into the scene". Like I said, you're ignorant.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
An explanation that he doesn't like, or an explanation for a result that you don't like? :lol:
Unless Nadal starts winning more hard court slams and tournaments, he is never going to be put up there with Federer on hard courts. He isn't even going to be put up there with Djokovic.
Right, so now we can move on to the tiebreaker. Number of slams, weeks at number one, or whatever else floats your boat. Perhaps the total amount of bacteria transferred from your butt to your face throughout your career?
Last edited by a moderator:
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Dunno. There was an explanation? I thought you just dropped a name as though this explained everything. :-?
Well, considering that the defintion of stiffer competition seems to boil down to "Novak Djokovic" for you, Nadal clearly seems to be the lucky one in that respect.
Crisstti
Legend
It wasn't the point being discussed. It was what he had on his favour in goat discussions, and him having beaten tougher competition on slam finals is something he's got on his favour.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
What about the excuse part?
I was just laying it out for you in general though. Your opinion of his hard court competition has nothing to do with reality, of course. Unless you mean it in the sense that we have discussed before, which boils down to the fact that Federer can't play himself.
We can just as easily say that all the good hard courters started to decline and were replaced with grinders, or that hard courts were slowed down enough to allow Nadal to grind his way to victory. Either way, records speak for themselves in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
Last edited by a moderator:
Crisstti
Legend
What excuse?.
No, Fed can't play himself and Rafa can't play himself, yet Rafa has played Fed and Djokovic for most of his slams, and Fed didn't. It's a plain fact that yes, has been discussed a lot already here. There's a whole thread about it still going on.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
And that is a moot point. Because when Federer didn't play them, he played guys who were stronger than them at that time. During his first US Open finals, for example, playing Nadal or Djokovic would have been easier than playing Hewitt, Agassi, or Roddick. And that's not even close.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
I meant the part where you acted like the person who had to hear the excuse was butthurt rather than the person giving it.
Really? It was discussed on TT? Seems legit. :lol:
Sartorius
Hall of Fame
Grumping about Federer not facing Nadal is ok I guess (even though it's still grumping at best, and irrelevant at worst), but Djokovic? Federer was the only player to beat him in a slam in '11, he recently beat him at Wimbledon, and Murray afterwards; I hope that's not too shabby for weak-eraists.
And of course, as always, one must marvel at how Federer is perceived to be the only player able to sustain the same "level" on all surfaces; at his best whenever and wherever, since 2004.
It's also hilarious that Federer gets this weak-era oppurtunist treatment and Nadal is lauded because he faced...Federer in the finals. That's another thing, to think a slam is worth "less" because the opponent in the final is not "worthy". I'd assume Nadal would be the first person to say Roland Garros is not his title by right, and he still has to win 6 matches just to get to the final. Nadal is hands down the best player on clay and RG, not because he beat Federer in most of the finals, but because he managed to win the tournament by winning 7 matches, each time. This will sound weird to most but I believe his best performance at Wimbledon was 2010 and not 2008, beating Berdych in the final didn't change the fact that he had to play some flawless 5-set matches in the earlier rounds and stayed untouchable for the rest.
Ultimately this is what Federer has done in each his slam wins, this is why his consistency in particular at all slams is his most impressive achievement, and I would say it invalidates any weak-era argument you can throw at him; it's not easy to reach many semis and finals at slams, and doing it consistently is likely the hardest thing in this sport. At the end of the day he also has beaten each of the other trio at least once in slams.
Okay so what's this thread about again, why Nadal is a GOAT candidate? It's such cheesy phrases "GOAT", "GOAT candidate". Nadal is one of the greatest ever, I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
There are/were also a whole bunch of threads about Nadal serving a silent ban after Wimbledon this year, about him getting cakewalk draws, about him being the biggest cheater in tennis etc. People discussing a specific topic here hardly counts that much to be honest.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Funny thing is, if we presume that Novak really came into his own in 2011, even since then Fed faced him in slams more than Nadal, 5 times to Nadal's 4.
Oh definitely, it never ceases to amaze me on this forum how Fed is supposed to be like some fine wine that gets better with age while the other members of the top 4 have so many slumps, peaks, injuries and massive declines that it's hard to keep track.
Surface homogenization. He didn't win it by playing serve and volley. Federer did.
He faced Federer throughout his career a guy whom he didn't even need to match most of the time to beat him. Considering Federer tough competition is only accurate if you take him by name value. The actual performance he was forced to come up with were typically less impressive than most of the performances Federer had to come up with.
The reason why Djokovic crushed him so often in 2011 is because pummeling a guys backhand doesn't work if he hits it with 2 hands and has any real quality.
What is so wrong about Nadal serving a silent ban? You are aware that this isn't all that unlikely, given the regulations of the ATP, right? If you have a positive test, you are barred from playing, but your positive test will not be published. Only if the case is closed (CAS rules against the player, B sample is also positive etc) the case is published. If the athlete gets a therapeutical use excemption retroactively for example, he can get acquitted and thus, the original positive test will never be published.
This way, the player has served a "silent ban". The fact that you consider this some sort of impossibility or a joke, shows how clueless you seem to be.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
That wasn't the point of his post. The whole silent ban issue has been discussed ad nauseam. Why don't you go and make another thread about it.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Never said it was right or wrong, impossibility or a joke, I personally don't think Nadal is serving a silent ban but I'm not dismissing any possibility (including that not just Nadal but other top players/stars are doping as well, yes even Fed with his "smooth" game).
I merely used those examples I know she (Chrissti) disagrees with to illustrate a point.
Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
Possible.
I never denied that Federer is possibly on the juice. But it is much more of a certainly when you look at Djokovic or Nadal.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Sounds like someone has already made up his mind, based upon an esoteric, scientific criterion.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
I was only asking for your advice on how to break the tie. I do agree that if the last last condition is enough, then there shouldn't be any more debate. I also failed to read any posts that claimed that a career grand slam was sufficient for a player to be the GOAT, only that it was a requirement.
Last edited by a moderator:
VPhuc tennis fan
Professional
Wanna be a GOAT? At least have the same resume as the guy in front of you, then we'll talk. Until then, happy hunting...
Right now, the only things going for Rafa are: 1)H2H vs Fed. Not even sure it should be in consideration since one plays against a bunch of other players in every tournament, and not just one guy, 2)his FO record. That's VERY impressive. However many already pointed out, this record gives him the title of "surface GOAT", but not "GOAT". So many more to accomplish. Until then, let's NOT waste our breath.
Right now, the only things going for Rafa are: 1)H2H vs Fed. Not even sure it should be in consideration since one plays against a bunch of other players in every tournament, and not just one guy, 2)his FO record. That's VERY impressive. However many already pointed out, this record gives him the title of "surface GOAT", but not "GOAT". So many more to accomplish. Until then, let's NOT waste our breath.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Federer QF or better for 34 GS running is a cool record I think. (hope I'm right).
According to some, you mean few Nadal fans like TDK. And there are Laver fans who believe a Grand Slam alone is enough for goat candidate. No so fast. Career slam or a Grand Slam is not enough because that's only 1 criteria. The full picture is the entire career achievement, which should take EVERYTHING into account.
The Dark Knight
Legend
That's right !
And the fact that Federer has a losing record to his main rival and baaaaaaaaarely has a slam on clay means he can't be the goat to me.
I mean that FO was only becaise Nadal was having issues in my opinion . Whatever he barely he has it.
Nadal on the other hand has two grass slams and two harcourt slams .....2 of which were against Federer the supposed goat....
To boot Nadal has a hardcourt at the Olympics in only one try. Fed has not won it in 3 attempts on hard or indoor grass.
Sorry .....Fed is no goat in my personal opinion .
Similar threads
