Pros think Rafa is the GOAT

Crisstti said:

Nope, it isn't at all. Not that Sampras beat much better players himself.

Click to expand...

yes, it is ... roddick went 5-4 vs djokovic, including 8 sets in a row, beat him @ the AO, beat murray @ wimbledon, haas/safin beat djoker at wimbledon ..... davydenko owned nadal on HC 6-1 h2h etc etc ... these are ample indicators ....

the only outlier has been djoker 2011, but even a past his prime federer handled him better than prime rafa did ....

Crisstti said:

There is not ONE goat anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

there's no universally accepted GOAT, correct ... but rafa's resume still falls way short of earning a claim ...

Crisstti said:

It doesn't matter how much you'd like to just take away his clay results. You can't.

Click to expand...

Who wants to? Stop misrepresenting.

Povl Carstensen said:

Who wants to? Stop misrepresenting.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Nobody is saying clay doesnt count, what people are saying is Rafa's results and achievments are heavily skewed towards clay i.e. his Master Shields, majors, match streaks etc.

Thus,*taking clay away*, what in his record makes him Goatworthy? ETA: Just like I never felt that Sampras should be called GOAT even when he got the slam record as he was invisible on clay. Nadal is a reverse Sampras.

But as for Fed, take away grass, Fed still has 10 majors, 5 in a row at the USO, 5 FO finals and 1 FO win, 6 WTF and probably still has record weeks at number 1 because the gap between 1 and 2 was so riculous for so long. He'd still be one slam away from setting the open era record of #of USO and AO titles

Shoot, I saw a record yesterday I didnt even know he had.

Fed is the only man in the open era to win at least 5 titles at 7 different tourneys.

WB, USO, WTF, Cincy, Dubai, Halle and Basel.

Crisstti said:

No one is the best everywhere. Many other all time greats haven't won RG, or Wimbledon. Or the USO. Whatever Rafa might or might not be lacking on hard courts is still a much lesser failure, if at all, than any of those other all time greats.
And Rafa HAS won both hc slams, and against the best at that.

It doesn't matter how much you'd like to just take away his clay results. You can't.

Click to expand...

Rafa was dominant in ONLY one slam. Pete may not have won RG but he was dominant in two slams. Pete also won WTF and was year end number one six times. There is a huge difference, if you just meant Pete by NOT winning RG

SLD76 said:

Exactly. Nobody is saying clay doesnt count, what people are saying is Rafa's results and achievments are heavily skewed towards clay i.e. his Master Shields, majors, match streaks etc.

Thus,*taking clay away*, what in his record makes him Goatworthy? ETA: Just like I never felt that Sampras should be called GOAT even when he got the slam record as he was invisible on clay. Nadal is a reverse Sampras.

But as for Fed, take away grass, Fed still has 10 majors, 5 in a row at the USO, 5 FO finals and 1 FO win, 6 WTF and probably still has record weeks at number 1 because the gap between 1 and 2 was so riculous for so long. He'd still be one slam away from setting the open era record of #of USO and AO titles

Shoot, I saw a record yesterday I didnt even know he had.

Fed is the only man in the open era to win at least 5 titles at 7 different tourneys.

WB, USO, WTF, Cincy, Dubai, Halle and Basel.

Click to expand...

What a great man! Far out he's fantastic!

Here's the thing, Nadal has done better on grass than what Federer has done on clay. He's got 2 Wimbledon titles to Fed's 1 RG (which he won without beating Nadal).

As for HC, Fed won most of his HC titles with a weak field. His 4 AO titles have all come without facing a top 4 opponent (except for 2004 which was only JC Ferrero). If Nadal or Novak had those type of draws at the AO where they didn't have to face one of the top 4 they'd be winning them constantly. In fact Novak already has won everyone of his AO titles by facing at least one top 4 opponent.

Fed's record at AO against top 4 opponents:

1 Win (JC Ferrero)
6 Losses (2 x Nadal, 2 x Novak, 1 x Murray, 1 x Safin)

As for the US Open who was his competition up there from 2004-2008? 04 he faced old broken down Agassi and scraped through in 5 sets. He then had a walkover opponent in the final (Hewitt) who only showed up for the sake of it. In 2005 it was an even older Agassi and he'd just come off a multitude of 5 setters, and still gave Fed quite a tough match. In 2006 it was Roddick, his pidgeon. In 2007 he faced Novak who was making his slam final debut. In 2008 he faced Murray also making his slam final debut.

Apart from RG05, Nadal has won every major against a player that has made at least one slam final before. No slam debutants for 10 of his 11 majors, and tbh it's unfair to count Puerta because it was also Nadal's slam final debut as well. Fed otoh, has faced a slam final debutant in RG09, US07, US08, AO06 and AO07.

If Nadal was in his peak he would've beat all those HC opponents as well. Truth is Fed was quite lucky with the opponents he's had to face to win all of his HC titles as I've just pointed out. I can only see Roddick possibly troubling Nadal but I don't see him beating a prime Rafa up there.

So Federer's achievements are heavily skewed as they have been against weaker opponents.

The_Order said:

What a great man! Far out he's fantastic!

Here's the thing, Nadal has done better on grass than what Federer has done on clay. He's got 2 Wimbledon titles to Fed's 1 RG (which he won without beating Nadal).

As for HC, Fed won most of his HC titles with a weak field. His 4 AO titles have all come without facing a top 4 opponent (except for 2004 which was only JC Ferrero). If Nadal or Novak had those type of draws at the AO where they didn't have to face one of the top 4 they'd be winning them constantly. In fact Novak already has won everyone of his AO titles by facing at least one top 4 opponent.

Fed's record at AO against top 4 opponents:

1 Win (JC Ferrero)
6 Losses (2 x Nadal, 2 x Novak, 1 x Murray, 1 x Safin)

As for the US Open who was his competition up there from 2004-2008? 04 he faced old broken down Agassi and scraped through in 5 sets. He then had a walkover opponent in the final (Hewitt) who only showed up for the sake of it. In 2005 it was an even older Agassi and he'd just come off a multitude of 5 setters, and still gave Fed quite a tough match. In 2006 it was Roddick, his pidgeon. In 2007 he faced Novak who was making his slam final debut. In 2008 he faced Murray also making his slam final debut.

Apart from RG05, Nadal has won every major against a player that has made at least one slam final before. No slam debutants for 10 of his 11 majors, and tbh it's unfair to count Puerta because it was also Nadal's slam final debut as well. Fed otoh, has faced a slam final debutant in RG09, US07, US08, AO06 and AO07.

If Nadal was in his peak he would've beat all those HC opponents as well. Truth is Fed was quite lucky with the opponents he's had to face to win all of his HC titles as I've just pointed out. I can only see Roddick possibly troubling Nadal but I don't see him beating a prime Rafa up there.

So Federer's achievements are heavily skewed as they have been against weaker opponents.

Click to expand...

I must have missed where Berdych made a Slam final before Wimbledon '10.

Rafa racked up his slams against the same field Fed did.

He also couldn't make even the slam HC finals for years against the same field.

Nadal trailed Fed for years as #2 by wide margins against the same field.

How can someone be #2 for so long with huge margins behind the #1 against the same field and have any claim to be as good?

Carsomyr said:

I must have missed where Berdych made a Slam final before Wimbledon '10.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, very true.

Did you see the way Berdych performed in his first slam final? On par with how Fed's first time slam final opponents played. The only odd one out was Delpo.

Novak played well in 07 USO but nerves got to him in the TB's.

But in any case, the point still stands that first time slam final opponents, more often than not, don't play their best level due to nerves. Fed still has far more favour in this category compared to Nadal.

Talker said:

Rafa racked up his slams against the same field Fed did.

Click to expand...

Did Federer beat himself did he? He is an incredible player, extremely hard to beat in majors, which is why he was able to rack up so many titles. Rafa had to beat Federer to win most of his majors.

Talker said:

He also couldn't make even the slam HC finals for years against the same field.

Nadal trailed Fed for years as #2 by wide margins against the same field.

Click to expand...

How many HC slam finals did Federer make before he was 22? Rafa made his first HC slam final in AO09 when he was 22, same age Fed was when he made his first HC slam final. So to expect Nadal (who btw is not as good as Fed on HC) to perform better than Federer himself before he was 22 is stupid.

Talker said:

How can someone be #2 for so long with huge margins behind the #1 against the same field and have any claim to be as good?

Click to expand...

What I just explained, that was the same reason Nadal was #2 for so long. Nadal is by far and away the greatest clay courter of all time. So much so that even when he was a teenager he was virtually unbeatable on the surface. This is why he was #2 for so long, but once he developed his game to play on grass and HC, he was then able to dethrone Federer at his best major. Fed never dethroned Nadal at RG and probably never will.

Nadal was making HC and grass majors from 2010 through to AO2012, where was Federer?

Talker said:

Rafa racked up his slams against the same field Fed did.

He also couldn't make even the slam HC finals for years against the same field.

Nadal trailed Fed for years as #2 by wide margins against the same field.

How can someone be #2 for so long with huge margins behind the #1 against the same field and have any claim to be as good?

Click to expand...

That's cuz didn't you know, rafa and fed are in different eras, lol

The_Order said:

Did Federer beat himself did he? He is an incredible player, extremely hard to beat in majors, which is why he was able to rack up so many titles. Rafa had to beat Federer to win most of his majors.



How many HC slam finals did Federer make before he was 22? Rafa made his first HC slam final in AO09 when he was 22, same age Fed was when he made his first HC slam final. So to expect Nadal (who btw is not as good as Fed on HC) to perform better than Federer himself before he was 22 is stupid.



What I just explained, that was the same reason Nadal was #2 for so long. Nadal is by far and away the greatest clay courter of all time. So much so that even when he was a teenager he was virtually unbeatable on the surface. This is why he was #2 for so long, but once he developed his game to play on grass and HC, he was then able to dethrone Federer at his best major. Fed never dethroned Nadal at RG and probably never will.

Nadal was making HC and grass majors from 2010 through to AO2012, where was Federer?

Click to expand...

Rofl....fed was also winning the wtf in 2010 and 2011, where was rafa?
And you coniently leave out 2012 wimby that fed won and rafa got beat in the second round roflmao.

What a joke

SLD76 said:

Rofl....fed was also winning the wtf in 2010 and 2011, where was rafa?

Click to expand...

Umm, Rafa played Fed in those tournaments. And yes he lost in 2010 but at least that was respectable, in 2011 he got belted. BUt the WTF doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the majors do.

SLD76 said:

And you coniently leave out 2012 wimby that fed won and rafa got beat in the second round roflmao.

What a joke

Click to expand...

Lol the only slam Fed won since AO 2010? Rafa was clearly injured unless you think he took 7 months off because he couldn't get over the loss to Rosol.

I left out Wimbledon because Rafa didn't make the final, whereas he made the 2010 USO final, the 2010 WIM final, the 2011 WIM final, the 2011 USO final and the 2012 AO final. His argument was when Fed was making finals, Rafa wasn't up to it, so I just merely pointed out that when Rafa was making HC and grass finals, Fed wasn't up to it either.

The_Order said:

Umm, Rafa played Fed in those tournaments. And yes he lost in 2010 but at least that was respectable, in 2011 he got belted. BUt the WTF doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the majors do.



Lol the only slam Fed won since AO 2010? Rafa was clearly injured unless you think he took 7 months off because he couldn't get over the loss to Rosol.

I left out Wimbledon because Rafa didn't make the final, whereas he made the 2010 USO final, the 2010 WIM final, the 2011 WIM final, the 2011 USO final and the 2012 AO final. His argument was when Fed was making finals, Rafa wasn't up to it, so I just merely pointed out that when Rafa was making HC and grass finals, Fed wasn't up to it either.

Click to expand...

Lolololololololololol. Yes it was clear rafa was injured 2 weeks after he lost when his camp said so. And what does it matter rafa is always injured anyway, roflmao.

Meanwhile fed beat murraay and djoker to win wimby, the same djoker that destroyed rafa in the 2011 wimby final, lol

Yes and No.

Yes, Federer played some GS finals against first time GS finalists (Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Djokovic, Murray, Soderling) whereas Nadal has had to beat Federer himself many times in GS finals.....who cares?

One player can only beat the field that exists in his time, and it is not clear at all that one set of players were "better" than other set of players (that may have peaked in earlier years) it will always be opinable that kind of things.

That is why it doesn't make any sense to try to compare numbers from different eras.

Even talking about Roddick-Hewitt-old Agassi versus Murray-Nadal-Djokovic is not clear at all, because old (and clearly worse) Federer has defeated Murray and Djokovic many times, even in GS finals. Peak Federer could have won against Murray and Djokovic as easily and often as he did against Roddick and Hewitt and Old-Agassi. Nobody knows.

It is problematic to compare these kind of things even when only 5 years apart. Imagine trying to compare numbers or fields from different eras or decades. It is impossible.

Federer won 11 GS in four years ( 2004-2007 ) and that's it. I don't care if many people think it was only possible because of luck of weak competition.

I don't even care what player is "the best" of this era (for me is Federer, but this kind of things are totally subjective because of many factors that vary constantly).

What I like is to watch great tennis players and matches, and all this "X player is better than Y player because such and such and mostly because he is my God" stinks, seriously, a totally teenage-girl kind of thing dreaming about his rock-super-star-hero.

Sadly, this is exactly what we have here in the forums, such many many childlish people devoting their life to the "my hero is more handsome that yours, and taller too" sad thing.

Nadal is more handsome than Federer, if not taller

The_Order said:

Did Federer beat himself did he? He is an incredible player, extremely hard to beat in majors, which is why he was able to rack up so many titles. Rafa had to beat Federer to win most of his majors.



How many HC slam finals did Federer make before he was 22? Rafa made his first HC slam final in AO09 when he was 22, same age Fed was when he made his first HC slam final. So to expect Nadal (who btw is not as good as Fed on HC) to perform better than Federer himself before he was 22 is stupid.



What I just explained, that was the same reason Nadal was #2 for so long. Nadal is by far and away the greatest clay courter of all time. So much so that even when he was a teenager he was virtually unbeatable on the surface. This is why he was #2 for so long, but once he developed his game to play on grass and HC, he was then able to dethrone Federer at his best major. Fed never dethroned Nadal at RG and probably never will.

Nadal was making HC and grass majors from 2010 through to AO2012, where was Federer?

Click to expand...

The comparisons of Roger's and Rafa's age is not an exact one. Roger won a slam at age 22. He was ready to win a slam only by then. Rafa got one at age 18. Guys like Sampras and Roger weren't slam ready at such young age. Roger got a slam in 2003 and he won all slams except RG the very next year.

Rafa got slam in 2005 and he had to wait 3 years to get a Wimbledon, four years to get an AO and 5 years to get US Open. Its silly to say that he can win RG, be at number two ranking and is unable to make finals on hard courts and finally say that Roger and Rafa won hard court slams at same age, and say that Rafa was learning on hard courts how to play. If you are playing that game, I can say that Rafa started winning slams once Roger was out of prime and old. The truth is Rafa was getting beaten by guys.

Lastly if you are playing the age card, Rafa at age 26 has played two AO finals, won one. He played two US and won one. Now what about Roger? 4 US Opens and 3 Australian Opens.

The_Order said:

His 4 AO titles have all come without facing a top 4 opponent

Click to expand...

The field must have been too strong for them. It could be the indication of a strong era, as much as the opposite.

The_Order said:

Did Federer beat himself did he? He is an incredible player, extremely hard to beat in majors, which is why he was able to rack up so many titles.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Federer got to 11 GS in four years, it has taken Nadal eight so far to do the same.

The_Order said:

Here's the thing, Nadal has done better on grass than what Federer has done on clay. He's got 2 Wimbledon titles to Fed's 1 RG (which he won without beating Nadal).

Click to expand...

Federer dominates three GS, Nadal one.

SLD76 said:

Ummmmmmmmm being a GOAT means exactly that!!

If not for Fed playing along side the Clay Goat the man would probably have at least 4 of each major. Even in the era of Nadal I think fed has what 6 clay masters?

Rafa hasnt even won a WTF, please just stop.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that. Not that there's an exact definition.

He would have at least 4 of each major, and it would be because of a lack of competition.

abmk said:

yes, it is ... roddick went 5-4 vs djokovic, including 8 sets in a row, beat him @ the AO, beat murray @ wimbledon, haas/safin beat djoker at wimbledon ..... davydenko owned nadal on HC 6-1 h2h etc etc ... these are ample indicators ....

the only outlier has been djoker 2011, but even a past his prime federer handled him better than prime rafa did ....



there's no universally accepted GOAT, correct ... but rafa's resume still falls way short of earning a claim ...

Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, Roddick, Safin... Haas and Davydenko (!) make for a stronger filed.

Sure.

Rafa's resume in no way falls shorter of a claim.

Povl Carstensen said:

Who wants to? Stop misrepresenting.

Click to expand...

Uhm, every hater on this forum?.

SLD76 said:

Exactly. Nobody is saying clay doesnt count, what people are saying is Rafa's results and achievments are heavily skewed towards clay i.e. his Master Shields, majors, match streaks etc.

Thus,*taking clay away*, what in his record makes him Goatworthy? ETA: Just like I never felt that Sampras should be called GOAT even when he got the slam record as he was invisible on clay. Nadal is a reverse Sampras.

But as for Fed, take away grass, Fed still has 10 majors, 5 in a row at the USO, 5 FO finals and 1 FO win, 6 WTF and probably still has record weeks at number 1 because the gap between 1 and 2 was so riculous for so long. He'd still be one slam away from setting the open era record of #of USO and AO titles

Shoot, I saw a record yesterday I didnt even know he had.

Fed is the only man in the open era to win at least 5 titles at 7 different tourneys.

WB, USO, WTF, Cincy, Dubai, Halle and Basel.

Click to expand...

But you cannot take it away. His clay record is part of his overall record and that overall record is goatworthy.

Nadal is not at all a reverse Sampras. Sampras was not a top player on clay. He never even made a RG final. You can't say that about Nadal on any slam.

It's not the same to make this little game of "take away X surface" with Rafa or Fed, because Rafa's record on clay is better than Fed's on hard court or on grass.

And Rafa's probably better on grass (and maybe on hc) than Fed is on clay.

Feather said:

Rafa was dominant in ONLY one slam. Pete may not have won RG but he was dominant in two slams. Pete also won WTF and was year end number one six times. There is a huge difference, if you just meant Pete by NOT winning RG

Click to expand...

I'll give Pete that

Crisstti said:

I'll give Pete that

Click to expand...

Pete wasn't as lucky as Rafa was. The courts were all sowed down in 200s and Rafa managed to win US Open and Wimbledon. If ATP did the reverse by speeding up RG, may be he would have won that also!

Surely, there is a huge difference between Rafa and Pete. If you are not able to see that, it's because you are just a blind worshipper.

Crisstti said:

that overall record is goatworthy.

Click to expand...

No, and I do think you know that.

Crisstti said:

Uhm, every hater on this forum?.

Click to expand...

Takes one to know one I guess.

Crisstti said:

Uhm, every hater on this forum?.

Click to expand...

Stop using that word, it is stupid. Every time a person does not have glowing and raving reviews for everything Nadal says and does you label him or her a hater. It is an overused and misused word. Also, by your own definition you are a hater, a Federer hater, so don't be a hypocrite.

veroniquem said:

Djoko has pushed Rafa to his limits in 3 out of 4 slams. Fed in 1. No comparison imo. I would go so far as to say that Djoko has managed to challenge Rafa the way Fed has always wanted to but has never been able to, especially at AO. Same thing with masters actually. Djoko has beaten Nadal 10 times in masters ( and in 7 out of the 9 ), Fed only 4 times (and in only 3 different ones). Fed's only claim to fame against Rafa is Wimbledon (and even there, he lost their last encounter) and WTF.

Click to expand...

Fed was never lucky enough to play him at the USOpen for one thing, since he wasn't ever good enough to make the final. And he did push Rafa to 5 at both the AO and Wimbledon...so..?

Crisstti said:

But you cannot take it away. His clay record is part of his overall record and that overall record is goatworthy.

Nadal is not at all a reverse Sampras. Sampras was not a top player on clay. He never even made a RG final. You can't say that about Nadal on any slam.

It's not the same to make this little game of "take away X surface" with Rafa or Fed, because Rafa's record on clay is better than Fed's on hard court or on grass.

And Rafa's probably better on grass (and maybe on hc) than Fed is on clay.
I'll give Pete that

Click to expand...

It is goatworthy...for clay. but overall? No.

His records and achievments show he is the clay goat and a great enough player to win a few slams on other surfaces.

How in the world is a guy who was barely world number one for 2 years( not consecutive) in GOAT discussion?

How is a guy who spent 4 years as world number 2 behind fed GOATworthy?

How is a guy who has never defended a non clay title, not won a world tour final GOATworthy?

And for the last time, NOBODY is saying discount the clay.

What is being said is WITHOUT clay, Nadal who already isnt in the GOAT discussion, would not even be remotely considered based on his off clay resume alone. How you are not understanding this is beyond me.

Meanwhile with Fed take away grass: 5 consecutive USO, 4 AO, 6 WTF, record weeks number 1, record consecutive weeks number( I still give him these because at his peak the gap between 1 and 2 was ridiculous) at least 5 titles at 5 different tournaments, 5 FO finals and 1 FO win. 10 slams, with rafa being only one better.

the only way rafa's resume stacks up to roger's is if you eliminated HC and assume clay tournaments are the same or increased and also add more grass.


And finally, Did I not say that Rafa and Pete's careers are similar in that they dominated one surface except for the fact that Rafa was better than Pete on his off surfaces(eg grass and HC) than pete was on his(clay)?????

Pete used his grass and HC dominance to retain number 1 ranking since he did nothing on clay every year

Rafa cleans up on clay and was able to finally overtake Fed in the rankings as he started win HC slams and win wimbledon

See how they are similar now????????

If Pete is not GOATworthy because he has no career slam and barely any clay resume, then Rafa is same because his off clay resume (i.e. no world tour finals, barely any non clay masters ) not to mention his lack of YE#1s, consecutive weeks number 1 etc etc.

How many non clay masters does Rafa have? 5,6? How many finals apprearances consecutive or not in grass/hc slams?? And even taking Fed out of the equation for the most part his HC record would still be the same minus winning Miami and 1 possibly 2 WTF.

Take Rafa out of the equation and Fed probably has a couple of Grand Slam years.

Fed was stopped on clay by the clayGOAT, rafa was stopped on HC for the most part by the field. How is he GOATworthy again??

Put it like this: Djoker has 6 slams,, 2 more than Rafa's non clay slams. That is still 1 less than the number of slams fed has won at ONE slam.

SLD76 said:

It is goatworthy...for clay. but overall? No.

His records and achievments show he is the clay goat and a great enough player to win a few slams on other surfaces.

How in the world is a guy who was barely world number one for 2 years( not consecutive) in GOAT discussion?

How is a guy who spent 4 years as world number 2 behind fed GOATworthy?

How is a guy who has never defended a non clay title, not won a world tour final GOATworthy?

And for the last time, NOBODY is saying discount the clay.

What is being said is WITHOUT clay, Nadal who already isnt in the GOAT discussion, would not even be remotely considered based on his off clay resume alone. How you are not understanding this is beyond me.

Meanwhile with Fed take away grass: 5 consecutive USO, 4 AO, 6 WTF, record weeks number 1, record consecutive weeks number( I still give him these because at his peak the gap between 1 and 2 was ridiculous) at least 5 titles at 5 different tournaments, 5 FO finals and 1 FO win. 10 slams, with rafa being only one better.

the only way rafa's resume stacks up to roger's is if you eliminated HC and assume clay tournaments are the same or increased and also add more grass.


And finally, Did I not say that Rafa and Pete's careers are similar in that they dominated one surface except for the fact that Rafa was better than Pete on his off surfaces(eg grass and HC) than pete was on his(clay)?????

Pete used his grass and HC dominance to retain number 1 ranking since he did nothing on clay every year

Rafa cleans up on clay and was able to finally overtake Fed in the rankings as he started win HC slams and win wimbledon

See how they are similar now????????

If Pete is not GOATworthy because he has no career slam and barely any clay resume, then Rafa is same because his off clay resume.

How many non clay masters does Rafa have? 5,6? How many finals apprearances consecutive or not in grass/hc slams?? And even taking Fed out of the equation for the most part his HC record would still be the same minus winning Miami and 1 possibly 2 WTF.

Take Rafa out of the equation and Fed probably has a couple of Grand Slam years.

Fed was stopped on clay by the clayGOAT, rafa was stopped on HC for the most part by the field. How is he GOATworthy again??

Put it like this: Djoker has 6 slams,, 2 more than Rafa's non clay slams. That is still 1 less than the number of slams fed has won at ONE slam.

Click to expand...

Yes overall, because clay is part of it all. And like I said, it's not the same to take out clay for Rafa than to take out grass or hc for Fed.

He has been number one the same amount of time than Borg was.

Not defending a title is irrelevant. And the WTF is a hole on his resume like there are on many other goatworthy players. Fed himself only won RG because rafa was injured, while Rafa has beat the best in all the slams, but let's just ignore that, right?.

Rafa being MUCH better on hc and grass than Sampras on clay makes all the difference.

And Rafa has beaten the best on hc, while Fed hasn't on clay. And I hate to quote a poster who may be one of NSK versions, but he began winning on hc at a similar age than Fed, and his main problem since have been injuries, more than the field (other than Djokovic).

I'm not saying Fed doesn't have some things on his favour here, he obviously does, but so does Rafa and several other players.

Crisstti said:

I'm not saying Fed doesn't have some things on his favour here

Click to expand...

Understatement of the day.

Crisstti said:

Yes overall, because clay is part of it all. And like I said, it's not the same to take out clay for Rafa than to take out grass or hc for Fed.

He has been number one the same amount of time than Borg was.

Not defending a title is irrelevant. And the WTF is a hole on his resume like there are on many other goatworthy players. Fed himself only won RG because rafa was injured, while Rafa has beat the best in all the slams, but let's just ignore that, right?.

Rafa being MUCH better on hc and grass than Sampras on clay makes all the difference.

And Rafa has beaten the best on hc, while Fed hasn't on clay. And I hate to quote a poster who may be one of NSK versions, but he began winning on hc at a similar age than Fed, and his main problem since have been injuries, more than the field (other than Djokovic).

I'm not saying Fed doesn't have some things on his favour here, he obviously does, but so does Rafa and several other players.

Click to expand...

Fed won the FO cuz rafa got beat before the final and Fed didnt. Ummmm arent you a *******? Didnt he even admit in his book the Wimbledon withdrawal was due more to off the court stuff than actual injury?


Fed has beaten Rafa on clay, just not at the FO. Rafa is a the 4th best hardcort player of his era ( Fed, djoker, Murray, Nadal)

Who gives a damn when he began winning what, the point is, you either win or you dont.
Rafa has an matchup advantage with Fed, but Fed has been demonstrably better
against the whole field, as evidenced by his multiple slams at 3 different slams and record weeks
at number 1. 17 slams at various venues imply field domination does it not? not to mention consecutive finals
appearances on his worst surface. Wouldnt you expect a GOAT player to dominate the field?
Yes, no? I'll gladly take a bad matchup against one player in exchange for dominance against 99.99% of the field.


Rafa has elements in his favor yes.

they are just inferior to fed's is all.

sureshs said:

"This is the game of my life," Zeballos said. "Playing against the best player of all-time


http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013...al-first-career-atp-title/46374/#.URkNTKVEEpg


People who play at a high level know that Rafa is the Grumpiest Of All Time.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100% :mrgreen:

sureshs said:

It is interesting that real pros think that Rafa is the GOAT while the low level club players on this forum are still denying it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you have right. Even 10 years later nothing has changed.

sureshs said:

People who play at a high level know that Rafa is the GOAT.

Click to expand...

Povl Carstensen said:

Federer dominates three GS, Nadal one.

Click to expand...

Post made in Feb. 2013. Right after Djokovic just 3-peated Australia, whilst it would’ve been a whopping 5 years since he won a US Open, and people on here were saying Fed dominated 3 slams LOL.

Good to know this place was just as stupid back then as it is now.

Fabresque said:

Post made in Feb. 2013. Right after Djokovic just 3-peated Australia, whilst it would’ve been a whopping 5 years since he won a US Open, and people on here were saying Fed dominated 3 slams LOL.

Good to know this place was just as stupid back then as it is now.

Click to expand...

I was talking about in the results so far