Clarky21
Banned
Based on what?
Djokovic winning all 4 majors this year - ranked higher on the GOAT list than Nadal?
- Thread starter tennis_pro
- Start date
Based on what?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Based on absolutely everything in the entire universe except your opinion.
Clarky21
Banned
It's rubbish because I don't agree with you.
Lack of competition. No one is as good as Cvac is these days. He is also nearly unbeatable in best of 5 matches. Nobody to stop him means he will win Wimby several times even though grass is his worst surface.
Last edited:
Clarky21
Banned
Nice non-answer. What are you going to do when Nadal bombs out of RG? I sense tons of excuses will be flying no sooner than he loses there this year.
Dear Djordje
Rookie
If Serbia wins the Davis Cup this year with Nole, then yeah.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
No it's rubbish because it's rubbish. It never happens. It's not just me that disagrees with you, reality disagrees.
Clarky21
Banned
Some of you are far too arrogant for your own good. It's not a quality anyone should ever have.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Well it's certainly a good thing Nadal, Tommy Haas, and the entire ATP don't have your mentality.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
How am I arrogant for basing my views on reality? No, it's you who is arrogant. You continue posting stuff like "Cvac is unbeatable in best of 5" despite the fact he lost in 3 out of 4 slams last year. If you believe what you say, you're not facing reality. You always post with totally certainty you will be right, and most of the time you're not. Yet you continue. Never saying "i think this will happen" it's always stated as a fact. That's arrogance.
it's probably not true arrogance, just part of your weird game. Maybe stating Cvac would win the calendar slam last year proved such a success in your mind (jinxing him intolosing at 3 of them) that you decided to do it again.
Clarky21
Banned
I'm not jinxing and I am far from being arrogant. I really think he will win all 4 slams this year and sweep the clay season. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're going to be right.
Clarky21
Banned
Cvac beats the entire ATP more times than not so I doubt he cares what these players think or what their mentality is.
I hope Djokovic doesn't sweep the clay MS events. He'll need to be as fresh as a daisy to win the FO and Wimbledon back to back. He needs to play 8 amazing weeks of the year to win the 4 slams, not MS titles (which he has plenty).
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Don't you ever get bored of trolling? I mean seriously, one would need a gigantic thread to put all your predictions fails in one place.
Last edited:
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Well you're a lot closer to being arrogant than me. You make predictions as if they are facts, act like anyone who doesn't agree is a fool and most of the time you're wrong.
And I know disagreing with you doesn't mean I'm going to be right, but a lot of the time I am. Thing is you make it easy when you predict stuff like
Nadal will never win another title
Cvac will sweep the clay season
Cvac will also win all 4 slams
Cvac will win every event he plays
No one will beat Cvac in best of 5
Nadal won't make the finalof any event he plays.
I mean Djokovic will not win all clay masters and all slams this year. Nothing is 100% but that's as close as you will get. Individually you may be right about him winning some of the events, but not all of them. But you insist he willso you will be wrong several times.
Clarky21
Banned
Isn't this the arrogance you speak of? You made an absolutist comment, but since it fits with what you think it's just fine.
If it makes you feel any better I will say that I THINK Cvac will sweep the clay season and win all of the slams this year. Does that make it better? Lol.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
haha i knew you would say that. funny how you ignore me saying nothing is 100% right after that :lol: But even if I never said that, you really don't see the difference here? God help us..
Let's use an extreme case. Say you said "Djokovic will win RG without losing a single point" and I say "Djokovic WON'T win RG without losing a single point" Both are absolute statements, but one has a million to one chance of being right and one has a million to one chance of being wrong. You can figure out which one is ridiculous.
Of course Djokovic technically could win all the clay masters and allslams, but he's got very, very little chance of doing it.
The fact is, betting on one player to win everything, you are bound to be wrong not only once but several times. If you can't see this, then there is no help for you. The thing is you don't even admit that you will be wrong a whole load of times (win some lose some) and Djokovic won't win everything. You just maintain he is unbeatable. Then he loses, you acknowledge it and carry on claiming what just happened happened but it was impossible.
And say what you want to say, you're the one who brought arrogance up, which is rich coming from you. That's all I'm saying
Last edited:
Who cares if he wins the CYSG?
Slam total is everything. I have no idea why people think the GOAT debate is so complex, because we only need to look at that one stat: slam total.
Djokovic wins CYSG and retires with 9 slams, Nadal retires with 11 slams, Nadal is still superior to Djokovic.
Djokovic retires with 12 slams, Nadal retires with 11 slams, Djokovic is superior to Nadal.
Djokovic retires with 18 slams, Federer retires with 17, Djokovic is superior to Federer.
Get it?
Slam total is everything. I have no idea why people think the GOAT debate is so complex, because we only need to look at that one stat: slam total.
Djokovic wins CYSG and retires with 9 slams, Nadal retires with 11 slams, Nadal is still superior to Djokovic.
Djokovic retires with 12 slams, Nadal retires with 11 slams, Djokovic is superior to Nadal.
Djokovic retires with 18 slams, Federer retires with 17, Djokovic is superior to Federer.
Get it?
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
According to some, we are in a weak era. so none would qualify to be in the GOAT list (Big 4 included).
Federer's Slam wins can be discounted because he won on Slow grass and didnt really have an opponent in HC 's until late in his career , that too on slow courts.
Nadal's wins can be discounted because there are no true claycourters and he won wimbledon on what at best can be called 'CLaygrass'. every one knows that HC's are nothing but green/blue clay.
Djokovic's wins can be discounted because he never played peak Federer. His win against Nadal can also be discounted. Not to mention, he played on Slow courts.
Simply put, none of the players can qualify to be GOAT. In fact, entire ATP Is a joke
Djokovic can win all he wants. He aint writing a GOAT ticket.
Federer's Slam wins can be discounted because he won on Slow grass and didnt really have an opponent in HC 's until late in his career , that too on slow courts.
Nadal's wins can be discounted because there are no true claycourters and he won wimbledon on what at best can be called 'CLaygrass'. every one knows that HC's are nothing but green/blue clay.
Djokovic's wins can be discounted because he never played peak Federer. His win against Nadal can also be discounted. Not to mention, he played on Slow courts.
Simply put, none of the players can qualify to be GOAT. In fact, entire ATP Is a joke
Djokovic can win all he wants. He aint writing a GOAT ticket.
Fiji
Legend
He lost to a 35-year-old on the Serb's favorite hc, the slow ones of Miami where he's won three times. To me that says he is faaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr away from the 2.0 version we have not seen since USO 2011.
Clarky21
Banned
That loss was just a fluke. It means nothing for the rest of the season as you will see for yourself when he wins MC next week.
kalyan4fedever
Legend
Any 1 other than Djoker, Nadal can win RG please?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
At the end of the day only majors, WTF and number of weeks at No.1 count.
If Novak ends with 9 majors and 2-3 WTF he can be considered almost par but still not equal to Nadal.
If Novak ends with 9 majors and 2-3 WTF he can be considered almost par but still not equal to Nadal.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
Why ?. Would you like RM Federer to win ?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
And masters of course.
DeShaun
Banned
I think a major piece of what makes Rafa such an all-time great is that he beat on Roger just when many people were in agreement on the view that Roger was THE all-time greatest, and also because Rafa has been the greatest clay courter ever. So, if Novak won all four slams this year AND had to beat Rafa at RG in doing so, then, yes, Novak might jump over Rafa in the rankings of all-time greats in many peoples' minds. Not the least of which reasons being that Rafa played a game than many purists seem to regard as extremely high-powered junkballing, and this hasn't sat very well with them because it sort of represents the realization of a logical extreme in the game's evolution that was predicted by many when high powered rackets and polys were becoming fashionable and these people were crying foul that too much of the finesse and the skill was being removed from the game and it no longer rewarded certain "good" technique as much as it did brute force. So, the purists would be prejudiced in that sense; but at the same time, if Novak wins four slams this year, not only would that bring his slam count to 10 which is not so far behind Rafa's 12, but also he would have one-upped his 2011 campaign and that alone was astounding enough.
Last edited:
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Would be 9 to 11
MaiDee
Professional
Rafael Nadal born 03 June 1986
Novak Djoković born 22 May 1987
It's only one year difference between them!
But why wasn't he number 1 for that long? It must of meant that another player/s was ranked higher than him for a long period. But why were he/they ranked higher? You are usually ranked higher because you have better results over the entire year. If Nadal was the greatest in the modern era why was his time at number 1 abbreviated? No, somone who in 4 out of 5 of the top 5 events does not have a dominant record (he ranges from 2 wins to zero wins in these events), couldn't be the greatest player in the modern era. Great player, no doubt...but not in the discussion yet of being at the summit. I say yet, because he is a phenominal players with incredible determination - so who know yet what he may achieve.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Nope. Slam total is not everything. Too simplistic.
There were many times (including the 1980s) when slams were not even the most important tournaments.
And, what is the rest of the season--practice?
And, Pancho Gonzales (one of the ultimate GOATs) has only two slams to his record.
Sorry, reality is not that simple; life is not so easy. If it were, we would need only addition--not algebra, geometry, trigonometry, or calculus.
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Er, no. What makes Rafa an all time great is his records, not least his golden career slam (only the 2nd player to do it) , more than 1 slam on each surface (something that even Fed still can't brag of), slam titles in the double digits (1 of only 4 who can boast of that in open era), master titles record, 100+ weeks at #1. 50+ titles overall. Etc, Etc
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
No wait! Haven't you heard: it's slam totals only that count. Period.
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
No wait! Haven't you heard: it's slam totals only that count. Period.
Well since it's by far the most important criteria and Federer is 6 majors ahead you got an answer. Wake me up when Nadal gets close.
As for Djokovic-Nadal (if Djokovic did the calendar), the difference would be smaller with only a 2 major difference in the total count but by then Djokovic would be superior in other departments such as more years at no 1, more weeks at no 1, more WTF's and having won the ultimate achievement in the CYGS would put him a 0,5 league above.
Nope, it is you that is making it too complicated. Liberate yourself.
Only one criteria matters: slam total.
I don't care if player A wins 5 calendar slams in a row to get 20 slams, if player B wins 2 slams a year for 11 years and gets 22 slams, player B is greater.
Also, weeks at number 1 and Masters don't matter - they would only matter if you're comparing 2 players with an equal number of slams. In that case, head to head between the 2 could also figure.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Great post zagor. ITA
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Why assume something that is highly unlikely to happen. One might as well say assuming Serena Williams wins the next 7 slams, which is probably more likely than Djokovic who has won more than 1 slam only once in his career winning the Grand Slam.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Yep, the rest of us is living in a multi-dimensional universe. Proudly so.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
The chances of Serena winning the next 7 majors is exactly 0.
borg number one
Legend
It's very unlikely, but even if it happened, I'd probably still rate Nadal a bit higher. Perhaps not by much though. A related question would be, would Nadal winning the last three majors of the year have many folks putting him at the very top of the list of great players? It's very debatable, but I think that would happen. As of now, I think Nadal is likely to win 1 if not 2 of the last three majors this year.
Similar threads
