zagor
Bionic Poster
You don't get the point I was making, you didn't then and you don't know.
Yes, I do believe Nadal was close to his very best in 2011 on HC and grass.
No, I don't believe Nadal was at his best on clay that year.
Can Nadal even be considered the GOAT?
- Thread starter Magnus
- Start date
You don't get the point I was making, you didn't then and you don't know.
Yes, I do believe Nadal was close to his very best in 2011 on HC and grass.
No, I don't believe Nadal was at his best on clay that year.
kragster
Hall of Fame
That distinction is irrelevant. You can not dock someone points for not having played on "what you consider real grass". Just like you can't fault Laver for not having any hardcourt slams. In fact, there may come a time when today's grass becomes the "norm" and people will call pre 90s grass fake grass.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Maybe, who knows.
Thing is, my opinion on Nadal as a player is actually very high, while not a fan of his game I can certainly respect his talent, mental strength and achievements. I do consider him to be one of the greatest, will probably be up there with anyone when he's done.
However some of his fans are... well let's just say I don't see eye to eye with them on many issues and consider them to have massive double standards.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Clearly he's the best kind of troll. One people actually take serious. It's so blatantly obvious that he's trolling it's insane.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Blatant or not, it's still utterly annoying for fans of the player he's crapping on.
Many posters were merely trolling with the silent ban/Nadal wasn't injured nonsense, doesn't mean it didn't annoy Nadal fans.
Omega_7000
Legend
I have never once seen you object to any of his threads or posts. I have seen you getting upset if the thread/post is anti-nadal though...
I honestly don't think he is trolling. He is that fanatical and delusional.
Or he is right and we "the majority" are. It's all relative.
Like I've said he isn't basing his argument on just nothing, to be trolling. H2H is counterintuitive. And also Nadal is 8-2 vs Fed in majors. If you examine it closely it can be excused for Fed.
But if you look at the surface, I guess it can't be ignored. But it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
So, if you combine TDK's slight fanaticism with an argument that is based on something, and his slight ignorance, you get the result. Unlike other trolls, I really believe he isn't trolling.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Arguments I like in this:
-only player with 8 titles at a slam (over 9 years) and only 1 loss at same slam. Mindboggling.
-Winning h to h vs all main rivals: older: Fed, Ferrer, same age: Djoko, Murray, younger: Delpo (Fed only really dominated his own age category)
Arguments that are less convincing imo:
57 titles total. So what, he's still 20 short of Fed.
Career slam. The problem with that is that Fed has it too with more slams overall.
24 master titles. It's the record and it's amazing but it could be argued that 21 master titles + 6 WTF is more impressive than 24 and no WTF (playing the devil's advocate here)
Other arguments I would use in favor of Rafa:
Only player to have won slams on clay, grass and hard in the same season
Achieved (golden) career slam in fewest attempts
Only player to have won slams 9 years in a row (and counting).
Only player to have won masters 9 years in a row (and counting)
Only player to have 7+ titles at 4 different events
Only player to have won 3rd clay master, RG, Queen's and W back to back
Only player to have won the 3 clay masters + RG in the same season
Highest winning % overall in open era: 83.4
Highest winning % in masters: 83.8
Highest winning % outdoor: 85.6
Highest winning % on 1 surface: 93.3 (!)
Last edited:
90's Clay
Banned
Not considering he 60 percent of his slams or better are comprised on ONE surface and he was only #1 in the world for a cup of coffee.
If he manages some more non clay slams.. Absolutely.. Hes in the hunt.. But thats a big IF. He hasn't managed a non clay slam win in 3 years and counting
Hes got the career slam, masters titles, Olympics and domination over his rivals on the modern era. He just needs to do some more off of clay slam wise. Thus why I wish he would say "screw the clay season, I'm focusing elsewhere" No one is ever catching him on clay anyways
If he manages some more non clay slams.. Absolutely.. Hes in the hunt.. But thats a big IF. He hasn't managed a non clay slam win in 3 years and counting
Hes got the career slam, masters titles, Olympics and domination over his rivals on the modern era. He just needs to do some more off of clay slam wise. Thus why I wish he would say "screw the clay season, I'm focusing elsewhere" No one is ever catching him on clay anyways
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
A cup of coffee? Maybe you have him confused with Safin or Roddick. Rafa is among the 8 players who stayed #1 for 100 + weeks and he's not the last in the list... But sure he's not in the top 4 who have 200 + weeks. (Fed, Sampras, Lendl, Connors)
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Because I don't pay trolls any attention on either side. He usually posts in paragraphs too, "Ain't nobody got time for that."
Being a big fan of Rafa I can understand why you're generous. But the answer is NO, he's not there yet. He still has a lot of work to do to qualify for goat. H2H is not part of a metric because it doesn't award any trophy and ranking. He needs to beat every player in his path. His rival isn't just the top 3, 5 or 10, but it's the entire field. Capiche ?
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
No he is not, not yet. He needs to win more slams and more slams off clay for him to be considered the GOAT, that is the bottom line.
I'm mixed on that argument.
On one hand, I agree that if you asked most pro tennis players, let alone people that follow tennis if they could win ONE tennis tournament, which one would it be... that answer is probably Wimbledon.
But really don't all majors pay about the same? Ultimately at the end of the day don't you just want to win a major and the associated dough?
NEW_BORN
Hall of Fame
Let's be real here, Nadal is only in the GOAT discussion because he owns Federer.
Consider if his record against Federer was say 15-15, then no one would have any reason to put him above Federer.
Personally, i think Nadal is a GOAT candidate because at his absolute peak, healthy and well-rested, i can't imagine anyone beating him.
Federer is imo the most successful, most versatile and the most asethetically pleasing to watch, but i can no longer call him the GOAT, and i think we all know why.
Consider if his record against Federer was say 15-15, then no one would have any reason to put him above Federer.
Personally, i think Nadal is a GOAT candidate because at his absolute peak, healthy and well-rested, i can't imagine anyone beating him.
Federer is imo the most successful, most versatile and the most asethetically pleasing to watch, but i can no longer call him the GOAT, and i think we all know why.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Nadal was never supposed to be a GOAT, in the sense of number of slams and such. Nadal could be considered GOAT for continually doing the impossible, and proving everyone incorrect.
Nadal was supposed to be a flash in the pan, he was never supposed to win a slam out side of clay, he was not supposed to be able to play past age 25, defeating Federer was supposed to just be a fluke, and Federer fans simply could not deal with it and live(d) in denial, etc...
A lot of Federer fans whine about the anti-Federer's such as myself, but did they ever once stop to take a good look around? No, they just don't get it and from reading this post they obviously never will.
Nadal was supposed to be a flash in the pan, he was never supposed to win a slam out side of clay, he was not supposed to be able to play past age 25, defeating Federer was supposed to just be a fluke, and Federer fans simply could not deal with it and live(d) in denial, etc...
A lot of Federer fans whine about the anti-Federer's such as myself, but did they ever once stop to take a good look around? No, they just don't get it and from reading this post they obviously never will.
Last edited:
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Nadal wont be considered the GOAT even if he matched Federer because he is effectively Thomas Muster 2.0. He has to be ahead to inherit a legitimate GOAT candidacy.
He deliberately mitigated the number of occasions he faced his key peers across all surfaces, something previous GOAT candidates did not generally do. By putting most of his eggs into the clay basket he has ensured that even if he matched Federer's numbers there will always be a feeling he was a bit of a coward when it came to putting an effort in across the whole season. :twisted:
Did I win at using ****** logic the other way around? I think I got it right.
He deliberately mitigated the number of occasions he faced his key peers across all surfaces, something previous GOAT candidates did not generally do. By putting most of his eggs into the clay basket he has ensured that even if he matched Federer's numbers there will always be a feeling he was a bit of a coward when it came to putting an effort in across the whole season. :twisted:
Did I win at using ****** logic the other way around? I think I got it right.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
You're actually kind of onto something here. Nadal isn't the GOAT and being so was never his objective. That's what I like about him.
I think you either believe there is no GOAT... and that's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint.
or you think Federer is GOAT.
because regardless of that lopsided H2H against Nadal where most of the matches are on clay, he's the most successful tennis player by all the accepted measurements for greatness.
If Federer isn't GOAT, there's no GOAT...
I had the opposite feeling. Fed didn't want to be the goat. It's more that people wanted him to be goat.
Nadal and Sampras wanted to be goat, they just weren't good enough. They are winning machines. Nadal has spin, Sampras had serve. I think they cared a lot more about winning. And it took mentally a lot from them.
Just look Fed 2012. He has a wife, children, has a lot of more commitments and yet he was fresh as a daisy.
Fed is more like an artist enjoying himself. Nadal thinks tennis is a war. He is willing to die to win.
It makes sense. He admitted he doesn't like losing. Also when playing for fun with his friends, he tries 100% to win. Any activity.
Fed is addicted to tennis, Nadal and Sampras are addicted to winning.
NEW_BORN
Hall of Fame
Yeah you're right. At this point i don't believe there is a GOAT, only potential GOAT candidates and Fed is at the top of that list right now.
However, unless Federer beats Nadal again in a high-stakes slam match where both are healthy and well-rested, then i don't believe he can ever be called the undisputed GOAT.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
option 3 looks fine to me.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Ahh, but also to be fair Nadal had just won seven tournaments out of nine, including a historic RG.
Federer was well rested, no injury, and had just won a tournament.
Even funnier, Djokovic isn't 31 either, but there were a ton of threads saying he was tired after playing del Potro. Give me a break, that excuse doesn't work for anyone else, so it doesn't wash for him either. You take the court, you're fit to play is a popular sentiment around here, unless it's your guy.
Neither he, Fed, or Murray were racking up tournament titles in the last few months so there's no reason for them to be tired. Until Murray won this year's Wimbledon Nadal had equaled the titles that the other Big 3 had combined.
So, in my opinion, that is a very big difference.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Absolutely. That's why there is not a consensus on GOAT and there never will be, imo.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Agreed. I don't understand the fascination with arguing this over and over again. I wonder what people get out of it. It's very bizarre.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Isn't it ridiculous? Clay is a full season so it must have some merit, as opposed to the WTF, a one time shot at the end of a very busy season, and grass with it's three tournaments.
Yet, somehow people have managed (in their minds) to make clay less than, and then balk when others don't agree with their faulty logic.
I couldn't tell you the composition of anyone's majors in the past. It is simply recorded as 14, 12, 11, etc.
A straw argument indeed, and it's not fooling anyone that I know of.
namelessone
Legend
First of all, I'm not even sure that they are truly Nadal fans or people that just like to troll on internet boards. If you're gonna troll, you wanna bait the biggest fanbase on said board and here that is fed fans.
Second, even if they are Nadal fans, their actual number is small but they have lots of double accounts. It's only a couple of deranged individuals that you could probably count on one hand.
It is the Fed warehouse/church because a lot of fed fans will use these Nadal trolls to justify their hate and trolling behavior towards Nadal. Nadal troll comes in with stupid thread clearly designed to flame, then we have equally stupid response threads by the fed fans, then we switch over to just the plain hating threads.
The problem with a lot of fed fans here is that they are troll enablers. Far from having fun with them, they feed them constantly. Jeezus, some of the hardcoded topics we have around here have come from Nadal trolls being fed by Federer fans. See h2h discussion, strong/weak era, GOAT discussions. I am so incredibly tired of these discussion and I have been here since 2009, some joined from 2006 or even earlier and they still engage in these goddam pointless conversations.
The Nadal trolls have changed the face of this forum and it is only because some fed fans were gullible enough to buy into their BS, to engage in a conversation with people that have proven over and over that they don't care about what you have to say.
The same way competition is not included there as well.
You know the reason this thread was started in the first place.You are going to have some response when 3-4 threads are started bashing Fed with claims like
Federer is playing the best tennis of his career at 31
Federer has 6 legitimate slams
Federer beat girls scouts in most of his slams
Nadal was a baby on HC till 2010
Djokovic and Murray have surpassed Federer etc etc
I know the best way to deal with these is to ignore them but its hard to ignore when the first few threads on this section are ones bashing Fed
And regarding clay its definitely a legitimate surface but the fact is Federer dominated two surfaces while Rafa dominated one.Its as simple as that Federer's resume is more complete than Rafa's.Having said that Rafa dominated a surface more than anyone else has in history and he has proved that he can win on all surfaces as well so his dominance of clay should not be held against him.Federers domination of two surfaces(Grass and HC maybe indoor as well) and being competitive on the third should also be given credit
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes, let's wash hands of the bad apples, there aren't trolls among Nadal fanbase here, those who seem to fit that description aren't really Nadal fans.
Maybe, maybe not, apparently it can't be proven that easily (otherwise I reckon there would be far less polluters).
Doesn't matter, it's still doesn't fit that description.
Fed gets bashed waaaay too often here for this to be considered his fansite/forum or something.
Heck, someone reading this forum for the first time could get the impression that Fed's a crappy player who owes his success to facing challenger level players and that he cries everytime he loses a big match.
Do you think "Nadal was on a silent ban" is a valid theory?
If the answer is yes then you shouldn't address people who believe in it as haters and trolls (as you and other Nadal fans often do).
If the answer is no, you should have ignored them completely, don't be a troll enabler, yes?
Last edited:
cronus
Professional
My answer is NO, not even close.
He has two Wimbledon titles, one against 27 year old mono roger and one against berdych the grass court master
lol ,he lost to Djoker who looses to murray in straight sets, that explains his career, he is no where near anything great, but he is a very good baseliner and pusher and roger's mental block.
He has two Wimbledon titles, one against 27 year old mono roger and one against berdych the grass court master
lol ,he lost to Djoker who looses to murray in straight sets, that explains his career, he is no where near anything great, but he is a very good baseliner and pusher and roger's mental block.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I fail to see how having a winning record over all main rivals means all that much compared to achievements. In tennis the achievements that matter are well known - even if their importance is debated. A list head to heads is definitely not one of them. If it is it's so far down the list of things that matter to significant only if two players have basically equivalent achievements.
Secondly, if you think it is a relevant to discuss the head to heads with your main rivals then it must also be the case for losses to far, far lower achieving players like Davydenko. It's facetious use of the easily available body of knowledge to pick and choose only the numbers which suit your line of argument.
This is far, far more important than any head to head argument because it is about measured, milestones (winning a title) - the things that matter in tennis. That said, it's only really fair to compare when each player's career is over. Currently they're at quite different stages of their careers.
This is one of the more mind-boggling thing's I've ever read here. It rivals for sheer stupidity the "if Federer was worse results on clay he would therefore be a better player because his head to head with Nadal would be better" type nonsense.
When added to the list of achievements they definitely mean something. The fact they are strung together in a row is pretty irrelevant. If it is then Federer's four consecutive Atlantic Crossing Slams (winning Wimbledon then the US Open) trumps them by miles.
This is classic cunning use of statistics. These numbers are all great, but are all elevated because he's in his prime. They will almost certainly all soften as he gets closer to retirement - as they do for everyone give or take the odd person who retired in their prime on the spot.
Some of these things are all the more surprising considering you list your occupation as a teacher.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
My answer is NO, not even close.
He has two Wimbledon titles, one against 27 year old mono roger and one against berdych the grass court master
Federer reached the 2008 Wimbledon final without dropping a set. Berdych beat both Federer and Djokovic at 2010 Wimbledon. Nadal also has a winning head-to-head against Djokovic on grass.
You don't think Nadal never having a losing record against all his main rivals is relevant?
Apart from Davydenko, and that's 5-6, who else is there? Federer has losing head-to-heads against Nadal and Murray, two of his biggest rivals, which includes 8 losses in majors to his biggest rival, Nadal.
Nadal has won a career Grand Slam and a record number of masters series titles. His winning percentages are excellent, and beyond ridiculous on clay.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
And Nadal reached 2011 USO final while dropping only one and that too to Murray (one of the best HC players of this era), still didn't stop you from posting "prime Nadal, my foot".
Also, it's nice to see how Fed is expected to have a 6 year peak while Nadal gets away with 4 months, convenient to say the least.
Yeah, Fed who was playing some of the worst grasscourt tennis of his career (his level of play was beyond terrible in 2010 Wimbledon) and Novak who was having a very shaky year with no top 10 wins up until that point and serving woes (was making more double faults than aces).
Nadal does indeed have a winning H2H against Novak on grass but guess who leads their Wimbledon final H2H
? Sorry, I forgot, that match hasn't transpired in the holy 4 month period so I guess it doesn't count.Haha, funny how when it comes to comparing Nadal and Fed's competition, Murray and Novak are Nadal's rivals not Fed's but when it comes H2H, Murray is suddenly Fed's biggest rival too.
With this I definitely agree, nobody owns any surface as Nadal does clay and his winning % and slam winning longevity are very impressive.
Masters titles? Impressive (though I don't know how many masters equivalents Lendl won) but no YEC.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
3 to 4 threads bashing Fed is mild compared to the dozens created to bash Nadal with claims like:
Nadal is on PEDS.
Nadal cheats.
Nadal only wins on clay (forget his 4 off clay slams, which is more than most players on the tour besides Federer and Novak).
Nadal abuses other players.
Nadal is Tony's robot.
Nadal style is ugly.
Nadal is destroying tennis.
Nadal is the devil.
There's just no comparison in the tone of these threads.
I'm sure it is hard to ignore for FedFans, but it is equally hard to ignore as Nadal fans.
Fed does have a more complete resume. I have no problem with that and have never said otherwise. But then, although Fed dominated on two surfaces, I don't see people trying to act like hardcourts and grass doesn't matter at all. People on this board legitimately try to act like clay is a lesser surface, and that's just not right.
You're a good poster, imo, so I'm not trying to be funny to you. I am simply explaining my positions.
Well in my defense I dont ignore those threads as well,recent one being a ridiculous notion that Nadal moonballs which is absolutely rubbish,I pointed out that Nadal hits the ball as hard as anyone else but most of his power goes into generation of topspin.
I understand your position,I guess I am new here and in due time I ll learn to ignore these kind of threads.Thanks for the bolded part I consider you to be a good poster as well and guess I got a little carried away.
Why don't you talk to TDK, 6-1 6-3 6-0, The_Order, 90s Clay, Jacksonville and company to stop. These people are relentlessly taking cheap shot at Federer every day and night.
Crisstti
Legend
A couple less I think.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think it was 22, Nadal has 24 and Federer has 21.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I agree, putting one player on a pedestal above others is somewhat absurd as far as I'm concerned, too many variables.
I personally thing Tiers are a better idea, otherwise you could spend all day arguing who's better between Becker and Edberg for example (let alone the neverending GOAT debate), just put them in the same class/tier, problem solved.
Regardless, while I'm not gonna name any players as outright GOAT (as I said, I think it's absurd) I do think you could say about a number of players that they can be considered one of the greatest ever, at this point it's certainly not outlandish to claim so for Nadal (so my answer to OP's question the way I interpret would be yes).
I feel at this point he's in the conversation, regardless if there are players with arguably stronger claims or not.
I think so as well but I'm not sure (and am lazy to check), there were a few posters here who mentioned the exact number.
Lendl does have a far better YEC record though, which is on the level of a masters title at the very least.
Nope. But he is probably clay GOAT.
But I think he will win a few more of other slams.
It just shows how easy it is to win career slam in this era of homogeneous surfaces.
He broke masters record a few years back.
David Ferrer's consecutive slam quarter-final record also show how easy it is to
collect these records are in this era.
Most meaningful record in this era is how long a player dominated tour or
tournament: Federer's regin on Wimbledon and 4 - 5 year dominance on tour, and Nadal's dominance at French.
Crisstti
Legend
I see we agree about this then
About the bolded, that is actually the only thing I really care to argue about in this kind of debates. And sometimes I feel like saying something to some arrogant Federer fans who go around basically saying Fed is the goat and you're stupid if you don't agree.
As NatF said, Lendl has 22 and Rafa 24.
I also agree tiers are a much better idea.
Last edited:
Crisstti
Legend
Re people saying Rafa's resume isn't diverse enough / not enough achievements off clay. Rafa's resume off clay is not average by any standards, but it can be considered a "hole" in the sense that is better in other all time greats. But the same can be said about different aspects of every other all time great really. Including Federer.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Generally no (see red text below), but especially when compared to the metrics considered most important and by which tennis players have (and can) been measured across the ages - such as majors won, weeks at #1, season ending championships etc. He has won so much more than most players who have beaten him that it's irrelevant. And so the case is between Federer and Nadal.
H2hs are not even a blip on the radar when you compile a body of work on a player to line them up against tennis players across the ages. They never were until literally 5 years ago when Nadal fans started seeking something to show their favourite player was better than someone who was clearly the higher achiever.
But, since some are so intent on using the h2h argument I'll frame it another way: what is a bigger blight on a player's career - a player losing to a #50 in the second round of a tournament and thereby protecting their h2h versus their key rivals or a player losing to the #2 or 3 ranked player in a final and having their h2h negatively affected?
A partisan viewer will say "protect the head to head" - but look at the flips side: how on earth is that a better mark on someone's record than the player who lost in a final? I mean, seriously - that is some major moron level logic in play there.
Chris Guccione, Xavier Malisse, Mikhail Youzhny, Nicolas Mahut, Juan Monaco, Carlos Moya, Joachim Johansson are the sort of people Nadal was losing to - a group of players Federer has never lost to. He has 45-0 record against that entire group and Nadal lost to all of them in less than two seasons. In those two seasons Federer won 6 majors (the equivalent of Beckers or Edberg's entire careers) and Nadal won 2 - but Nadal still had a 6-5 winning record over Federer. So, who was the greater player in those two seasons? Federer or Nadal?
Taken in complete isolation the h2h does show something for sure - such as a player having a mental or skill advantage over another. But this can be quite independent to overall ability which the Federer vs Murray situation is a perfect example of. No-one in their right mind would chose to have Murray's achievements over Federer's because Murray heads the h2h.
Similarly, when you compare Federer and Nadal, it would take a very partisan person to suggest that the period when Nadal was often losing to players who Federer then spanked when he won a title is NOT a huge flashing neon light indication that Federer was, by far, the greater player (in that period - the sort of 2006-2009 period).
He yet has more of the achievements that are considered most important than both of them combined. That is what matters more. Until Nadal hits 17 majors he's simply not a remotely credible GOAT candidate - he is second, third (or lower) on every major metric by which tennis players are compared - while Federer is #1 on many of them, by miles in some cases too.
No doubting that at all. But, comparing percentages while he is his prime with someone clearly well past their prime or long since retired is pretty amateur level stuff when it comes to argument credibility. Compare like for like.
(Re: first comment: Should Nadal get to 17 majors then the head to head does become a factor worthy of considering more - but only then. A situation such as Edberg and Becker is perhaps a good previous example. They're even on majors - Edberg is well ahead in weeks at #1, but Becker has whopping 25-10 lead in the h2h, including their last 7 encounters and both Davis Cup matches)
Last edited:
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
No, because he didn't beat Borg with a wooden racquet on 80's clay.
He also only beat Federer - the most overrated non GOAT in history who couldn't even beat Michael Phelps in a doggy paddle - at Wimbledon, but didn't beat the mighty William Renshaw on the superfast ice grass of the 1880's.
He also only beat Federer - the most overrated non GOAT in history who couldn't even beat Michael Phelps in a doggy paddle - at Wimbledon, but didn't beat the mighty William Renshaw on the superfast ice grass of the 1880's.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
The conditions of Wimbledon were not fast in the pre-pressurised tennis ball era which started in *I forget* (the 1950 or later???).
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
Hey, hey Bobby. Bobby, listen. Don't you, hey, don't you make me go get some obscure stat to throw you off the scent.
I'm warning you, I've just seen The Internship! I know all about this Googliness business these days, I'll obscurify you with stats and facts and stats and more stats, and then some facts on top of those stats. And facts.
