Can Nadal Have Losses to and be considered GOAT?

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Can Nadal have losses to the following players in Grand Slams during his prime (2008-2013) and be considered the Greatest of All Time:

Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrer, Rosol, and Darcis.

Five players who have never won a a Grand Slam and most likley never will.

Compare that to Federer who during his prime, 2004-2009, who never lost to a player who didn't win a Grand Slam.
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
Nadal lost to those players for various reasons, but in the end it boils down to consistency. Nadal has only really been near 100% consistent on clay.

Now, who do you think would be GOAT, somebody with more achievements but less consistency, or somebody more consistent with less achievements?
 
M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Forehand Of Doom said:
Nadal lost to those players for various reasons, but in the end it boils down to consistency. Nadal has only really been near 100% consistent on clay.

Now, who do you think would be GOAT, somebody with more achievements but less consistency, or somebody more consistent with less achievements?
Click to expand...

Doesn't Federer have more achievements of any player in history and more consistency.
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
McEnroeisanartist said:
Doesn't Federer have more achievements of any player in history and more consistency.
Click to expand...
So far Federer has more achievements than Nadal, but Nadal has already achieved more than Federer had achieve at Nadal's current age. (In some ways, not in others like WTF wins).

The point is, if Nadal overtakes Fed's 17 slams, will anybody in the known Universe be able to whine about his inconsistent losses to lower ranked players? I don't doubt they will.
 
MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
McEnroeisanartist said:
Yes, he did, however, I would not consider 2003 part of Federer's grand slam prime.
Click to expand...

When you create these threads, it really seems like you're trying to convince yourself something, they just seem so pointless. We all know you like Federer more than Rafa. His accomplishments are better all around. None of this is groundbreaking? You're not going to change the minds of haters too stuck up Nadal's rear end to acknowledge Federer's greatness, anymore than you'll ever appreciate Nadal more than you do, when you're too busy downplaying the things he's achieved.
 
Gonzo_style

Gonzo_style

Hall of Fame
Backspin1183 said:
That was pre Prime Federer. Fed's prime was from 2004 to 2007. He was past his prime at 26 when Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon.
Ask any Fed fan if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...


Tennis Masters Cup 2007 - primepeaksexirogermasterclass

Australian Open 2008 - pasthisprimemonobadback31yearoldfederer
 
Backspin1183

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
Gonzo_style said:
Thank you, that makes sense. I don't know what is wrong with Fed haters...
Click to expand...

You're welcome. Happy to help you see the Fed light.

Ignore the Fed haters. They're just too jealous of the maestro because their fav player in their prime, which is at least ten years for them, lost to some mugs.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
Hasn't Fed lost to most of those guys as well?

Lost to Tsonga at Wimb
Lost to Soderling at RG
Lost to Stakhovksy which is pretty much just as bad as losing to Darcis of Rosol
 
Federer20042006

Federer20042006

Banned
90's Clay said:
Hasn't Fed lost to most of those guys as well?

Lost to Tsonga at Wimb
Lost to Soderling at RG
Lost to Stakhovksy which is pretty much just as bad as losing to Darcis of Rosol
Click to expand...

OP is saying during their prime.

I don't think this kind of comparison works so well since Nadal was already in his prime in 2005, and continues to play the same level of tennis he always has.

Meanwhile, Federer didn't have anywhere near the endurance to maintain his top level of tennis for as long as Nadal has. That is one area where Nadal clearly beats Federer. Despite all the claims to the opposite, Nadal's the one whose body has held up better.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
Federer20042006 said:
OP is saying during their prime.

I don't think this kind of comparison works so well since Nadal was already in his prime in 2005, and continues to play the same level of tennis he always has.

Meanwhile, Federer didn't have anywhere near the endurance to maintain his top level of tennis for as long as Nadal has. That is one area where Nadal clearly beats Federer. Despite all the claims to the opposite, Nadal's the one whose body has held up better.
Click to expand...



Nadal was still a few years from his prime in 2005 (Come on.. The dude was 18-19 years old? Who's in their prime at that age). Fed was doing to Soderling and Tsonga at 29 years old. Slightly out of prime
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Gonzo_style said:
Nalbandian beat Federer in USO 2003
Click to expand...

And tell us more about how many slam Roger won at that time compare to Nadal who lost to Darcis this year.



very bias--1---------.----2---------.----3----------.--4-----------.--5-------.------6-----.--------7-------------8-------------9-.------------10--objective
-----------------Sampras fans-----Nadal fans--------Serena fans------Nole fans----Laver fans----Murray fans--------------------------------Fed Fans
 
Overdrive

Overdrive

Legend
Seriously TMF? You put Federer fans as the most objective?

The lot of you fanboys are don't have any perspective because you are all extremely deluded and should not be taken into any consideration.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Overdrive said:
Seriously TMF? You put Federer fans as the most objective?

The lot of you fanboys are don't have any perspective because you are all extremely deluded and should not be taken into any consideration.
Click to expand...

Then who are the most objective?
 
Overdrive

Overdrive

Legend
TMF said:
Then who are the most objective?
Click to expand...

People who are not fanboys of any player. They analyze these situations with the lowest amount of personal bias to them.

I don't understand why others take you and the rest of the lot seriously. It's time to let go of this unnecessary fanboyism..
 
Overdrive

Overdrive

Legend
Forehand Of Doom said:
No fan can be objective by definition. I would say maybe some old uninvolved pro might be more objective, somebody like Borg or JMac. Don't confuse objectivity with intelligence or a sound mind however.
Click to expand...

It really is sad that you know how TTW works in less than 1 week..
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Forehand Of Doom said:
No fan can be objective by definition. I would say maybe some old uninvolved pro might be more objective, somebody like Borg or JMac. Don't confuse objectivity with intelligence or a sound mind however.
Click to expand...

I agree that no fans are objective, otherwise they would be at level 10, which none of them are.

Some old-timers like krosero, NonP or Moose are objective, but some of the notorious biased one are Datacipher, kiki or BobbyOne.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Forehand Of Doom said:
No fan can be objective by definition. I would say maybe some old uninvolved pro might be more objective, somebody like Borg or JMac. Don't confuse objectivity with intelligence or a sound mind however.
Click to expand...

Mac objective? The guy is a Rafa worshiper. Bad example.

But maybe he is just faking it to promote the game. Mac always praises current players as the next best thing.

He was doing it for Pete, Fed, Djokovic. Even for Murray. Saying Murray can win 10+ majors after Murray won W.

And Mac is a commentator, he is paid to promote the game. How can you consider Mac objective?

I agree with Borg. Seems to be objective.

I also find Fed and Laver very objective.
 
Vcore89

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
Once Pete amassed 12 GSs, he thought he should add a few more to put it away (record) in a safe distance, ten years later, it was gone. However, he made himself GOAT against the competition of his era with a slight (glaring to others) blemish by not winning at RG.

Rafa on the contrary might not be in the running for GOAThood (this early OR even at 11 slams back then) had he not owned the GOAT in head-to-heads. He may have to literally reach Pete's 14 GS total to be included in the GOATspeak but it (H2Hs) definitely spearheaded his cause solely because he beat the GOAT so many times that it is embarassing!:oops:

So no, he wouldn't be GOAT material (yet but surely would at a later time provided he keeps pushing the envelop) had he had a losing record against the GOAT.
 
Last edited:
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
McEnroeisanartist said:
Can Nadal have losses to the following players in Grand Slams during his prime (2008-2013) and be considered the Greatest of All Time:

Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrer, Rosol, and Darcis.

Five players who have never won a a Grand Slam and most likley never will.

Compare that to Federer who during his prime, 2004-2009, who never lost to a player who didn't win a Grand Slam.
Click to expand...

I can't see Rafa seen as greatest in any case. Yes, Rafa can be the best in history if he breaks Fed's records. But for me that is not the same as greatest.

Best means best stats. But greatest is something more than just pure numbers. Like playing style, popularity, the level of domination.

I see Rafa only greatest on clay. I don't see Rafa doing anything extraordinary like Fed and Laver to be considererd.

So, even if Rafa breaks 17 majors, I will only see him as the best of all time, not the greatest.
 
A

adil1972

Hall of Fame
nadal only player to lose 3 consecutive grand slam finals (2011 wimbledon, 2011 US Open and 2012 Australian open) all of them to djokovic

only one of the final went to 5 sets (2012 Australian open)...

on the other hand we have federer who never lost a grand slam final in less than 5 sets apart from french open.
 
Last edited:
MichaelNadal

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
TMF said:
And tell us more about how many slam Roger won at that time compare to Nadal who lost to Darcis this year.



very bias--1---------.----2---------.----3----------.--4-----------.--5-------.------6-----.--------7-------------8-------------9-.------------10--objective
-----------------Sampras fans-----Nadal fans--------Serena fans------Nole fans----Laver fans----Murray fans--------------------------------Fed Fans
Click to expand...

This post may be the biggest self-serving crock of unadulterated crap I've ever had to read on here. Delusions of grandeur.
 
clayqueen

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Forehand Of Doom said:
Nadal lost to those players for various reasons, but in the end it boils down to consistency. Nadal has only really been near 100% consistent on clay.

Now, who do you think would be GOAT, somebody with more achievements but less consistency, or somebody more consistent with less achievements?
Click to expand...

Deleted -duplicate post.
 
Last edited:
clayqueen

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Forehand Of Doom said:
Nadal lost to those players for various reasons, but in the end it boils down to consistency. Nadal has only really been near 100% consistent on clay.

Now, who do you think would be GOAT, somebody with more achievements but less consistency, or somebody more consistent with less achievements?
Click to expand...

Some rules only apply to Rafa, don't you know? Lol
 
clayqueen

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
McEnroeisanartist said:
Can Nadal have losses to the following players in Grand Slams during his prime (2008-2013) and be considered the Greatest of All Time:

Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrer, Rosol, and Darcis.

Five players who have never won a a Grand Slam and most likley never will.

Compare that to Federer who during his prime, 2004-2009, who never lost to a player who didn't win a Grand Slam.
Click to expand...

Would you apply the same criteria to Federer?

Ancic def Federer (Wimbledon)
Starkovksy def Federer (Wimbledon)
Berdych def Federer (USO); (Wimbledon)
Tsonga def Federer (Wimbledon); (Roland Garros)
Soderling def Federer (Roland Garros)

etc.........

__________________
 
jelle v

jelle v

Hall of Fame
McEnroeisanartist said:
Can Nadal have losses to the following players in Grand Slams during his prime (2008-2013) and be considered the Greatest of All Time:

Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrer, Rosol, and Darcis.

Five players who have never won a a Grand Slam and most likley never will.

Compare that to Federer who during his prime, 2004-2009, who never lost to a player who didn't win a Grand Slam.
Click to expand...

Incidental losses don't really matter in the big picture.. If Nadal gets to -say- 19 Grand Slams, it's difficult to deny that he is quite possibly is the greatest ever.
 
Last edited:
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
clayqueen said:
Would you apply the same criteria to Federer?

Ancic def Federer (Wimbledon)
Starkovksy def Federer (Wimbledon)
Berdych def Federer (USO); (Wimbledon)
Tsonga def Federer (Wimbledon); (Roland Garros)
Soderling def Federer (Roland Garros)

etc.........
Click to expand...


The OP is comparing the core years that Fed and Nadal were at their best.

Fed years:2004-2009
Nadal years: 2008-2013


Your list only covered young and old Federer. Sneaky bias.:lol:
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
TMF said:
The OP is comparing the core years that Fed and Nadal were at their best.

Fed years:2004-2009
Nadal years: 2008-2013


Your list only covered young and old Federer. Sneaky bias.:lol:
Click to expand...

Nadal's core years? The man has been injured for too long too many times during those "core years". Please...
 
Incognito

Incognito

Legend
adil1972 said:
nadal only player to lose 3 consecutive grand slam finals (2011 wimbledon, 2011 US Open and 2012 Australian open) all of them to djokovic

only one of the final went to 5 sets (2012 Australian open)...

on the other hand we have federer who never lost a grand slam final in less than 5 sets apart from french open.
Click to expand...

Since then, Nadal has won all 3 of their meetings at the majors, FO 2012-2013 and the USO 2013. But sure, keep living in the past.
 
Last edited:
G

gabybackhand

Banned
According to Federer fanboys, Nadal has no claim to being GOAT and never will, so why even bother asking questions like this. This just shows the insecurity of Federer fanboys and that they don't really believe the very things they claim. They are already in advance trying to prepare lots of outs to why Nadal isn't the GOAT, something they wouldn't do if they didn't fear that possibility in present and future.
 
Forehand Of Doom

Forehand Of Doom

Banned
Incognito said:
Since then, Nadal has won all 3 of their meetings at the majors, FO 2012-2013 and the USO 2013. But sure, keep living in the past.
Click to expand...

Most of these people are starting to look loke Calvin Webber, from Blast from the Past. :)

215px-BlastFromThePast.jpg
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
How can you lump in Tsonga, Soderling, and Ferrer with Rosol and Darcis? Tsonga, Soderling, and Ferrer have all made Grand Slam finals and have all been to multiple semi-finals. They are very good players, and any top player can lose to them even when "in their prime" if they just play a tiny bit off their very best on that day.

On the other hand, Darcis and Rosol are much less accomplished players.
 
G

gabybackhand

Banned
helterskelter said:
How can you lump in Tsonga, Soderling, and Ferrer with Rosol and Darcis? Tsonga, Soderling, and Ferrer have all made Grand Slam finals and have all been to multiple semi-finals. They are very good players, and any top player can lose to them even when "in their prime" if they just play a tiny bit off their very best on that day.

On the other hand, Darcis and Rosol are much less accomplished players.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that whole reasoning is ridiculous anyway. By that logic Djokovic`s losses to Tsonga, Roddick, and Berdych in slams were all bad losses too.
 
Solo

Solo

Banned
MichaelNadal said:
When you create these threads, it really seems like you're trying to convince yourself something, they just seem so pointless. We all know you like Federer more than Rafa. His accomplishments are better all around. None of this is groundbreaking? You're not going to change the minds of haters too stuck up Nadal's rear end to acknowledge Federer's greatness, anymore than you'll ever appreciate Nadal more than you do, when you're too busy downplaying the things he's achieved.
Click to expand...

How pathetic. You downplay Djokovic everytime with your usual "13 slams >>>>>>>>> 6 slams" whenever a Novak fan argues against your ridiculous Nadal babble and don't lie that you don't when I have clearly seen your posts, and yet you don't like it when a Fed fan lists more accomplishments than your rodent Nadal. Get a grip and stop having double standards.

If you are prepared to downplay other players and their achievements by saying Nadal has more GSs or other trophies than them, then you should be prepared to be downplayed if Fed fans list more and bigger accomplishments than Nadal. If you don't like the taste of your own medicine then you shouldn't be a hypocrite.
 
T

timnz

Legend
McEnroeisanartist said:
Can Nadal have losses to the following players in Grand Slams during his prime (2008-2013) and be considered the Greatest of All Time:

Tsonga, Soderling, Ferrer, Rosol, and Darcis.

Five players who have never won a a Grand Slam and most likley never will.

Compare that to Federer who during his prime, 2004-2009, who never lost to a player who didn't win a Grand Slam.
Click to expand...

Nadal's prime (as opposed to his peak) is from 2005 to the present. Anytime you can win a slam, you are in your prime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Grand Slam Losses in Prime - Federer and Nadal
Replies
21
Views
2K
Sparrowhawk
S
M
Comparing Federer, Nadal, and Sampras - Grand Slam Losses in Prime
Replies
14
Views
1K
mud volcano
M
M
Comparing Slam Losses Between Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic
Replies
31
Views
6K
moonballs
moonballs
M
Federer's losses in Grand Slams post-prime compared to Samrpas/Nadal
Replies
7
Views
781
spinovic
S
M
Players with 8 Slams or More and Tough Losses
Replies
25
Views
2K
Steve0904
Steve0904
Top