If Nadal has more total slams but Federer has more of each, who is GOAT?
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Fed won Wimbledon from 2003-2007 and the US Open from 2004-2008 so yes, he did win 2 slams five years consecutively.
Ah, the wording confused me, then. It seemed like they meant 5 consecutive multiple slam years.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
5 USO, 5 W
He has 5 years at two different majors.
I guess, I should be more clear. I thought this is clear, though. Why would I claim winning 5 USO,W back to back, if it's not the case?
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
i like onion crisps...
Maybe they just don't understand consistency and domination go hand-in-hand. Federer dominate the field consistency is the reason he could set a streak of 237 weeks at #1. His consistency on grass set a record for most consecutive wins(65) on grass. To top with 6 straight USO finals(won 5) and 7 straight Wimbledon finals(won 6) is nothing short of consistency and domination.
This is something where Nadal will not catch Federer even if he win 18 slams. I think Federer will have Nadal's number in records and level of domination. Something that experts will factor in when comparing greatness.
When stats/numbers don't favor your idol, insert "weak era" nonsense.
Typical Nadal fans grasping at straws that they learned from Sampras fans.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Good point. They didn't come up with those arguments on their own. They just copy and paste without even thinking about the logic.
At least Sampras fans don't use this and most of them love Fed. Sampras fans were just using arguments for trolling purposes, and are mostly Fed fans anyway, they knew that logic wasn't good.
* cue "Morning" by Edvard Greig*
......and so begins yet another day with our hero fighting the brave fight on behalf of his fanboy idol.....to a world that doesn't care......
Ok, true, TMF is a Fed fanatic a bit. But he uses facts and great reasoning to back up his claims. And is very consistent with his logic.
You can't really find any faults in his reasoning. He presents a good case for Fed.
The weak era excuse is getting tiresome, because it proves nothing. Especially when Federer have debunked in 2012 by winning Wimbledon and reach #1. Fanatics are the one who use to undermine the other players.
Sampras fans use it quite often, and I don't think many believe what they are saying and as you said, they're just trolling.
Thanks jg153040. I don't undermine Nadal using the faulty logic by saying he had a weak competition. I only do it to respond to the same trolls who disparage Federer. Both players are competition against the field and it's disrespectful to say either one had a weak competition.
Crisstti
Legend
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
jg, I was referring to (in my bolded quote) TMF's snidely-worded comment which had nothing to do with "presenting a case."
"Typical Nadal fans grasping at straws they learned from Sampras fans." <----that's trolling and obnoxious no matter how you look at it.
You could be crazy
Haha. Try proving I'm crazy. Not to others, to me.
It's funny cuz this is a paradox. Try convincing a delusional guy he is delusional. Doesn't work.
In any case, you can laugh at me or you can laugh with me. It's all good. As long as there is laughter.
M
monfed
Guest
I don't think Nadal would be crowned the GOAT, because he would still have a majority of his titles on clay. But let's talk when that happens, a lot can change in the coming months. Honestly, I don't know how you can crown Nadal as the greatest even if he did usurp Fed's slam record with such a limited game, granted he would've won a lot but still he won all that by playing the same on polarized surfaces. I find it hard to look past that, he doesn't have much of a transition or a net game to speak of. To me the GOAT should play the greatest game and also to a great extent have all the records and Fed fits that bill perfectly.
Last edited by a moderator:
objectivity
Banned
objectivity
Banned
what does the greatest game mean? does it mean the ability to dominate anyone, anywhere? or does it mean having a 1HBH? cos if its the former, well, we know Federer surely doesn't fit that bill....
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
TMF is known for that, the worst of its kind, by the way. :twisted:
M
monfed
Guest
So ,can you unequivocally say that Nadal's game is better than Fed's(outside clay)?
objectivity
Banned
i never did. don't change the subject. what does the "greatest game" mean?
M
monfed
Guest
The greatest game means being able to do anything with the ball,being able to hit any shot. It means having a complete arsenal of strokes and not lack in a certain area. I find Nadal lacking in certain areas of tennis such as a transition game, net game, S&V, playing first strike tennis,playing attacking baseline tennis when the need arises. Nadal always wins by frustrating his opponent rather than from his own brilliance. I find it hard to call someone a GOAT who wins from defense, I think it would be bad for tennis if Nadal ends up with the slam record because of his anti-tennis/negative tennis.
Last edited by a moderator:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You are itching for someone to post Fed's name next to "GOAT" but to your question, until Federer or Nadal win the Grand Slam, they are not in the GOAT conversation.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
But you always say Fed and Rafa are from the same era
Owned.....
kiki
Banned
In fact, if Laver decides to give one GS to Federer and one GS to Nadal, the three will be tied ( with Don Budge) since he also won the pro slam in 1967, his best ever season...
What if Murray wins CYGS for example ending with 6 majors. Would you consider him for goat in this scenario?
Murray is Scottish player, who competes with Federer and Nadal for titles. He won his first Wimbledon.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
1962 one doesn't count, he wouldn't have done the Grand Slam with Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez in the field. But yes his 1967 certainly deserves more credit, it's the only 'pro slam' I care about considering it also included the Wimbledon Pro effectively making it a 4 major year.
kiki
Banned
Ask Federer if he wouldn´t love having the 62 one¡¡¡
Would Fed trade his 17 majors for a CYGS? I doubt it
.Even for 3 CYGS. 3 CYGS is still only 12 majors.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Whether he'd love it or not would depend on his understanding of tennis history. Would he want a Grand Slam won by beating the third tier players of his era?
CYGS only makes sense as a cherry on top when you have all other records.
I mean Fed with 12 majors with CYGS would look pretty strange.
But if Fed had CYGS without the career slam. That would be instant goat. That is impossible to achieve
.
Omega_7000
Legend
Player of the decade are well known for other sports too not just tennis. According to you, it doesn't exist. Sorry for you but no one is ripping Magic Johnson for being the player of the 80s even though his rookie year was in 1980.
But you always say Fed and Rafa are from the same era
If Nole win the player of the decade for 2010's, he'll find another excuse.
albatros_forehand
Professional
Yes. More GS titles and leading h2h. What more do you want?
More weeks nr.1
Larry Bird was the best player of the 80's with Magic coming in second IMO.
Really? I know they both owned the 80s but I thought Magic would have the edge. He won 5 rings and carry his team to the finals 9 out of 10 years. Larry won 3 rings. At the beginning of their career, Larry was more impressive, and winning individual awards. However eventually Magic caught up and also ended with 3 season MVP.
Talker
Hall of Fame
Yet, he call me cherry picking. How about him being consistent for a change and not flip-flop back and fort to suit his needs.
Sounds like a politician with potential.
Haha, politician with potential. That is an oxymoron.
Talker
Hall of Fame
There's always arguments about this.
Larry had a better PPG, Rebounds, three point shooting etc. But Magic did a lot on the court to help his team and led in assists.
The 1986 Celtics led by Bird were considered the best team in history by many so that helps Larry's cause some.
There isn't an answer really as there are arguments to this day. LOL
