In due time Steve, in due time
An interesting parallel: Federer from 2004-2007 and Nadal on Clay
- Thread starter Revenant
- Start date
In due time Steve, in due time
saintlaurent
Banned
It is not only Nadal who fails to reach Federer. Federer failed to reach Nadal at Wimbledon 2010 and 2011, as well as U.S Open 2010 and 2011, all where he was fully expected to play him. Although good thing for him he did, as not only would he have a losing record vs Nadal on grass now (and a now scary 2-12 slam H2H) but Nadal would gain 2 additional slams and be right at Federer's doorstep in slam wins already. Federer wisely allowed the tougher opponent (Djokovic) to make it to Nadal instead, and at times got assistance for the wise choice. Other times Nadal failed such as Wimbledon 2013, Federer did too, so it wouldn't matter. Wimbledon 2012 and 2014 are the only times Nadal really failed to reach his appointed confrontation with Federer, while Federer did more often if anything.
Most of the times Nadal is somehow faulted for not reaching Federer is when he was 18-21, yet Federer at that age couldn't even make it past the round of 16 of a hard court slam ever. :lol: Atleast Nadal at that age was winning on his best surface.
Most of the times Nadal is somehow faulted for not reaching Federer is when he was 18-21, yet Federer at that age couldn't even make it past the round of 16 of a hard court slam ever. :lol: Atleast Nadal at that age was winning on his best surface.
Nadal certainly had an edge when playing against Federer, but the head to head is heavily skewed because in the vast majority of the matches they played, Nadal was the superior player on the surface at the time of the match. At times when Federer was the superior player on the surface being played, Nadal very rarely made it to Federer.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Federer's career must suck so badly after all that strategic tanking. But, wait..
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Will you consider Nadal the best if he surpasses Fed's slam count?
saintlaurent
Banned
I love how jg153040 pumps what experts say when this is the same poster who claims Nadal is not even in the "league" of Sampras or Borg when the same panel of experts placed Nadal higher than Borg already when he had only 10 slams (and right behind Sampras which means you know 110% they have him higher than him now). Heck that whole list was so biased heavy to modern players I am pretty sure that same panel of "experts" would put Nadal over Laver if they redid the list (not that this would be right, which is the whole point).
jg153040 is the same one who even says Djokovic is nearly equal with Nadal in history, and even though only marginally less great is already the "better" player. I wonder which experts would back that statement. The great tennis historians jg153040, TMF, and Chico would agree on it, so I guess that is good enough. :lol:
jg153040 is the same one who even says Djokovic is nearly equal with Nadal in history, and even though only marginally less great is already the "better" player. I wonder which experts would back that statement. The great tennis historians jg153040, TMF, and Chico would agree on it, so I guess that is good enough. :lol:
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
When it suits their interests, some Federer Worshippers like jg153040 and TMF will twist everything to favor their Demigod Fed.......:twisted:
NatF
Bionic Poster
jg, is just trolling you guys. Falling for it and mocking him doesn't make you look smart :lol:
Depends by how many slams. Right now Nadal trails in another big category weeks nr.1, so I think at 18 slams, there would still be a debate.
I don't just use slam wins. The same as panel of experts at tennis channel.
But, look I would use the same, if situations were reversed. If Federer was trailing Nadal by 150 weeks nr.1, I doubt I would consider Federer the goat with 18 vs 17 slams.
But, I also wouldn't consider Federer the goat if Nadal gets to 18 majors. It would always be debatable for me. I would be agnostic
. Too close to really know. But, if experts at tennis channel vote for Nadal, then I will have to concede and agree with consensus.
Don't be silly, when I say stuff like that, I'm joking. You think I'm always serious? You fail to understand sarcasm.
Laver is ahead of Nadal and Borg and Sampras, so obviously they didn't favor modern players. They actually were smart and are great historians. So, there isn't any bias.
But anyway, unlike you, I would accept anyone those guys would vote for nr.1. Sure, their system is not perfect, but I bet it's better than what armchair "experts" here at TW are capable.
And actually I didn't even know about this list. The Order who is a Nadal fan actually brought up this list a few days ago. So, I went to see it and found out that those isn't just some fan forum voting, but that actually smart historians, who are not biased put a lot of thought into it.
It is you who have problems accepting their reasoning.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
We shall see Lips, we shall see.
LazyNinja19
Banned
Wow, Revenant and saintlaurent banned. Were they umpteenth accounts of Mayo/Monsad? :lol:
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Before you laugh, maybe you should realize that one argued in favour of Federer while the other one was a Nadal fan. Unless they were faking it, I highly doubt the 2 of them were Mayo and monfed.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
It's more than that. At least one whole thread was yanked, and I was politely posting in that thread. Now everything I wrote, politely, is gone.
Similar threads
