Any player ever said Nadal is the best player of all time?

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
I'm aware of numerous current and former players stating that Federer is the greatest player of all time - to name a few: Hewitt, Roddick, Safin even Rafa himself I believe.
Then there's Laver - he told me himself a few years ago that he thought that was the case.

The reason I ask is that there's another thread on here in which Hewitt says Federer is the best.
The reaction to that by some is to imply that Hewitt is just saying that to secure a better place for himself in history - or words to that effect.
Sure he is. How ridiculous.

Well, to those crazy Nadal "fans" out there who see tennis only through the prism of Nadal and nothing else, who says your boy is the best ever?
Anyone?
Any top players past or present annoint your boy as the greatest?
Come on, surprise me.

And by the way I like Nadal and rate him highly.
He's just not the greatest player ever - that's Federer.
Having said that I'm a Federer fan but I love tennis.
It seems for some on here, the game itself takes second place to Nadal hero worship.
I'm constantly amused by a few on here who'll say anything to puff up Nadal when really, he doesn't need puffing up, he's a great player, just not the greatest.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Andy Murray has declared Rafa the greatest of all time.

Also, nadalfan89 who plays challengers in Europe for extra cash. And Bud who is a 4.5 and thus should know.
 

Chillaxer

Semi-Pro
Mcenroe is the only one I've heard state that he is a serious contender, most people agree it's Roger Federer. I do too, even though I'm a more of a fan of Rafa. If he does some more to surpass Pete Sampras but stays behind Roger, I would be chuffed.
 

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
I'm hoping to attract the Nadal worshippers to this thread - like moths to a flame.
It might mean they'll leave other threads that have nothing to do with Nadal alone.
Only kidding, of course that won't happen.
But hey, this may keep them busy for a while.
I mean, when a thread about Kim Clijsters, becomes a battleground in the Fed-Nadal wars what hope is there?
None.
 

Crisstti

Legend
It's really the crazy Fed fans who see tennis only through the prism of Federer and nothing else. Hence the obsession with having others agree he's the goat.

There is no goat. It's all speculation and opinion.

interestingly though, I believe Laver himself brought up Nadal along with fed about this after RG.
 
It's really the crazy Fed fans who see tennis only through the prism of Federer and nothing else. Hence the obsession with having others agree he's the goat.

There is no goat. It's all speculation and opinion.

interestingly though, I believe Laver himself brought up Nadal along with fed about this after RG.

I've only heard Nadal fans say this. Why don't the fans of other players say it also?
 

90's Clay

Banned
Didn't Djoker call Nadal the GOAT? And he's played both Fed and Nadal at their peaks. Hmm...


Quickk... I think I should start a thread about it.
 

R.Federer

Semi-Pro
Didn't Djoker call Nadal the GOAT? And he's played both Fed and Nadal at their peaks. Hmm...


Quickk... I think I should start a thread about it.

he rephrased it after fed beat him a few more times in later interviews so ha :lol:

he said nadal is 1 of the greats which is true
 

bullslayer

New User
lol bud is no 4.5... he names himself after the budweisers who created his 50 inch belly while watching nadal on tv...

i am 5.5 so i know who is good and who isnt... nadal is just another guy with a few slams... thats all
 

Surecatch

Semi-Pro
It would be the height of silliness to see Rafa' as the best over Roger. Fed' bests him on almost any measurement. Rafa' has the head to head thing quite convincingly, but there is just no way that can alone be said to indicate he's higher on the goat list. That would mean that somehow, all the other astonishing records mean nothing.

I've said it before...Nadal was trained to beat a player like Federer, and good on him for that... It has deservedly made him a legend. But you just can't dismiss all the other constructs for measurent, of which Roger is far out ahead of him.
 
Last edited:

-RF-

Hall of Fame
Djokovic said a year or two ago "For me, you are the best ever" to Rafa. Doubt he means it though.
 

NikeWilson

Semi-Pro
Well, when you look at Grand Slam totals and other records such as # of weeks at #1, etc. It would be fairly easy to state that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.

But when you ask yourself the Question: Is there anyone Roger Federer cannot beat??

The answer is Yes. It's Raphael Nadal. Rafa is the only player who has a fairly convincing Head-to-Head record over Federer: 18-10. Nearly double. (if they meet again, it's mostly likely Rafa will beat Federer thus increasing that Head-To-Head even more in Rafa's favor.)

So, if you want to look at it at a Head-To-Head matchup, Nadal is superior over Federer. So, is Federer really the Greatest of All Time even if he has a losing record over Nadal?
Or does this make Nadal truly the Greater Player because he dominates the "Greatest Player of All Time" ?
 

soleil

Rookie
Well, when you look at Grand Slam totals and other records such as # of weeks at #1, etc. It would be fairly easy to state that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.

But when you ask yourself the Question: Is there anyone Roger Federer cannot beat??

The answer is Yes. It's Raphael Nadal. Rafa is the only player who has a fairly convincing Head-to-Head record over Federer: 18-10. Nearly double. (if they meet again, it's mostly likely Rafa will beat Federer thus increasing that Head-To-Head even more in Rafa's favor.)

So, if you want to look at it at a Head-To-Head matchup, Nadal is superior over Federer. So, is Federer really the Greatest of All Time even if he has a losing record over Nadal?
Or does this make Nadal truly the Greater Player because he dominates the "Greatest Player of All Time" ?

this pretty much sums up the argument about who's the true GOAT
 

Crisstti

Legend
It would be the height of silliness to see Rafa' as the best over Roger. Fed' bests him on almost any measurement. Rafa' has the head to head thing quite convincingly, but there is just no way that can alone be said to indicate he's higher on the goat list. That would mean that somehow, all the other astonishing records mean nothing.

I've said it before...Nadal was trained to beat a player like Federer, and good on him for that... It has deservedly made him a legend. But you just can't dismiss all the other constructs for measurent, of which Roger is far out ahead of him.

The h2h tells you Fed's numbers would most likely be different had he had to play Rafa more at his peak. So the argument is more a combination of the h2h and the strength of the eras.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Anyway, have Rafa or Toni ever said that they built Nadal's game to beat Fed?.

There's been strong indications.

But all this speculation about what if Nadal had met federer more during his prime is moot. He didnt start regularly meeting federer outside of clay until out of Fed's prime.. so whos to say Nadal wouldve won all these hypothetical meetings?

Point is, he didnt.. and he's the second best of his era.
 

FlashFlare11

Hall of Fame
Well, when you look at Grand Slam totals and other records such as # of weeks at #1, etc. It would be fairly easy to state that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.

But when you ask yourself the Question: Is there anyone Roger Federer cannot beat??

The answer is Yes. It's Raphael Nadal. Rafa is the only player who has a fairly convincing Head-to-Head record over Federer: 18-10. Nearly double. (if they meet again, it's mostly likely Rafa will beat Federer thus increasing that Head-To-Head even more in Rafa's favor.)

So, if you want to look at it at a Head-To-Head matchup, Nadal is superior over Federer. So, is Federer really the Greatest of All Time even if he has a losing record over Nadal?
Or does this make Nadal truly the Greater Player because he dominates the "Greatest Player of All Time" ?

The "Gretest Player of All Time" (if such a thing could ever exist) would have to have a mastery over everyone on tour since the tour doesn't consist of just two players (in this case, Federer and Nadal). Therefore, what sense does it make for Nadal to be the "greatest ever" if his mastery over every other player isn't as convincing as Federer's?
 

Crisstti

Legend
There's been strong indications.

But all this speculation about what if Nadal had met federer more during his prime is moot. He didnt start regularly meeting federer outside of clay until out of Fed's prime.. so whos to say Nadal wouldve won all these hypothetical meetings?

Point is, he didnt.. and he's the second best of his era.

The fact he won most of is matches against him when he wasn't on his prime and Fed was. Not just on clay either. No one's saying all of them anyway.

I've never heard Nadal or Toni say something that would indicate that is what they did. I've only heard that on this forum.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The fact h won most of is matches against him when he wasn't on his prime and fed was. Not just on clay either.

Fed leads the h2h off clay even now though. Before Fed's downslide in 2008 the h2h was only 8-6 to Nadal as well.

Nadal didn't make it far enough at the US open and other faster hardcourt tournaments to face Federer when he was at his peak. If Nadal wasn't good enough to make it to Federer then I doubt he would have beaten him if they actually played.

Unfortunately their peaks didn't overlap, nowadays Federer hasn't been good enough to reach Nadal often so it's been reversed. If both their primes overlapped I'd expect Nadal to still be ahead but only due to his ridiculous ability on clay. On grass and hardcourt I'd give the edge to Federer (note I say edge, not an overwhelming edge). Although on fast and/or low bouncing hardcourts I'd give Federer a massive advantage.

Nadal matches up well with Federer and has the mental edge. In the infamous 2008 Wimbledon Final Federer's break point conversion was abysmal. In the 2009 Australian Open Final he won more points but still lost. Nadal is fantastic player when the chips are down but Roger has often struggled mentally against Nadal which is a factor in their h2h.

To say Nadal is better due to the h2h is too simplist a view. Especially when Federer despite losing to Nadal has been consistantly better against the rest of the field.
 

Crisstti

Legend
The little part about Federer fans and the prizm.

Sorry, don't understand hat you mean.

Fed leads the h2h off clay even now though. Before Fed's downslide in 2008 the h2h was only 8-6 to Nadal as well.

Nadal didn't make it far enough at the US open and other faster hardcourt tournaments to face Federer when he was at his peak. If Nadal wasn't good enough to make it to Federer then I doubt he would have beaten him if they actually played.

Unfortunately their peaks didn't overlap, nowadays Federer hasn't been good enough to reach Nadal often so it's been reversed. If both their primes overlapped I'd expect Nadal to still be ahead but only due to his ridiculous ability on clay. On grass and hardcourt I'd give the edge to Federer (note I say edge, not an overwhelming edge). Although on fast and/or low bouncing hardcourts I'd give Federer a massive advantage.

Nadal matches up well with Federer and has the mental edge. In the infamous 2008 Wimbledon Final Federer's break point conversion was abysmal. In the 2009 Australian Open Final he won more points but still lost. Nadal is fantastic player when the chips are down but Roger has often struggled mentally against Nadal which is a factor in their h2h.

To say Nadal is better due to the h2h is too simplist a view. Especially when Federer despite losing to Nadal has been consistantly better against the rest of the field.

Well, I'm not saying he's better due to the h2h... I'm actually not even saying he's better. Let's just say that him not having to usually play Rafa during his best years, their h2h and the surface distribution favouring him make me think he isn't better either.

I would say Rafa struggled mentally in those Wimbledon matches as well. Not sure how many tiebreaks he lost to Fed there. I don't think he won any.

In any case, Fed struggles mentally against Rafa because he's the best player his played (who's been at his prime anyway). And that would also happen had they been closer in age.

Their matches would probably go more or less how you said had their primes coincided. I don't think Fed would have much of an edge on the grass or hc slams if at all, given how their matches there have actually been.

You make very good points BTW. I'm certainly not saying he would have no slams nor anything had their primes coincided.
 

dudeski

Hall of Fame
Andy Murray has declared Rafa the greatest of all time.

Also, nadalfan89 who plays challengers in Europe for extra cash. And Bud who is a 4.5 and thus should know.

Yep that's pretty much it as far as people who like Nadal and who also know how to play tennis.
 

pame

Hall of Fame
Well, when you look at Grand Slam totals and other records such as # of weeks at #1, etc. It would be fairly easy to state that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.

But when you ask yourself the Question: Is there anyone Roger Federer cannot beat??

The answer is Yes. It's Raphael Nadal. Rafa is the only player who has a fairly convincing Head-to-Head record over Federer: 18-10. Nearly double. (if they meet again, it's mostly likely Rafa will beat Federer thus increasing that Head-To-Head even more in Rafa's favor.)

So, if you want to look at it at a Head-To-Head matchup, Nadal is superior over Federer. So, is Federer really the Greatest of All Time even if he has a losing record over Nadal?
Or does this make Nadal truly the Greater Player because he dominates the "Greatest Player of All Time" ?

so you're saying that Nadal does not have to match at least the majority of records that Fed has set? So just who decides that one and one measurement alone is important - and that all other records held against the other 999 players on the ATP pro tour are of no significance, including the number of GS won, the number of weeks at no 1, 5 straight Wimby's, 5 straight USOs, 6 WTF's - none of what makes a complete and entire body of work matters?

I can think of no other profession, sports or otherwise, that the best are judged on one single, solitary metric.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Well, when you look at Grand Slam totals and other records such as # of weeks at #1, etc. It would be fairly easy to state that Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time.

But when you ask yourself the Question: Is there anyone Roger Federer cannot beat??

The answer is Yes. It's Raphael Nadal. Rafa is the only player who has a fairly convincing Head-to-Head record over Federer: 18-10. Nearly double. (if they meet again, it's mostly likely Rafa will beat Federer thus increasing that Head-To-Head even more in Rafa's favor.)

So, if you want to look at it at a Head-To-Head matchup, Nadal is superior over Federer. So, is Federer really the Greatest of All Time even if he has a losing record over Nadal?
Or does this make Nadal truly the Greater Player because he dominates the "Greatest Player of All Time" ?

that is self-contradictory .... There cannot be any one greater than the greatest of all time ....

and yes, federer can and has beaten nadal quite a few times, 10 times in fact, and leads him H2H on grass and hard courts ....

Its only on clay that nadal dominates him ....
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Nadal has beaten Federer in both their Australian Open meetings and has also beaten him at Wimbledon. To be 8-2 in majors at 3 different venues against Federer is very impressive by Nadal.
 

bluehshoe

New User
Another tired thread about who the GOAT is between the two of them. He who owns the most trophies will settle the score
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Well, I'm not saying he's better due to the h2h... I'm actually not even saying he's better. Let's just say that him not having to usually play Rafa during his best years, their h2h and the surface distribution favouring him make me think he isn't better either.

that is a load of BS ......

surface distribution favouring federer ? really ? did they change the surface distribution after federer/rafa came onto the tour ? no, they both knew what the surface distribution was when they started training and joined the tour ...

It was rafa's choice to concentrate on clay mainly first and then get better on other surfaces ...

whereas federer was competent on all surfaces right when he hit his prime ...

if anything, your boy , rafa is darn lucky that the surfaces have slowed down, strings offer more topspin, the balls are heavier etc etc .... favour his style of play these days than say when compared to the 70s, 80s,90s ....

otherwise he'd have less titles off clay than he has now ....

fed was 5-2 vs rafa off clay from 2004-07 .... still leads him 8-6 off clay ...

if rafa was good enough to meet him off clay more times, the mental edge due to playing so much on clay would have reduce by quite a bit and the H2H gap would also lessen ....
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nadal has beaten Federer in both their Australian Open meetings and has also beaten him at Wimbledon. To be 8-2 in majors at 3 different venues against Federer is very impressive by Nadal.

I will give you that the wimbledon 2008 and the AO win in 2009 were impressive ...

But in AO 2012, federer largely beat himself ....

and yes , to remain undefeated at RG vs federer is also impressive ... I'd have expected federer to take 1 of their 5 meetings @ RG ...
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal has beaten Federer in both their Australian Open meetings and has also beaten him at Wimbledon. To be 8-2 in majors at 3 different venues against Federer is very impressive by Nadal.

For sure it is impressive, but the H2H by itself is not enough to make Nadal the best or greatest player at this point in time and Nadal fans know it. In order for Nadal to surpass Federer and be ahead of Federer on greatest of all time lists, Nadal needs to better Federer's achievements--i.e. grand slam total, weeks at number one, etc. etc. etc. That is the bottom line and everybody knows it whether they admit it or not.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
I will give you that the wimbledon 2008 and the AO win in 2009 were impressive ...

But in AO 2012, federer largely beat himself ....

and yes , to remain undefeated at RG vs federer is also impressive ... I'd have expected federer to take 1 of their 5 meetings @ RG ...

Nah, I never expected that after 2007 or 2008. Nadal is much better than Federer on clay, no contest. Federer can perhaps win a non-slam clay event against Nadal, but on clay on the big stage of the FO, forget it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nah, I never expected that after 2007 or 2008. Nadal is much better than Federer on clay, no contest. Federer can perhaps win a non-slam clay event against Nadal, but on clay on the big stage of the FO, forget it.

well 2005,2006,07 were 3 chances ...

federer was playing very well at RG 2011 and took out djoker in impressive fashion ...

rafa was slightly shaky as well ..

so that was a chance as well ...
 

AnotherTennisProdigy

Professional
This is why I despise the Goat argument, the more I think about it the more I realize it is a never ending contradiction. Federer is the greatest of all time, but how can he be if he is losing to Nadal? But then Nadal can't be the greatest of all time because he hasn't achieved more. It's a vicious cycle of death.

I'm still hoping for a new goat candidate that will beat both Nadal and Federer so we can end the discussion.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
fed was 5-2 vs rafa off clay from 2004-07

Yes since 2004-2007 was the peak of Rafa's career, LOL! I love how only Federer's supposed prime matters, not other players when the topic is Federer. Anyway all that shows is even baby Rafa who was mostly a useless mug off of clay at that point (with the exception of grass in 2007 probably), and was so abysmal on hard courts at that point in his development he could barely win sets from Berdych (a way weaker one than the current top 10 one who Nadal owns to boot), Youzhny, Blake, or any decent flat ball hitter, still had a better non clay record vs peak of peaks Federer than Federer ever had a clay record vs Nadal.

On another note 2 time hard court slam winner Nadal leads 9 time hard court slam winner Federer 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, 2-0 in majors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lovely_Bone

Rookie
lol bud is no 4.5... he names himself after the budweisers who created his 50 inch belly while watching nadal on tv...

i am 5.5 so i know who is good and who isnt... nadal is just another guy with a few slams... thats all

Lmao, I can't believe nobody else replied to this guy... Wow, your 5.5, so you can tell that Nadal isn't really very good, he's just won some slams. He would 6-0 6-0 6-0 you lol. You just made yourself look so stupid. Rafa Novak and Roger are the only ones who can even win slams. Rafa isn't the GOAT, but jesus christ, he isn't just another guy...
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
To the thread question Djokovic and Murray both have called Rafa the greatest ever in the past, which just proves how stupid quoting players who say so and so are the GOAT is anyway. Most will just inflate players that paint them in a better light. The same reason Hewitt calls Federer the GOAT (aka I was Federer's b1tch to embarassing degrees, but I was only losing to the GOAT). Meanwhile Djokovic and Murray until Djokovic last year fair very poorly vs Nadal, worse than vs Federer, so Nadal is their GOAT.

Another more extreme example is Lindsay Davenport calling Venus Williams the GOAT, something almost nobody on the tennis planet has ever considered, hmmm I wonder why (aka Davenport lost a ton of big matches and slam finals to Venus).

Now current players getting destroyed over the years by Serena, and many call her the GOAT, little surprise there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NikeWilson

Semi-Pro
Btw, let's not forget that Nadal has won 11 Grand Slams. There's only 3 players who have more Slams than Nadal.... Federer(17), Sampras(14), and Emerson(12).
In a couple years Nadal will probably pass Emerson and Sampras.
Infact if it wasn't for Djokovic's fluke God-like year in 2011, Nadal would've won Wimbledon and the US Open. And Nadal truly should've/could've won this year's Australian Open 5 set marathon against Djokovic.
Nadal would be sitting on 14 Grand Slams right now.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yes since 2004-2007 was the peak of Rafa's career, LOL! I love how only Federer's supposed prime matters, not other players when the topic is Federer. Anyway all that shows is even baby Rafa who was mostly a useless mug off of clay at that point (with the exception of grass in 2007 probably), and was so abysmal on hard courts at that point in his development he could barely win sets from Berdych (a way weaker one than the current top 10 one who Nadal owns to boot), Youzhny, Blake, or any decent flat ball hitter, still had a better non clay record vs peak of peaks Federer than Federer ever had a clay record vs Nadal.

On another note 2 time hard court slam winner Nadal leads 9 time hard court slam winner Federer 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, 2-0 in majors.

jeez, its not like there is a wide chasm b/w post-peak federer and prime nadal off clay .... its 4-3 in favour of nadal ....it isn't a stretch to assume that federer playing close to his best would have pulled off one or two of those BO5 matches ....

all I was pointing out was that federer held his own on non-clay surfaces vs rafa .... only dominated by him on clay ...

everyone knows rafa is by some distance better than federer on clay ...add the matchup issue to that and their H2H on clay isn't that much of a surprise ...

on another note, federer was never dominated on all surfaces by one player at his peak, whereas nadal was dominated on all surfaces by one player at his peak , djokovic ....
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
well 2005,2006,07 were 3 chances ...

federer was playing very well at RG 2011 and took out djoker in impressive fashion ...

rafa was slightly shaky as well ..

so that was a chance as well
...

Sure it was a chance and Federer played better on clay in that 2011 SF against Djokovic and even played better in the final against Nadal but not well enough to beat him on clay. Nope, I have resigned myself to the reality that Federer won't beat Nadal at the FO. It is a W and USO final I would like to see in the future between the two but who really knows what is happening with Nadal? We may never see it.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes since 2004-2007 was the peak of Rafa's career, LOL! I love how only Federer's supposed prime matters, not other players when the topic is Federer. Anyway all that shows is even baby Rafa who was mostly a useless mug off of clay at that point (with the exception of grass in 2007 probably), and was so abysmal on hard courts at that point in his development he could barely win sets from Berdych (a way weaker one than the current top 10 one who Nadal owns to boot), Youzhny, Blake, or any decent flat ball hitter, still had a better non clay record vs peak of peaks Federer than Federer ever had a clay record vs Nadal.

On another note 2 time hard court slam winner Nadal leads 9 time hard court slam winner Federer 5-2 on outdoor hard courts, 2-0 in majors.

But Nadal came out of the gate beating Federer on HC at Miami and Dubai so how can you then turn around and say he was not good enough to do it in HC slams? Sorry, that is ridiculous.

In any case, the h2h is all Nadal has over Federer. Nadal cannot be considered the greater player until he surpasses Federer's achievements, surely even you can admit that?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Btw, let's not forget that Nadal has won 11 Grand Slams. There's only 3 players who have more Slams than Nadal.... Federer(17), Sampras(14), and Emerson(12).
In a couple years Nadal will probably pass Emerson and Sampras.
Infact if it wasn't for Djokovic's fluke God-like year in 2011, Nadal would've won Wimbledon and the US Open.

jeez, like he was a lock vs federer who took novak took the edge at the US Open or a lock vs tsonga @ wimbledon ( as streaky as he might be , still beat rafa @ queens ........ nadal would be favoured of course, but doesn't mean tsonga wouldn't have a chance ...) ...

nadal should also be thanking federer for taking out djokovic at the last year's FO, otherwise it may have been a Rafail slam ( 4 slams final losses in a row to one player ! )

And Nadal truly should've/could've won this year's Australian Open 5 set marathon against Djokovic.
Nadal would be sitting on 14 Grand Slams right now.

based on what exactly ?

novak had 3 BPs at 4 all in the 4th and blew a sitter of a FH at the net @ 5-3 in the 4th set TB ... He could have easily closed it out in the 4th ....

murray wouldn't have been that easy for nadal at the AO either ( if novak were not there )

The careers of Laver/Rosewall/Gonzales/Tilden are by some distance better than rafa's at this point ...

IMO borg is ahead by some distance as well ( AO wasn't even close to having the prestige/field of a true major during his time ) .... and borg won the indoor events @ WCT, year ending championships, which were far more prestigious and tougher than the AO at that time ....

rafa is better than emerson by some distance as well ......

Just counting the no of majors is a very simplistic & wrong way of assessing players ....One needs to look @ the context of those generations ...
 
Last edited:
I'm aware of numerous current and former players stating that Federer is the greatest player of all time - to name a few: Hewitt, Roddick, Safin even Rafa himself I believe.
Then there's Laver - he told me himself a few years ago that he thought that was the case.

The reason I ask is that there's another thread on here in which Hewitt says Federer is the best.
The reaction to that by some is to imply that Hewitt is just saying that to secure a better place for himself in history - or words to that effect.
Sure he is. How ridiculous.

Well, to those crazy Nadal "fans" out there who see tennis only through the prism of Nadal and nothing else, who says your boy is the best ever?
Anyone?
Any top players past or present annoint your boy as the greatest?
Come on, surprise me.

And by the way I like Nadal and rate him highly.
He's just not the greatest player ever - that's Federer.
Having said that I'm a Federer fan but I love tennis.
It seems for some on here, the game itself takes second place to Nadal hero worship.
I'm constantly amused by a few on here who'll say anything to puff up Nadal when really, he doesn't need puffing up, he's a great player, just not the greatest.

i would say it is the other way around but whatever lol, btw i don't think nadal is the greatest although I do think he is greater than federer, but federer is more successful
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Sure it was a chance and Federer played better on clay in that 2011 SF against Djokovic and even played better in the final against Nadal but not well enough to beat him on clay. Nope, I have resigned myself to the reality that Federer won't beat Nadal at the FO. It is a W and USO final I would like to see in the future between the two but who really knows what is happening with Nadal? We may never see it.

he didn't play better in the final .... he started off impressively, but then again fell apart ....

If he had maintained his form and composure from the semis ( that's a big big IF ) , he could have beaten the slightly shaky nadal ....
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
But Nadal came out of the gate beating Federer on HC at Miami and Dubai so how can you then turn around and say he was not good enough to do it in HC slams? Sorry, that is ridiculous.

In any case, the h2h is all Nadal has over Federer. Nadal cannot be considered the greater player until he surpasses Federer's achievements, surely even you can admit that?

Yes I agree on the last paragraph. However I am not the one who keeps bringing up the H2H though and desperately trying to make excuses for why it is so bad. The ****s, the ones who claim the H2H isnt important and is zero blemish on Federer's legacy are the ones who keep bringing up the H2H and making ridiculous excuses for it (showing that they feel it is so unimportant to Federer's unblemished legacy after all, otherwise they wouldnt feel the need to do so).
 
Top