Argements against Nadal to be GOAT

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Nadal playing his best tennis in 2009 barely beat post prime Fed at the AO which included Fed choking in the 5th. You really think pre-2009 Nadal would have had a chance at a HC slam against prime Fed? Uh no, just no.

LOL at your suggestion about the 2009 Australian Open final. Federer demolished del Potro and Roddick in straight sets and has 2 days off before the final, while Nadal has a 5 hour plus marathon with Verdasco and has just 1 day off before the final, and yet you make it sound like Nadal had all the cards in his favour. Nice try :)
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
No. Miami and Dubai.

Federer won against Nadal on clay as well. Too bad it didn't work out well in a slam.

Nadal always matched up well against Federer. That and that he is one of the best in the world.

I maintain though that Federer would have beaten Nadal on faster surface slams during that time. He beat Nadal on grass twice and Nadal was a better player on grass than on hard court at that time.
 
LOL at your suggestion about the 2009 Australian Open final. Federer demolished del Potro and Roddick in straight sets and has 2 days off before the final, while Nadal has a 5 hour plus marathon with Verdasco and has just 1 day off before the final, and yet you make it sound like Nadal had all the cards in his favour. Nice try :)

Are you denying that Federer's prime was from 2004-2007?
 
No course not, but he remained a big threat beyond that. Federer was the favourite going into the 2009 Australian Open final.

Nadal matured on grass much faster than he did on HC. In 2006 Nadal was soundly beaten at Wimby. Nadal would have no chance against 2006 Fed in any HC slam. Either you agree with that, or you're saying 2006Fed=2009Fed.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Nadal matured on grass much faster than he did no HC.

Before 2006 Wimbledon, Nadal was considered by a load of people to be average on grass, but he had already won 2005 Montreal, 2005 Beijing, 2005 Madrid Indoor and 2006 Dubai (beating Federer in the final). Back then, the "wisdom" was that Nadal was a better hardcourt player than grass-court player.

In 2006 Nadal was soundly beaten at Wimby. Nadal would have no chance against 2006 Fed in any HC slam.

Well the match never happened because Nadal had a foot injury that ruled him out of the 2006 Australian Open, and Youzhny beat him in the quarter finals of the 2006 US Open.
 
Before 2006 Wimbledon, Nadal was considered by a load of people to be average on grass, but he had already won 2005 Montreal, 2005 Beijing, 2005 Madrid Indoor and 2006 Dubai (beating Federer in the final). Back then, the "wisdom" was that Nadal was a better hardcourt player than grass-court player.



Well the match never happened because Nadal had a foot injury that ruled him out of the 2006 Australian Open, and Youzhny beat him in the quarter finals of the 2006 US Open.

The point is Nadal's grass game matured at a much faster rate than HC game as proven by the data in 2008. Against Fed's best in 2006, Nadal was pretty soundly beaten at W06. Had Nadal somehow gotten to HC slams in 2006, he would have been been beaten quite soundly given that his game on HC lagged behind that on grass and on grass was beaten pretty soundly.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Agassi leads 3-2 on clay. Agassi winning 1989 Rome, 1992 Atlanta and 1992 French Open. Sampras winning 1998 Monte Carlo and 2002 Houston.

Here's all their matches:

Pete Sampras 20-14 Andre Agassi
1989 Rome R32: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-1)
1990 Philadelphia R16: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 7-5 ret.)
1990 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
1990 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
1991 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 1-6, 6-3)
1992 Atlanta F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-4)
1992 French Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-2, 6-1)
1993 Wimbledon QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
1994 Miami F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 6-3, 6-3)
1994 Osaka SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-1)
1994 Paris Indoor QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5)
1994 World Championships SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (4-6, 7-6, 6-3)
1995 Australian Open F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
1995 Indian Wells F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-5, 6-3, 7-5)
1995 Miami F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 7-6)
1995 Montreal F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1995 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
1996 San Jose F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-3)
1996 Stuttgart Indoor QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-1)
1996 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-1)
1998 San Jose F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4)
1998 Monte Carlo R32: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 7-5)
1998 Toronto QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-1, 6-2)
1999 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
1999 Los Angeles F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 7-6)
1999 Cincinnati SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 6-4)
1999 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-2)
1999 World Championships F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
2000 Australian Open SF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
2001 Indian Wells F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 6-1)
2001 Los Angeles F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
2001 US Open QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6)
2002 Houston SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5)
2002 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)

Hardcourt: 11-9 to Sampras
Clay: 3-2 to Agassi
Grass: 2-0 to Sampras
Carpet: 5-2 to Sampras
In Slams: 6-3 to Sampras


So Andre has one advantage on clay and it was only a 1 match advantage. Now lets imagine for a second if Agassi laid claim to all those h2h surface advantages and Pete still had the slam record.. What would people say of Pete.
 
So Andre has one advantage on clay and it was only a 1 match advantage. Now lets imagine for a second if Agassi laid claim to all those h2h surface advantages and Pete still had the slam record.. What would people say of Pete.

No no no, not one match advantage. Rather countless failed attempts by Pete at the FO.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
The point is Nadal's grass game matured at a much faster rate than HC game as proven by the data in 2008. Against Fed's best in 2006, Nadal was pretty soundly beaten at W06. Had Nadal somehow gotten to HC slams in 2006, he would have been been beaten quite soundly given that his game on HC lagged behind that on grass and on grass was beaten pretty soundly.

About the 2006 Wimbledon final, yes Federer was better but it wasn't as one-sided as you're suggesting. Nadal was a break up for most of the second set and failed to serve it out. Nadal did win the third set.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
No no no, not one match advantage. Rather countless failed attempts by Pete at the FO.

It did hurt Pete's career not winning a French Open for sure.. But he does have a davis cup (something Fed doesn't have) on clay, and he has a rome title. And some big clay wins over some big names.. That SHOULD help his case a bit IMO. I dunno why people think pete was useless on clay.. never understood that
 
About the 2006 Wimbledon final, yes Federer was better but it wasn't as one-sided as you're suggesting. Nadal was a break up for most of the second set and failed to serve it out. Nadal did win the third set.

I'm not saying is was completely one-sided. But Federer did beat him. The point is, his HC game was not as good as his grass game at that point in 2006. Nadal would have lost both HC slams in 2006 against Fed if it happened. The data support this theory for a hypothetical match up.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
It did hurt Pete's career not winning a French Open for sure.. But he does have a davis cup (something Fed doesn't have) on clay, and he has a rome title. And some big clay wins over some big names.. That SHOULD help his case a bit IMO.

It does help his case.
 
It did hurt Pete's career not winning a French Open for sure.. But he does have a davis cup (something Fed doesn't have) on clay, and he has a rome title. And some big clay wins over some big names.. That SHOULD help his case a bit IMO. I dunno why people think pete was useless on clay.. never understood that

Yes it does help his case for third best behind Fed and Laver. Maybe 4th best if Nadal wins a few more.
 

Carsomyr

Legend
Well to be honest, Wimbledon 2006 was only Nadal's 4th grass court tournament ever.. just saying.

1. It was his 5th.

2. Nalbandian made the Wimbledon final in his first appearance on grass. Becker won his first Wimbledon in his fifth grass tournament appearance. What's your point?
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
So Andre has one advantage on clay and it was only a 1 match advantage. Now lets imagine for a second if Agassi laid claim to all those h2h surface advantages and Pete still had the slam record.. What would people say of Pete.

Now imagine Sampras didn't win RG, didn't have career slam and has 14 slams and you compare him to a guy with 16 and with career slam.

Oh wait.

Imagine Sampras and Agassi had met 13-14 times on clay. Imagine Pete against Nadal on clay. RG 2008 on repeat.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
There is no such thing as a GOAT, just exceptional champions in every era.
We're lucky to have several of them in this era but there will always be arguments against singling out 1 player as a GOAT. There will always be records 1 player doesn't have. Great tennis players are complementary, not mutually exclusive: Connors has record for most titles won, Sampras has record for weeks at #1, Agassi has record for most different tier 1 events won, Nadal has record for master titles, Fed has record for slam titles, etc, etc .
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Now imagine Sampras didn't win RG, didn't have career slam and has 14 slams and you compare him to a guy with 16 and with career slam.

Oh wait.

Imagine Sampras and Agassi had met 13-14 times on clay. Imagine Pete against Nadal on clay. RG 2008 on repeat.



The point is if Pete came out of the losing end of the h2h despite achieving more, pete would still be crucified. Yet we can't crucify Fed at all for coming off the losing end in the rivalry with Nadal. I don't get that. Thats one thing people can't hold against Pete. In day, he never had some hugely lopsided h2h against him.( especially in slams) Especially not from a main rival.
 
There is no such thing as a GOAT, just exceptional champions in every era.
We're lucky to have several of them in this era but there will always be arguments against singling out 1 player as a GOAT. There will always be records 1 player doesn't have. Great tennis players are complementary, not mutually exclusive: Connors has record for most titles won, Sampras has record for weeks at #1, Agassi has record for most different tier 1 events won, Nadal has record for master titles, Fed has record for slam titles, etc, etc .

I wonder if you'd be so diplomatic if Nadal has the record for most slam titles.
 
The point is if Pete came out of the losing end of the h2h despite achieving more, pete would still be crucified. Yet we can't crucify Fed at all for coming off the losing end in the rivalry with Nadal. I don't get that. Thats one thing people can't hold against Pete. In day, he never had some hugely lopsided h2h against him.( especially in slams) Especially not from a main rival.

Federer is crucified daily on this forum for his losing H2H against Nadal.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Probably not but he doesn't have it and that's exactly my point. Not one player has every record, hence no goat but a family of goats so to speak :)
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
So Andre has one advantage on clay and it was only a 1 match advantage. Now lets imagine for a second if Agassi laid claim to all those h2h surface advantages and Pete still had the slam record.. What would people say of Pete.

You mean, if they played 13 times on clay and Andre won like 11?
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
This is very interesting, but not as interesting as the magnetic levitation train technology being used in rail transport these days, oh yes.
 

Carsomyr

Legend
I wonder who writes Sports Illustarted.

- This is classic. Lendl has won 10 Grand Slams (by SI)
- Mcenroe ranked higher than lendl (very much debatable and they think lendl wn 10 slams)

And Agassi being ranked as high as he is? Wow.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Lendl fell out with SI years ago over the famous "The champion that nobody cares about" headline following the 1986 US Open where all the big American names went out rather early.
 

timnz

Legend
Goat characteristics

Nadal is definitely one of the greatest of all time. He is not however yet in the conversation as to who is THE GOAT.

Issues:

He has only been dominant in one of the top 5 events (slams and season end finals) whereas the likes of Sampras and federer have been dominant in 3 and 4 of those events respectively. (dominant being winning an event at least 4 times). How can one be viewed as dominant when they have only been dominant at one major event?

Number of weeks as number 1. He is way way behind federers and Sampras totals

Years end number one - 2 vs 5 or 6 for federer and Sampras
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Experts often argue Nadal to be GOAT due to his winning all slams and dominance over Fed.
I'll stop you right there...

Which experts? I have yet to see anyone make a compelling or coherent argument for this claim. Why? Because there simply isn't one that can be formed without either being conveniently partisan or simply being a clueless muppet.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Another solid year and Nadal surpasses a few guys by the numbers probably..
But, interestingly he is falling further behind in terms of achieving the 17 slams needed to pass Federer when you look at a career timeline.

Last year when Nadal won three slams so many people here said it was a foregone conclusion he'd overtake Federer - he only needed to repeat this three slam year twice more and he'd be even within two years.

So, let's see how's that looking now this year's slams have been played.... Mmmm, nope. At his current rate he wont overtake Federer until he's 34 or older. It's just not going to happen unless Federer starts to fade completely from the scene and Djokovic's year becomes the only really good year in his career. And that's also assuming Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling etc never get their acts together. Oh... and Muzza.
 

msc886

Professional
What??? Sounds like a middlle aged female ******* to me:)

I'm actually a Federer fan and believe Federer is the GOAT based on my criteria. I'm just pointing out people have different standards for GOAT so there is really no universal GOAT because no player can satisfy everyone's standards.
 

namelessone

Legend
Let's find arguments for Nadal to be GOAT before we find any against.

There are no arguments for Nadal to be GOAT at the moment so why do people talk about it so much? We can talk about it once Rafa goes around the 13-14 mark in GS's. If he does that is.

ClayGOAT maybe but overall GOAT? No.
 

Clarky21

Banned
Let's find arguments for Nadal to be GOAT before we find any against.

There are no arguments for Nadal to be GOAT at the moment so why do people talk about it so much? We can talk about it once Rafa goes around the 13-14 mark in GS's. If he does that is.

ClayGOAT maybe but overall GOAT? No.


Exactly. Nadal does not belong anywhere near the topic of who is Goat,so I too am confused as to why he keeps getting brought up in the conversation as to who is the best ever. I am not so sure he's even clay goat,either. To me,Borg still edges him in that department.
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Exactly. Nadal does not belong anywhere near the topic of who is Goat,so I too am confused as to why he keeps getting brought up in the conversation as to who is the best ever. I am not so sure he's even clay goat,either. To me,Borg still edges him in that department.

Based on??
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
If I were Nadal, I would work my ass off to peak during the upcoming clay seasons to become the undisputed clay GOAT.

It would be a remarkable achievement, would guarantee him historic immortality, and would actually be easier to hold since the "overall GOAT" position is very shaky, subject to constant debate and different viewpoints on what matters and why.

But he's only after Djokovic these days.
 

namelessone

Legend
Exactly. Nadal does not belong anywhere near the topic of who is Goat,so I too am confused as to why he keeps getting brought up in the conversation as to who is the best ever. I am not so sure he's even clay goat,either. To me,Borg still edges him in that department.

I think it's because he is the only active player close enough to the TW named GOAT, Roger Federer. Nadal can add to his tally but Laver or Sampras can't so some feel like they have to hype Rafa up in order to have some "interesting" discussions in the GOAT debate. Might as well start hyping Djoko up for GOAT as well.

And while it does make some sense now that he is at 10 slams(so 6 slams away from Roger's record), it was funnier when people were talking about it when Rafa was still at 6 slams or so(some even before that LOL).

As for clay, Rafa is dead even for me with Borg on clay at the moment. However, if he manages to win one more RG, I think that pretty much settles it. If that were the case, Rafa beat Bjorn in overall RG won, overall clay titles, overall clay winning percentage(at age 25, Rafa has lost just 18 clay matches in his career, Bjorn had 39 clay losses for his whole career). Not to mention that Rafa played pretty much all the major clay tournies for 7 years running(so far) while Borg would skip some trying to focus mostly on RG.

Nadal's clay stats are pretty crazy, he played 39 clay tournaments(most being MS/GS level) in the 2005-2011 period, failing to make finals in only 4 of them(Valencia,Buenos Aires 2005, Rome 2008, RG 2009).
 

LuckyR

Legend
The idea of Rafa being the GOAT is ridiculous. Roger is the GOAT. Rafa is the guy who is better than him, though...
 
Top