Argements against Nadal to be GOAT

If you are the GOAT, then how can someone be better then you? If you are truly the GOAT, NO ONE should be better then you.

In one sense this is true. However, not withstanding any GOAT discussion, the one thing we can be sure of is that Federer > Sampras, based on achievements AND H2H. No ifs ands or buts!
 
If you are the GOAT, then how can someone be better then you? If you are truly the GOAT, NO ONE should be better then you.

Rafael is getting schooled like no tomorrow by someone at the moment, and believe this when I tell you that he will continue to be for all of next year possibly his entire career by this other player. Fed on the contrary is holding is ground and should be up 2-1 in their encounters in the Majors this year if it wasn't for a lucky slap shot 2 years running. How in the world do you look at things in black and white with what is going on at the moment. Fed has consistently outplayed the field better than Rafa in his career with Rafa in the draw, that should have ended the conversation there. With what is happening at the moment, I think we have the answer staring you and the rest of you *******s right in your face as to who is "better" :) I tell you what, put Novak on a lie detector at the moment, see what the result will be:)
 

Set Sampras

Banned
In one sense this is true. However, not withstanding any GOAT discussion, the one thing we can be sure of is that Federer > Sampras, based on achievements AND H2H. No ifs ands or buts!


But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.
 
Last edited:
But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.

Yes, sure you can argue that as long as you equally argue that the player who pisses on Federer also gets pissed on by the player that Fed pisses on! i.e. Djoker.

Yeah, yeah I know Nadal still has a positive H2H against Djoker now, but that's going to change in a matter of a few more months. Fed will likely maintain his H2H lead on Djoker.

So in individual matchups you will end up with Nadal > Fed, Djoker > Nadal, Fed > Djoker. Circular. Evens out. But Feds leads all in achievements. That's the tiebreaker.

With Fed and Pete, no circularity, no ambiguity, he squashes Pete on all accounts. Leads in H2H, Slams, Talent, everything you can name, even personality!
 
Last edited:

Carsomyr

Legend
But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.

Since beginning of 2005 majors won
Federer: 12
Nadal: 10

Since beginning of 2005 years ended as #1
Federer: 4
Nadal: 2
 
But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.

Here's another way to look at it. If you had to call some one GOAT, would you rather have a winning H2H against Nadal and 0 slams. Or 10 slams and have a badly losing H2H against Nadal. i.e. who would your pick for GOAT be out of Fed or Hrbarty?:)
 

Tammo

Banned
Here's another way to look at it. If you had to call some one GOAT, would you rather have a winning H2H against Nadal and 0 slams. Or 10 slams and have a badly losing H2H against Nadal. i.e. who would your pick for GOAT be out of Fed or Hrbarty?:)

Hrabarty of course. He has a winning record against bothe candidates.:)
 

Tammo

Banned
But if I want to argue Fed being pissed on by "the better player" of his generation I guess I can as well. I just don't know how one can be GOAT when there is a better player in Nadal as the h2h shows. To me GOAT status should entail not only dominance overrall but dominance over EVERYONE. Fed was never able to dominate everyone.. Just as Pete could never win the French. Both are blemishes that can be used against both's GOAT status.

I agree completely. I feel as if we have not found the GOAT yet.
 
Last edited:

Set Sampras

Banned
Its one thing to have some random losing h2h of a 0-3, or 1-3 over some random bottom feeder. its another thing to be owned by a rival overrall.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Its one thing to have some random losing h2h of a 0-3, or 1-3 over some random bottom feeder. its another thing to be owned by a rival overrall.

Yeah, Federer was dumb to get to the final of 12 or 13 clay events. He should have lost in the 3rd round like smart Sampras, the GOAT who had winning record against his rival and too great to make it to the final of Roland Garros.
 

JustBob

Hall of Fame
This H2H idiocy has been thoroughly demolished hundreds of times and yet it refuses to die. Fascinating...

Tennis isn't boxing.

At most, it could be useful as a tie-breaker in the unlikely scenario where two players from the same era manage to end their careers with the same major accomplishments.
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
Experts often argue Nadal to be GOAT due to his winning all slams and dominance over Fed. But they often overlook that he is dominant only in streches.

- In 7 years as a top player, he finished as No.1 in only two years (2008,2010). In remaining 5 (assuming 2011), he finished as No. 2. In contrast, Federer finished as No. 1 for 5 years and No.2 for 3 years in his 8 dominant years.
Sampas finished 6 years as No.1 . Lendl finished 4 times as No. 1

- In terms of weeks spent as No. 1, he has spent 102 weeks as No.1 and definitely more than 200 weeks as No. 2. Way behind Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Connors.

- His non-clay achievments while good is nothing exceptional. He's not consistent there.

How can a player be considered GOAT when he has spent double time as No. 2 (behind someone) than as No. 1

Note: Of course he can have dominant years in future and change all that.

Did you mean "agreements" or "arguments"? Speak English? Aware of reality? Familiar with the term "reality"? LMAO anyway, two words - Sampras and Safin.:D
 
Yeah, Federer was dumb to get to the final of 12 or 13 clay events. He should have lost in the 3rd round like smart Sampras, the GOAT who had winning record against his rival and too great to make it to the final of Roland Garros.

This is what it boils down to.. But the trolls and the ****s will never get it, their happy being the minority, and will continue to for the rest of their lives. This recent manhandling of Rafa could not have come at a better time. A few years later with Fed out of the picture would not have been the same, were seeing Novak genuinely fear Fed when he steps on a court and laugh at the other guy at hte moment:)
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Au contraire. Isn't it actually worse to have a losing H2H against a random nobody rather than a multi-slam winner?

It looks much worse consistently losing to your rival on the biggest stage, over and over on all surfaces then it is losing to some random scrub at some small scrub event here and there.. Yes.. IMO. At least if we are talking "best ever" or "GOAT status". To me thats what hurt say Lendl or Borg. Borg couldnt figure out Mac later on, Lendl had a putrid finals record. And if Nadal doesn't turn this around on Nole and get some big wins back, his credibility hurts too IMO

Its also what you do on the big stage as well which is important IMO especially against your main rivals IMO
 
Last edited:
It looks much worse consistently losing to your rival on the biggest stage, over and over on all surfaces then it is losing to some random scrub at some small scrub event here and there.. Yes.. IMO. At least if we are talking "best ever" or "GOAT status". To me thats what hurt say Lendl or Borg. Borg couldnt figure out Mac later on, Lendl had a putrid finals record. And if Nadal doesn't turn this around on Nole and get some big wins back, his credibility hurts too IMO

Its also what you do on the big stage as well which is important IMO especially against your main rivals IMO

Yeah but Fed lost on clay consistently to the clay GOAT. That's why the H2H is so lopsided. Sampras lost on clay consistently to nobodies. You seem to have a definition of GOAT like the GOAT must have so and so records AND be over 8 ft tall. You're specifying impossible conditions. The GOAT is the not the perfect player. The GOAT is the one who comes closest to all criteria. You may say there is no GOAT, but that's irrelevant. The point is a GOAT will be discussed and will be chosen by the majority.

The other aspect is sure you have to do well against your main rivals, but before that you have to GET to your main rivals to play them. Pete couldn't do that as consistently as Federer. Pete's H2H against Andre would be way more lopsided in Andre's favour if they met 15 times on clay.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Yeah but Fed lost on clay consistently to the clay GOAT. That's why the H2H is so lopsided. Sampras lost on clay consistently to nobodies. You seem to have a definition of GOAT like the GOAT must have so and so records AND be over 8 ft tall. You're specifying impossible conditions. The GOAT is the not the perfect player. The GOAT is the one who comes closest to all criteria. You may say there is no GOAT, but that's irrelevant. The point is a GOAT will be discussed and will be chosen by the majority.

Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.
 

NikeWilson

Semi-Pro
In one sense this is true. However, not withstanding any GOAT discussion, the one thing we can be sure of is that Federer > Sampras, based on achievements AND H2H. No ifs ands or buts!

Fed racked up the majority of his Grand Slams in the weakest era ever known to mankind! '-04-'07.
Pre-all-court Prime Nadal.
and Pre-Prime Djokovic.
Post Prime Safin, and Post Prime Hewitt, and Post Prime Agassi.
Roddick was in his prime tho.
 
Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.

How could he lose on every surface to Andre if he could never reach the final of the FO.
 
Fed racked up the majority of his Grand Slams in the weakest era ever known to mankind! '-04-'07.
Pre-all-court Prime Nadal.
and Pre-Prime Djokovic.
Post Prime Safin, and Post Prime Hewitt, and Post Prime Agassi.
Roddick was in his prime tho.

No such things as weak era. You saying it does not make it so. Sorry.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.

Right, so Fed's losses to Nadal in the RG finals shouldn't be counted against him, right?
 

Set Sampras

Banned
How could he lose on every surface to Andre if he could never reach the final of the FO.


Andre never got the win over Pete at wimbledon. Nadal of course got the W at wimbledon. Andre never could get the win over Pete at the USO. In fact, he struggled to just win a set vs. Pete. Nadal got the win over Roger at the AO of course.

Grass and clay and hard slams Fed fell to Nadal on.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Right, so Fed's losses to Nadal in the RG finals shouldn't be counted against him, right?

Who says that? Obviously the clay meetings make the rivalry somewhat lopsided but Nadal still has the victories on all surfaces at the slams. No could do that pete at the slams. At the time no one (other then Krajicek) could Pete beat in the 90s on grass. Andre certainly couldn't. And he could get it done at the USO.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Andre never got the win over Pete at wimbledon. Nadal of course got the W at wimbledon. Andre never could get the win over Pete at the USO. In fact, he struggled to just win a set vs. Pete. Nadal got the win over Roger at the AO of course.

So, let's recap:

Nadal beat Fed on three clay slams, and now he is beating Fed on every surface?
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Who says that? Obviously the clay meetings make the rivalry somewhat lopsided but Nadal still has the victories on all surfaces at the slams. No could do that pete at the slams. At the time no one (other then Krajicek) could Pete beat in the 90s on grass. Andre certainly couldn't. And he could get it done at the USO.

I wonder why. Is it perhaps that the only times he could actually meet Fed off clay were past Fed's prime and when Nadal was playing God-tennis?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Andre never got the win over Pete at wimbledon. Nadal of course got the W at wimbledon. Andre never could get the win over Pete at the USO. In fact, he struggled to just win a set vs. Pete. Nadal got the win over Roger at the AO of course.

Grass and clay and hard slams Fed fell to Nadal on.

Sampras never beat Agassi at the Australian Open or the French Open.
 
Andre never got the win over Pete at wimbledon. Nadal of course got the W at wimbledon. Andre never could get the win over Pete at the USO. In fact, he struggled to just win a set vs. Pete. Nadal got the win over Roger at the AO of course.

Grass and clay and hard slams Fed fell to Nadal on.

When Andre played Pete at the FO, he wiped Sampras off the court. When Sampras beat Andre, both matches were not as bad.
 

Clay lover

Legend
Nadal is not and never will be the GOAT. the haters are so desperate that they want to make something up just to bash Nadal.
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Blue clay, green clay, and red clay respectively are three different surfaces?

Ok, whatever you say...

I don't understand what you are saying. Isn't the Australian Open a hard court? Is Wimbledon still not grass? Granted conditions are homogenized but they are still separate surfaces.
 
Fed racked up the majority of his Grand Slams in the weakest era ever known to mankind! '-04-'07.
Pre-all-court Nadal.
and Pre-Prime Djokovic.

Trust me Novak fears an aging Fed now just as he did than:) Its all over his face. Pre-all court Nadal, lol the guy is still not winning hard court events. 8 slams on clay or basically clay (current grass) and 2 hard court slams to his resume so far. He's 2/8 in hard court slams in this prime period your talking about, with just one other final. His chances of winning any slam at this point (in his prime) are slim, forget about winning a HC slam. I'd refrain from calling Rafa an all court player around this time of year:)
 
Who says that? Obviously the clay meetings make the rivalry somewhat lopsided but Nadal still has the victories on all surfaces at the slams. No could do that pete at the slams. At the time no one (other then Krajicek) could Pete beat in the 90s on grass. Andre certainly couldn't. And he could get it done at the USO.

Uhhh, hello? Goran Ivansevic? Derrick Rostagno?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.

this might refresh your memory:


in 95, right in the middle of his peak,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD6QUIp9KqI

I suppose Schallar is a world-beater on clay too :lol:

and of course straight set loss to delgado in 98 ( though not the height of sampras' powers, still a part of his prime years )

pete beat muster in 91, when muster came back from serious injury and then proceeded to lose to 'Champion'

he beat a returning from injury bruguera in 96 ( who had a losing record on clay that year before the FO )

courier was probably the most 'legit' though even that was a fading courier in 96

pete did not give up on the French after Gullickson - he just wasn't good enough
 
Sampras won his 1st slam in 1990. Since he was ready to win his 1st slam Sampras lost to Derrick Rostagno, Christo van Rensburg and Goran Ivansevic on your heralded 90s grass. How many nobodies did Roger lose to after winning his 1st slam?
 

Set Sampras

Banned
this might refresh your memory:


in 95, right in the middle of his peak,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD6QUIp9KqI

I suppose Schallar is a world-beater on clay too :lol:

and of course straight set loss to delgado in 98 ( though not the height of sampras' powers, still a part of his prime years )

pete beat muster in 91, when muster came back from serious injury and then proceeded to lose to 'Champion'

he beat a returning from injury bruguera in 96 ( who had a losing record on clay that year before the FO )

courier was probably the most 'legit' though even that was a fading courier in 96

pete did not give up on the French after Gullickson - he just wasn't good enough


He was obviously good enough to win the Davis Cup on slow clay. Good enough to win Rome, and good enough to beat some big names on Clay.


Do I have to play the same card with Federer's slams like you did with Sampras?:) Why don't bring up some of Federer's French Open draws en route to Nadal? No I won't go there.

Baby Nadal in his 5th grass court tournament ever at wimbledon in 06. Zero slam mug Davydenko? Bum Gonzales? One dimensional 1 slam wonder Roddick? Phillipousis who couldn't even get a past a QF at wimbledon in the 90s? Broken Down post 2005 Hewitt? Elderly Andre with a broken back? Its a way to talk down Sampras' competition, but we can play the same card with Roger of course.
 
Yea when pete gave up on the french after Gullickson died he began losing to nobodies but during his clay prime he would be losing to guys who eventually won the French. Bruguera, Courier, Agassi etc. He also beat them too. Along with Muster. Fed's lost to Nadal on EVERY SURFACE at the slams.. Not just clay. What would Pete's career look like if he lost to Andre on every surface at the slams. Would it be good? of course not.. The fed fans would eat him alive. We both know that.

Fed and Nadal have been together in the same draw in 26 non clay court slams. Fed has won 15 of them, Rafa has won 4. You seeing the picture now Troll?
 
Sampras won his 1st slam in 1990. Since he was ready to win his 1st slam Sampras lost to Derrick Rostagno, Christo van Rensburg and Goran Ivansevic on your heralded 90s grass. How many nobodies did Roger lose to after winning his 1st slam?

Hey GameSampras, no reply to this? Didn't you say Krajiek was the only guy to beat Sampras on 90s grass?
 
Fed and Nadal have been together in the same draw in 26 non clay court slams. Fed has won 15 of them, Rafa has won 4. You seeing the picture now Troll?

Fact is current Prime Rafa (so called clay GOAT)would not have won a clay court title this year if Novak had played MonteCarlo and the true GOAT didn't give him the birthday gift of his life in defeating Novak at the French. Fed single-handedly gave Rafa his lone GS title this year. You can expect something similar if not worse to occur next year. So what does that tell you about Fed's clay court game vs Rafa's hard court game?:) Gota see the big picture **** or you'll never get it.
 
Sorry I meant at wimbledon. Im Set Sampras actually.. Not gamesampras.

Yes I meant Wimbledon. Those guys beat Pete AT Wimbledon. Van Rensburg in straight sets. Goran beat Pete after he already won a slam. So did Rostagno. At Wimbledon, on 90s grass. So? How is it then possible for only Kraijiek to have beaten him?
 

Set Sampras

Banned
Yes I meant Wimbledon. Those guys beat Pete AT Wimbledon. Van Rensburg in straight sets. Goran beat Pete after he already won a slam. So did Rostagno. At Wimbledon, on 90s grass. So? How is it then possible for only Kraijiek to have beaten him?

Ahh.. Prior to 93. Before Pete his prime. Ahh well. Ill take the 7 wimbledons. No could touch him the rest of the 90s other then Rich.
 
Ahh.. Prior to 93. Before Pete his prime. Ahh well. Ill take the 7 wimbledons. No could touch him the rest of the 90s other then Rich.

How could prior to 93 be before his prime? He won a slam in 1990. But you said Krajiek was the only guy to beat him on 90s grass. I assume you realize 1990, 91, and 92 are part of the 90s. Therefore I assume you will admit your initial statement about only Krajiek beating Pete on 90s grass was wrong.
 
Top