CV of a GOAT
- Thread starter TTMR
- Start date
L
LetWinner
Guest
Philippoussis, Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Cilic x2
Federer really ran the gauntlet right there. It don't get no tougher than that.
Federer really ran the gauntlet right there. It don't get no tougher than that.
TTMR
Hall of Fame
Considering Roddick and Cilic are grand slam champions, I'd say that's decent competition.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Somebody has to win them.
TTMR
Hall of Fame
That's true. Kind of puts the achievement in perspective when you put it that way. Is there any real merit in winning something someone else was going to win anyway?
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Baghdatis was the only "weak" finalist for Fed and he simply had a run where he did indeed play well.
Nadal has essentially lucked out facing broken draws.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
No, Roddick played horrible at Wimbledon 2005, Cilic the same, in 2017, Safin was exhausted in Australia 2004, Murray was a ghost the US Open 2008, Hewitt had nothing to hurt him with at the US Open 2004, Philipousis was no big deal either, at Wimbledon 2003.
And talking about luck is about losers who don't accept defeat.
Lol hasnt Nadal already beaten Novak here????
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Apparently so--and as its likely Nadal will win major #22, the worst of Federer's cult will launch 50,000 threads and post over 100,000 times with variations on "Nadal am no GOAT / Nadal win too muches onn clay to be GOAT--Fed is lord / Nadal get cakewalk draw--weakish in heestory, capiche?". Their minds--stuffed with dangerous levels of idolatry--is about to burst at the seams.
Sorry_to_tell_you_mate
Professional
You forgot Federer. A player with a weak BH that Nadal abused time and time again.
TTMR
Hall of Fame
That would be a strong point if Federer and Djokovic consistently had easy draws and just one hard opponent in the final. But we all know that's now how it typically goes.
DIMI_D
Hall of Fame
Baggy was actually superior to Gonzo and cilic 18 Wimby (although he has hindered by an injury). Baggy fell away mentally he nearly went up a double break in the 2nd set!
duaneeo
Legend
You do realize that you're dissing one of the top contemporaries of Nadal's generation, no?
L
LetWinner
Guest
Does it matter? Everyone knows Nadal’s peak coincided with the strongest stretch of tennis competition since the early 90s, so just because one dude wasn’t good doesn’t mean that reflects badly on Nadal. Plus, Nadal is 7-2 against the guy, and never faced him at any stage of a slam past the QF, so it’s not like Nadal got any slams wins off Cilic like Fed did
duaneeo
Legend
Yes, we agree that Federer got slam wins off Rafa contemporary Cilic...Cilic x2. But let's not stop there. Federer also got slam wins off Murray...an even greater Rafa contemporary. Murray x3.
aman92
Legend
Only one player has ever faced Berretini in a slam Final and his name is not Rafael Nadal
holy tennis
Semi-Pro
Of 6 Slams mentioned, only 2 can be considered weak-ish, but even they had Del Potro, who annihilated neo schmeo peak Federer and future 2 time WB champ Murray.
The rest included peak Federer, peak Wawrinka, peak Djokovic (x2), peak Zverev, peak Medvedev.
TTMR
Hall of Fame
Still.
TTMR
Hall of Fame
I've gotta fire my fact-checker.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Nadal facing Puerta doesn't make his RG 2005 draw easy. Nadal faced #1 Federer in the SF, which you strategically avoided to mention.
ArcspacE
G.O.A.T.
yes, morons, all of them
same as this year, i guess if he'd have beaten Djokovic in the F instead of the QF it would have...I don't have a clue how to finish that sentence in a way that isn't stupid...
granted, you have to make increasingly moronic arguments to put down Nadal's accomplishments nowadays
MadariKatu
Hall of Fame
OP, you got one wrong (Berrettini) and missed a couple. Here's the full list
1 - Puerta on steroids, literally (through Federer) / RG 2005
2 - Federer / RG 2006
3 - Federer / RG 2007
4 - Federer / RG 2008
5 - Federer / W 2008
6 - Federer / AO 2009
7 - Söderling / RG 2010
8 - Berdych (through Murray) / W 2010
9 - Djokovic / USO 2010
10 - Federer / RG 2011
11 - Djokovic / RG 2012
12 - Ferrer (through Djokovic) / RG 2013
13 - Djokovic / USO 2013
14 - Djokovic / RG 2014
15 - Wawrinka / RG 2017
16 - Anderson (through Delpo) / USO 2017
17 - Thiem / RG 2018
18 - Thiem / RG 2019
19 - Medvedev / USO 2019
20 - Djokovic / RG 2020
21 - Medvedev / AO 2022
22 - Ruud (through Djokovic) / RG 2022
23 - ?
1 - Puerta on steroids, literally (through Federer) / RG 2005
2 - Federer / RG 2006
3 - Federer / RG 2007
4 - Federer / RG 2008
5 - Federer / W 2008
6 - Federer / AO 2009
7 - Söderling / RG 2010
8 - Berdych (through Murray) / W 2010
9 - Djokovic / USO 2010
10 - Federer / RG 2011
11 - Djokovic / RG 2012
12 - Ferrer (through Djokovic) / RG 2013
13 - Djokovic / USO 2013
14 - Djokovic / RG 2014
15 - Wawrinka / RG 2017
16 - Anderson (through Delpo) / USO 2017
17 - Thiem / RG 2018
18 - Thiem / RG 2019
19 - Medvedev / USO 2019
20 - Djokovic / RG 2020
21 - Medvedev / AO 2022
22 - Ruud (through Djokovic) / RG 2022
23 - ?
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
I don't even think this is about appreciating Federer more than Nadal; in most cases people who react like this are just angry at themselves for betting on the wrong horse in the GOAT race, which seemed pretty much guaranteed and self-evident as soon as Federer overtook Sampras' Slam count.
For people whose tennis fandom is just a means to attain glory by proxy, there are only two solutions: change their allegiance to the next most likely "GOAT", which usually means changing their online identity, or coping to the extent where you have to dissociate from reality (i.e. build parallel mental spaces), deny it or - and this seems to be the preferred strategy here - move the conversation from the record books to a provocative (trollish) stance. As long as their absurd claims garner responses, they can feel "there's a conversation still going on about this" and trick themselves into thinking they're on the right side of the argument.
For people whose tennis fandom is just a means to attain glory by proxy, there are only two solutions: change their allegiance to the next most likely "GOAT", which usually means changing their online identity, or coping to the extent where you have to dissociate from reality (i.e. build parallel mental spaces), deny it or - and this seems to be the preferred strategy here - move the conversation from the record books to a provocative (trollish) stance. As long as their absurd claims garner responses, they can feel "there's a conversation still going on about this" and trick themselves into thinking they're on the right side of the argument.
EpitomeOfAwesome
Semi-Pro
What a beautiful post!
Similar threads
