6
6-3 6-0
Guest
By dominating the weakest era? :lol:
Yeah man! I get it. KRosewall, his main rival, was 35.
Even deep down you know the competition was a joke, but you trolls won't accept it
Do you consider Federer a Tier 1 great? Did Nadal devalue Federer too much?
- Thread starter RAFAwon09usopen
- Start date
By dominating the weakest era? :lol:
Yeah man! I get it. KRosewall, his main rival, was 35.
Even deep down you know the competition was a joke, but you trolls won't accept it
kiki
Banned
By dominating the weakest era? :lol:
Yeah man! I get it. KRosewall, his main rival, was 35.
Even deep down you know the competition was a joke, but you trolls won't accept it
6-3,6-0: you should know you have been double baggeled by now.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
10is
Professional
Indubitably.
LOL! That's a loaded question -- answering either yes or no would presume an inherent acceptance on part of the respondent that Nadal has indeed devalued Federer (so the question only refers to the degree of said devaluation) , a notion which I completely disagree with in the first place. Answering this question is therefore moot.
---
You get an 'A' for trolling.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Actually I have a better record . I have 18 grand slams against my clubs 6 year old boys league . Since the quality of my opponents doesn't really matter I should be considered the goat
Roger2003Wimbledon
Banned
Actually I have a better record . I have 18 grand slams against my clubs 6 year old boys league . Since the quality of my opponents doesn't really matter I should be considered the goat
I lead you in the H2H so you can't be the GOAT. I also won my local olympics.
The Dark Knight
Legend
But they were the special olympics ! Oh wait your opponents don't matter....yup your the goat .
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
That it's true and you're obsessive about Laver and the super inflated weight of his pro slam.
kiki
Banned
No, but things must be put under the temporary context.We cannot measure past greatness if we go by currents standarts, we must accomodate our opinions to the context of each time.
pro slams were a measure of it in the 60´s.that is how things were like it or not.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Yes, the post you responded to was the usual Federer Fringe / anti-Laver chatter, which reveals how insecure they are in not being able to let Federer's questionable record speak for itself...
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Yes, most Fed fans feel compelled to belittle the most admired tennis player in history...
10is
Professional
That's a weird sentiment. How is it possible for most Fed fans to feel compelled to belittle Federer? Sounds like an absured non-sequitor paradox to me.
Omega_7000
Legend
That was when Novak was a baby learning to play tennis...How many times has Nadal beaten Man-Novak off clay in majors?
Man-Novak destroyed him so bad that Nadal (in his prime) had to take a break to recover from the mental damage from Novak's thrashings...So much for the warrior image.
Last edited:
Clarky21
Banned
Candide
Hall of Fame
I think it's been scientifically established beyone any reasonable doubt on this board that Federer is a run of the mill tennis player who has been astoundingly lucky to play a bunch of 3rd rate chumps in the weakest/'transitionalest' era ever. He is also mentally fragile, sheds unmacho tears too easily and is arrogant/snobby/disengenuous/greedy and vain. So the only logical answer is that he is clearly second or third rate compared to the tennis Adonis that is Rafael Nadal.
Doesn't that feel good boys?
Doesn't that feel good boys?
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
That's wrong though, Federer has dominated Nadal. He has achieved more while both were on tour. He has far more majors, far more weeks at #1, far more consecutive weeks at #1, far more WTFs, far more occurrences of winning/defending a major multiple times and far more seasons with more than one major.... Nadal pretty much owns French Open and Olympics.
Everything else are 3rd tier details which no-one with a clue cares about.
Repeat for the nth time: At no point has tennis ever been about any particular head to head between two players. Every person's career is the head to head between them and everybody else on tour.
Federer owns Nadal in that respect - in the same way Sampras would have still owned Agassi even if Agassi had a winning head to head and their major numbers were otherwise the same.
Last edited:
DeShaun
Banned
I think Nadal did devalue Federer but mainly to the extent that it forced many fans of the game to cease with the deification of Roger, i.e., Nadal reminded many of us that Federer is, after all, human and can look fragile as the next guy; although Federer never disappeared from the playground for seven months immediately following an A-S-S-beating, so, I think your flame needs work.
Completely wrong. Sampras had repeatedly said himself that if he had an inferior H2H against Agassi, it would nullify his standing significantly. You cannot be dominated by your main rival, who is also an All time great.
If Djokovic ends up with a 6-10 match lead in his H2H with Nadal, then Nadal's legacy is seriously damaged, because Djoko is one of his main rivals and is reaching all-time great status with his slam wins. Djokovic could achieve less in totality than Nadal (less slams, less titles), but people would be able to argue that Djokovic was the better player. If Djokovic has a 10 match advantadge over Nadal, then there will be no question that he's the better player, even if he statistically achieves less.
So there you have it. Nadal fans are not being hypocrites. If Djokovic manages to signiificantly dominate the H2H, then Nadal will be in the exact same position as Fed, no matter how much more Nadal achieves than Djoker. Nadal cannot afford to fall significantly behind in his H2H with Djokovic, because everyone with a brain knows it'll matter. Nadal has to keep ahead, or even. Or a worst, Djokovic can only be 2 or three matches ahead. Anything over 5 matches, and Djoker can claim to be the better player, no matter what Nadal goes on to do. H2H with all-time greats is a b/tch!
you cannot be dominated by another ATG, and exoect it not to go against your greatness or any sort of GOAT canidacy. That's just the way it is. All the ex-pros, from Sampras to McEnroe know this.
Last edited:
Jeffrey573639
Semi-Pro
And that's equivalent to 5 slams is it? I won't totally disregard the H2H but to say it's more important than all the semifinal,final streaks Fed has including all the WTF's, (consecutive) weeks at number one.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
No he did not. I have read most media items on Sampras that have had any traction and I would recall if he has said that repeatedly. Don't make stuff up to bolster your version of events.
Regardless, Sampras's take on the situation doesn't make it the right one (no more than McEnroe saying Nadal had the best volleys makes it true). If Agassi had the better of him in the h2h Sampras would still have been the benchmark which Federer has to surpass to be considered the greatest, not Agassi. That is a fact. Agassi is only barely considered Lendl's peer in the all-time lists all things considered.
When you look at lists of achievements in tennis the all-important criterion by which players are compared across generations are the whole achievements: namely majors won, weeks at #1 etc. How hard is it for people to understand this? They are far and beyond more important measures than any individual head to heads and they always will be unless two player's achievement are so evenly matched that you get far enough down the side by side comparisons to reach the h2h.
He will not be within a county mile of Nadal unless he wins the equivalent of his entire slam collection again to match Nadal's.
No they will not in terms of greatness. Being better than someone at tennis changes vastly over the generations. Berdych would likely play better peak-level tennis than Lendl but he's not a greater player.
Far from it. See the above and refer to all discussions about tennis greatness in the open era prior to about 2009.
Everyone with a brain laughs at the notion that Sampras is not as great as Sergi Bruguera too but the metrics you are espousing as important prove it without doubt apparently.
And, please enlighten me for a moment - how did you formulate this mythical 2 or 3 matches would be allowable but anything over 5 ahead would trump the slam tally? It doesn't account for percentage of overall matches. If they played 100 more times and it ended up Djokovic 65-Nadal 60 that would be vastly different to Djokoviv 18-Nadal 13. One is an 8.3% margin, the other a 38% margin.
I so want to hear this explanation because it's starting to sound very much like made-up-on-the-spot expert opinion. Perhaps, how did you say it "everyone with a brain" doesn't quite hold as true as you wish it would.
You make far too many all-encompassing baseless statements like "the way it is" or "all ex-pros..." to make a remotely credible argument given the huge, gaping holes in the logic used.
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
Five slams ? The difference is Roddick and Pholopusis . That's it !
While you had Nadal that virtually had to face Federer and Djokovic .
If it were not for Joker Nadal would have 15 slams not including the Olympics which would be 16 .
Now lets not even talk about the bagdatis and friends slams . I mean Federer just was at the right place at the right time.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
If it weren't for Del Potro and Safin Federer would have 19.
If it weren't for Krajicek Sampras would have 8 Wimbledons probably.
If it weren't for Cash Lendl would have won Wimbledon.
*Add examples ad nauseum*
You have no point basically.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Well said. And Fed made it to all those SFs and Fs 2005-8 on the hard courts - Nadal, not so much - can't whip someone who doesn't show up.
I wouldn't say Sampras 'dominated' AA - 20-14 - with very few played on clay... he had the very good fortune of being the USO's 'favored son' with the ginned up courts and very light balls.
The Dark Knight
Legend
He just gets injured more and had
More problems in his life .....but when he does show up Fed has no chance .
Sorry in my opinion Nadal is te better player and has more talent .
Federer is more fit because of his style of play bug can only win by going around Nadal.......
In fact Federers entire career is built around not having to play Nadal.
Jeffrey573639
Semi-Pro
You act as though Federer hasn't beaten Nadal. Sure the H2H heavily favours Nadal even more so at slams but it's not like Fed has 'no' chance. No one is saying you can't think Nadal is the better player or has more talent even if most people will laugh their heads off. I've only read 2 pages of Rafa's biography when I was meandering in a bookshop but he even says that neither him nor Toni believe he has more talent than Fed. You say Federer's more fit because of his style of play which is definitely true but from what I know, he seems to put in a lot of work to remain flexible to avoid injury so it's not like it's a god given gift and it's not like playing styles don't affect a matchup.
The Dark Knight
Legend
He hasn't really.
you guys start the h2h when Nadal was still a boy at the age of 17.....however you don't count Rafters decimation of Federer at virtually the same age because you say he was young .
Nadal is given no such time . You consider him the same player today as he was at 17 because it suits your purpose even though it is false.
Nadal was a clay court specialist and did not break free of that label since 2008.
From that time on Nadal is undefeated on all slam surfaces against Federer . Twice on hards and once on grass.....at te FO it's just pathetic.
It's utter and complete domination . It's been about as good as rivalry from that point as Roddick Federer.....not really much of a rivalry at all.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Good one !
RAFAwon2009usopen
Banned
Oh you mean the Noval "the mental midget" Djokovic? You know Djokovic, the guy that tried to win the Career Grand Slam in 2012, failed, and then tried again in 2013 vs a guy who'd taken a 7 month break? Failed again. And that was after Djokovic won Monte Carlo. How do you win Monte Carlo, and then lose Roland Garros vs a guy who hadn't played a 5-setter since mid-2012? Oh I know how.....you watch 22 balls pass you by in a set (the 5th set, when Nadal hit 22 winners). That's Novak "the mental midget" Djokovic.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
mike danny
Bionic Poster
you mean "has not beaten a top 10 player for 9 months" djokovic in 2010? untill 2011 djokovic was not any better than roddick. he was still a 1 slam wonder.
and excuse federer for not being able to play himself
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Go ahead and count rafter losses. No one cares about them because federer hadnt yet won a major. Federer beat nadal in majors after nadal had already won more than one. It is not the same thing at all. You do nadal no justice. . Perhaps sonce he was not in his prime we should not count his first 3 french opens as well?
Yeah that sounds better to me.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Well Tge only major Nadal had won was on clay ....hence the clay court specialist term.
And although Fed had not won A major he did beat Sampras at Wimbledon so he was damn good.....a hell of a lot better than Nadal on grass at the same point .
Nadal was not considered as a viable threat on anything other than clay. Yet he is not afforded the same time to develop as Federer was . It's ok for fed to be owned by Rafter .....but Nadals record on Non clay is held against him from the moment he entered te pro tour .
I'm sorry as much as you want it to be that way the truth is that Nadal developed into a better player on grass and hards later. Even Federer himself said that Nadal improved over time .
You just won't admit it .
Rock Strongo
Legend
You created another account?
Yet no action was taken, even back then. To be fair though, his two other posts were about women's tennis. I think however that eyebrows must be raised as both accounts were created within two months of eachother.
FEDERERNADAL13
Legend
So until 2011 Djokovic was not a threat off hard courts, because he never won a major elsewhere? Even though he's pushed Rafa to 5 at RG, beaten Fed, etc?
And Murray wasn't a threat AT ALL because he didn't win a major until 2012? Even though he's beaten Fed, Nads, and Djok on almost all surfaces?
Del Po isn't a threat off hard courts, even though he pushes the top guys off the surface (Fed at RG, Fed at OG, Djoko at SW19, etc). Also, his win against Rafa at USO 2009 is embarrassing for Rafa, as Rafa lost to someone who was not a threat yet??
Roddick wasn't a threat on Grass even though he got to many SW19 finals?
Rafa wasn't a threat on HC until he won one, not a threat at Wimbledon until 2008 (despite two finals)?
Fed wasn't a threat on hardcourts until he won his first major, and wasn't a threat on clay until he won in 2009? So basically, Rafa's wins against him at RG are really weak, because he played someone who was not a threat yet!
Let's look at rafa's slam wins, and see if they were against "Threats"
He beat Peurta, not a RG winner, therefore not a "threat"
Beat Fed at Rg in 2006, 2007, and 2008 when Fed wasn't a "threat"
His SW19 slam is legit cuz fed was a "threat"
Same with AO 2009
His FO 10 slam against Sod is no "Threat"
His USO 2010 against Djok is no "threat", cuz Djok had never won a USO
FO 2011 against Fed is legit, cuz Fed won there before
FO 2012 against Djok isn't a threat, because Djok never won there
and finally, FO 2013 against Ferrer... No slam win at RG for Ferru, no threat...
So, according to your logic, Rafa has only won 3 slams where he faced a "threat"... Not very good!
Just so you know, I am a HUGE Fed and Rafa fan!!! But this is just a sad attempt to damage Fed's legace.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I can't read through all that mess.
It's a lot of explaining away of certain facts .
The fact is Nadal was labeled as a clay court specialist .
He is no longer labeled as a clay court specialist .
Therefore the undeniable fact is that Nadal developed into a better player on hards and grass later on .....
.Jesus...I mean Federer himself said so !!!
You can get creative and try and muddy the crystal clear waters with your nonsense.....but to say Nadal was the same player at 17 as he was at say 22 is just a lie.
It's a lot of explaining away of certain facts .
The fact is Nadal was labeled as a clay court specialist .
He is no longer labeled as a clay court specialist .
Therefore the undeniable fact is that Nadal developed into a better player on hards and grass later on .....
.Jesus...I mean Federer himself said so !!!
You can get creative and try and muddy the crystal clear waters with your nonsense.....but to say Nadal was the same player at 17 as he was at say 22 is just a lie.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Lol hypocrite. You do the same thing. To say federer is the same now as when 26 is just a lie
Povl Carstensen
Legend
This.
10chx
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
You are too much man... what a complete muppet logic.
Federer's results after he beat Sampras in the 2nd round of Wimbledon are all legit "prime" results but Nadal's results after he had won a major are not legit because he wasn't a top player yet or good on hard courts.
Please. By that logic every player on tour can discount all of their grass court results until they pretty much win Wimbledon or beat the defending champ. :lol:
As much as it's pointless to feed obvious trolls like you this was too funny to pass up the chance.
Next thing you'll be deleting the losses to Federer at Wimbledon from the h2h because they weren't fair. :roll:
FEDERERNADAL13
Legend
That's exactly what I said about rafa's wins vs "threats" using TDK logic...
It just doesn't make sense!
moonballs
Hall of Fame
Fixt for u
Jeffrey573639
Semi-Pro
Oh noes, he failed to win the career grand slam. What a useless tennis player. He ought to be a teacher or something.
It's true. This question is like : "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Yeah, lol. I would like to see those high standards that critics use be used on them for a change and see how much they did in life using those high standards when not winning career slam you are a failure.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Operative word there is "excuse". Feds career is littered with excuses , long explanations and career built on not having to play Nadal.
I don't excuse him for not being able to beat Nadal since 2008 .....the point when Nadal learned how to play on grass and hards.
You dont excuse Nadal for playing Fed as a boy but you excise Fed for getting dominated by Rafter as a boy.
It's a one way street here and it's pointing the opposite way from the truth .
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
Chase the dark night away? Not gonna happen.
Your views are distorted about me and Federer . Just take a look above your post my friend .
For all the relentless fighters out there.
Last edited:
Similar threads
