Do you consider Nadal a Tier 1 great?

Do you consider Nadal a Tier 1 great?


  • Total voters
    342
Let me get you a tissue. There are many things Federer trails Nadal at as well - yet you failed to mention a single one :oops::lol:

Bringing up a doubles gold medal ?? :confused:

A also didn't bring a lot of other things Nadal trails Fed. But ok, fine you can have your opinion that trailing 200 weeks and 5 majors can put you in the same tier. I accept your view, but can't agree with it no matter what.
 
Well, that is to be expected spin jobs, lies all to support the questionable records of Federer: Nadal proved he was no "dirtballer" by winning two Wimbledon titles--one against the alleged best grass courter of the generation, but in their line of "thinking," Federer is one of the best clay courters of all time (with only a fluke title), yet Nadal is completely disregarded on grass.

The lies, spinning and other transparent tactics used by the Federer Fringe knows no limits, and only exposes just how desperate they are to alter history to support the false "god."

Disregarded on grass and HC - yet he's much more successful on those two surfaces versus Federer on clay. Some fedfans completely miss that glaring spot on his record, apparently :)
 
A also didn't bring a lot of other things Nadal trails Fed. But ok, fine you can have your opinion that trailing 200 weeks and 5 majors can put you in the same tier. I accept your view, but can't agree with it no matter what.

serena trails graf by an incredible number of weeks as no. 1 too... do u consider her to be in the same tier as graf?
 
Achievements are facts

Well, that is to be expected spin jobs, lies all to support the questionable records of Federer: Nadal proved he was no "dirtballer" by winning two Wimbledon titles--one against the alleged best grass courter of the generation, but in their line of "thinking," Federer is one of the best clay courters of all time (with only a fluke title), yet Nadal is completely disregarded on grass.

The lies, spinning and other transparent tactics used by the Federer Fringe knows no limits, and only exposes just how desperate they are to alter history to support the false "god."

No there is no lies but plain facts.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Rafael Nadal 12*
4. Björn Borg 11
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Dkokovic 6*
= Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Rafael Nadal 17*
5. Björn Borg 16
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
9. Novak Djokovic 10*

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10*
2. Roger Federer 8

3. Rafael Nadal 5*
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4*
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Andy Murray 3*
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3*


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 33*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. Rafael Nadal 20*
= Novak Djokovic 20*
7. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
9. Boris Becker 18
10. Björn Borg 17


Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23*
2. Novak Djokovic 13*
3. Ivan Lendl 10
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5*
= Andy Murray 5*
= Boris Becker 5
9. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4*


GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 40*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
7. Novak Djokovic 25*
8. Rafael Nadal 24*
9. Boris Becker 23
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 17*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Andy Murray 9*
7. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7*
10. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6*

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007

Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009

Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009

Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40

4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Roger Federer 54*
= Stefan Edberg 54
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Roger Federer 256*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Novak Djokovic 90+*
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80


Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 77*
= John McEnroe 77
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. = Rafael Nadal 59*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974
 
No, I consider Graff in a tier above Serena. She trails a lot in achievements in majors also, not just weeks nr.1.

you do know that one big reason why serena has not been ranked no. 1 for longer, is cos she doesn't even play in that many tournaments? anyway, so be it.
 
I think the problem on this forum is the putdowns of various players. I am primarily a Federer fan, but I am full of admiration of Nadals play. It is not necessary to put down your favourite players opposition to make your player sound better.

I have learnt a lot on this forum (particularly tennis history)....but the war constantly going on is exhausting.

Very good post man.
 
you do know that one big reason why serena has not been ranked no. 1 for longer, is cos she doesn't even play in that many tournaments? anyway, so be it.

Yes, but Graff did play and she is rewarded for that. Why doesn't Serena play?
I mean if she is in the same tier, she should have no problem replicating her peak as often.
 
No, I consider Graff in a tier above Serena. She trails a lot in achievements in majors also, not just weeks nr.1.

Yeah I don't understand why objectivity even ask such question since Serena is way Graf in every departments by a large margin. I'm having hard time finding any stats that Serena has over Graf, lol.
 
Yeah I don't understand why objectivity even ask such question since Serena is way Graf in every departments by a large margin. I'm having hard time finding any stats that Serena has over Graf, lol.

You should ask him, not me. I can't speak for him.
 
Yeah I don't understand why objectivity even ask such question since Serena is way Graf in every departments by a large margin. I'm having hard time finding any stats that Serena has over Graf, lol.

5 AO compared to 4. lol. ok anyway we can agree to disagree. i think serena is on the same tier as Graf.
 
5 AO compared to 4. lol. ok anyway we can agree to disagree. i think serena is on the same tier as Graf.

Come on. I don't even... You so badly want Nadal to be the same or greater than Fed, that now you are devaluing Graff? Isn't devaluing Fed and his competition enough? You have to now resort to women. This is just so immature :).

I have no words.
 
Come on. I don't even... You so badly want Nadal to be the same or greater than Fed, that now you are devaluing Graff? Isn't devaluing Fed and his competition enough? You have to now resort to women. This is just so immature :).

I have no words.

erm... no. i actually take into account things like competitive context. graf never had to deal with the eastern european masses of competitive players. her main rival was out of action for 3 years after being stabbed. serena has also dominated doubles competition. and how much she had to fight in terms of social biases to get to where she is. i am no fan of hers, but i cant deny how great her achievements are.

life isn't as simple as just an addition quiz.
 
This is impressive, but many of these statistics attest to federer's consistency and good health. Nadal has not been consistent, he's taken several breaks and missed tournaments. Not that it isn't admirable or a great accomplishment but it doesn't tip the scale too much in favor of Fed.

No there is no lies but plain facts.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Rafael Nadal 12*
4. Björn Borg 11
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Dkokovic 6*
= Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Rafael Nadal 17*
5. Björn Borg 16
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
9. Novak Djokovic 10*

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10*
2. Roger Federer 8

3. Rafael Nadal 5*
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4*
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Andy Murray 3*
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3*


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 33*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. Rafael Nadal 20*
= Novak Djokovic 20*
7. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
9. Boris Becker 18
10. Björn Borg 17


Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23*
2. Novak Djokovic 13*
3. Ivan Lendl 10
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5*
= Andy Murray 5*
= Boris Becker 5
9. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4*


GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 40*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
7. Novak Djokovic 25*
8. Rafael Nadal 24*
9. Boris Becker 23
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 17*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Andy Murray 9*
7. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7*
10. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6*

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007

Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009

Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009

Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40

4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Roger Federer 54*
= Stefan Edberg 54
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Roger Federer 256*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Novak Djokovic 90+*
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80


Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 77*
= John McEnroe 77
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. = Rafael Nadal 59*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974
 
Come on. I don't even... You so badly want Nadal to be the same or greater than Fed, that now you are devaluing Graff? Isn't devaluing Fed and his competition enough? You have to now resort to women. This is just so immature :).

I have no words.

and for the umpteenth time, i have stated time and again that Federer IS the greatest player ever in terms of career achievements. Nadal is not his equal yet in terms of career achievements.
 
This is impressive, but many of these statistics attest to federer's consistency and good health. Nadal has not been consistent, he's taken several breaks and missed tournaments. Not that it isn't admirable or a great accomplishment but it doesn't tip the scale too much in favor of Fed.

It is true that many of those records are attributed to consistency, but IMO weeks at #1/YE#1's, and WTF titles do tip the scale a fair bit. Even weeks at #1 and YE#1's are consistency based records, but WTF titles aren't really, and the WTF is arguably the 5th most important event on tour.
 
erm... no. i actually take into account things like competitive context. graf never had to deal with the eastern european masses of competitive players. her main rival was out of action for 3 years after being stabbed. serena has also dominated doubles competition. and how much she had to fight in terms of social biases to get to where she is. i am no fan of hers, but i cant deny how great her achievements are.

life isn't as simple as just an addition quiz.

Competitive context? Now you've entered into the realm of supernatural. Since this context is just personal preference. And it can't be defined or measured.

I play piano. I'm average. I had a tough childhood and I was poor. Didn't have a father or money to afford teachers. Had to learn all by myself without internet. I guess if you consider my context, I can be in the same tier as Mozart and Chopin. But I can't deny how great their achievements are also.

Do you even get what I'm saying? I mean it's good that you have your opinions. But there is a HUGE difference between opinions based on facts and reasoning.
 
It is true that many of those records are attributed to consistency, but IMO weeks at #1/YE#1's, and WTF titles do tip the scale a fair bit. Even weeks at #1 and YE#1's are consistency based records, but WTF titles aren't really, and the WTF is arguably the 5th most important event on tour.

Isn't everything attributed to consistency? I mean, that's the point. Rafa is the clay goat because of consistency. He has 8 RG, not 1 or 2.

My point is, it's all about consistency. That's the main point of being the greatest.

Anybody can play their god mode tennis for 1 match. But the greats can play a lot of matches that way.

Without consistency, anybody can be the best.

I work 8 hours a day. My friend is employee of the month and works 10 hours every day, even holidays. I stayed twice for 14 hours. Am I now greater employee? Thinks don't work like this.

If you had your company, who would you rather employ, Fed or Nadal? Transfering achievements to hours. You get my point.
 
Last edited:
Competitive context? Now you've entered into the realm of supernatural. Since this context is just personal preference. And it can't be defined or measured.

I play piano. I'm average. I had a tough childhood and I was poor. Didn't have a father or money to afford teachers. Had to learn all by myself without internet. I guess if you consider my context, I can be in the same tier as Mozart and Chopin. But I can't deny how great their achievements are also.

Do you even get what I'm saying? I mean it's good that you have your opinions. But there is a HUGE difference between opinions based on facts and reasoning.

i think whatever you have achieved is amazing, no less amazing than mozart and chopin. genuine feelings.

with regards to serena though, i am just pointing out how different each competitive era is. just like i genuinely think federer's achievements are way way way greater than rod laver or what have you. the kind of competition he has to endure is simply on another level compared to Laver.
 
It is true that many of those records are attributed to consistency, but IMO weeks at #1/YE#1's, and WTF titles do tip the scale a fair bit. Even weeks at #1 and YE#1's are consistency based records, but WTF titles aren't really, and the WTF is arguably the 5th most important event on tour.

what about best career win % in history? what about best career win % against top 10 players in history? What about a winning record against all the current like top 30+ in the tour? What about an utterly dominant record H2H vs the "GOAT"? these things surely tip the scale back then...
 
Wow, so Serena is in the same tier with Graf now?

We can put Seles in the same tier great with Serena, and Nole in the same tier great with Nadal.

How much of a gap between 2 players that can be separate by 1 tier? I think some people considered 10 slams separation, 300 weeks at #1, 50 titles, ,etc.
 
Isn't everything attributed to consistency? I mean, that's the point. Rafa is the clay goat because of consistency. He has 8 RG, not 1 or 2.

My point is, it's all about consistency. That's the main point of being the greatest.

Anybody can play their god mode tennis for 1 match. But the greats can play a lot of matches that way.

Without consistency, anybody can be the best.

I work 8 hours a day. My friend is employee of the month and works 10 hours every day, even holidays. I stayed twice for 14 hours. Am I now greater employee? Thinks don't work like this.

If you had your company, who would you rather employ, Fed or Nadal? Transfering achievements to hours. You get my point.

No offence, but I don't know why you take issue with some of the things you do. We're not in disagreement. I was placating a Nadal fan by giving up on a point, but then saying that Federer still has the record for most titles won at what is arguably (with the Olympics these days) the 5th most important event which doesn't have much if anything to do with consistency. That is debating 101. :) Now if logic follows we will start debating the importance of the Olympics vs the WTF.
 
what about best career win % in history? what about best career win % against top 10 players in history? What about a winning record against all the current like top 30+ in the tour? What about an utterly dominant record H2H vs the "GOAT"? these things surely tip the scale back then...

Slightly IMO, but overall achievements like WTF titles and weeks at #1 are a fair bit more important than any of those % records or H2H's. The thing about all the % records is that they will drop the longer Nadal stays on tour as they have dropped for Federer. Did you ever wonder why Borg leads in most important percentage metrics?
 
Last edited:
what about best career win % in history? what about best career win % against top 10 players in history? What about a winning record against all the current like top 30+ in the tour? What about an utterly dominant record H2H vs the "GOAT"? these things surely tip the scale back then...

If Nadal has all that, why doesn't he have better consistency records? Something must be wrong here.

And Murray doesn't get any points for having winning h2h against the goat either. Like Davydenko and Rosol don't get any extra credits.
 
It is true that many of those records are attributed to consistency, but IMO weeks at #1/YE#1's, and WTF titles do tip the scale a fair bit. Even weeks at #1 and YE#1's are consistency based records, but WTF titles aren't really, and the WTF is arguably the 5th most important event on tour.

Yeah, WTF titles definitely count for a lot, and those are the kind of stats that no one can argue against. That why I had said many not all. :thanks for responding in a rational non aggressive way. :)
 
Slightly IMO, but overall achievements like WTF titles and weeks at #1 are a fair bit more important than any of those % records or H2H's. The thing about all the % records is that they will drop the longer Nadal stays on tour as they have dropped for Federer. Did you ever wonder why Borg leads in most important percentage metrics?

WTF titles...ok, how about Masters 1000 titles...

and wait...weeks at #1>>win % and H2H...nah man, sorry but I vehemently disagree with that, no way dude, we all know how stupid the rankings are and can be, it means nothing and it meant nothing since the beginning when Nadal started dominating Federer as a 17 year old
 
No offence, but I don't know why you take issue with some of the things you do. We're not in disagreement. I was placating a Nadal fan by giving up on a point, but then saying that Federer still has the record for most titles won at what is arguably (with the Olympics these days) the 5th most important event which doesn't have much if anything to do with consistency. That is debating 101. :) Now if logic follows we will start debating the importance of the Olympics vs the WTF.

We only have small disagreement. You say consistency tips the scale fairly bit. I say it tips it by huge margins. Entire tier.

It doesn't matter if Olympics are greater or WTF or not, since Fed has 6 of them and 2 medals PLUS everything else.

Because in that case we can put Sampras and Lendl on the same tier also? Gap in majors and weeks nr.1 is far less than Fed and Nadal.
 
Yeah, WTF titles definitely count for a lot, and those are the kind of stats that no one can argue against. That why I had said many not all. :thanks for responding in a rational non aggressive way. :)

No problem. I only seriously attack when I get provoked. At least most of the time. :)
 
WTF titles...ok, how about Masters 1000 titles...

and wait...weeks at #1>>win % and H2H...nah man, sorry but I vehemently disagree with that, no way dude, we all know how stupid the rankings are and can be, it means nothing and it meant nothing since the beginning when Nadal started dominating Federer as a 17 year old

I stopped reading after this.

You want answers?! I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth!
 
Isn't everything attributed to consistency? I mean, that's the point. Rafa is the clay goat because of consistency. He has 8 RG, not 1 or 2.

My point is, it's all about consistency. That's the main point of being the greatest.

Anybody can play their god mode tennis for 1 match. But the greats can play a lot of matches that way.

Without consistency, anybody can be the best.

I work 8 hours a day. My friend is employee of the month and works 10 hours every day, even holidays. I stayed twice for 14 hours. Am I now greater employee? Thinks don't work like this.

If you had your company, who would you rather employ, Fed or Nadal? Transfering achievements to hours. You get my point.

Fed, Rafa would take too many sick days :P

Jokes aside, the thing is, if Nadal won all his FO over 20 years, he'd still be great without bring consistent. It's debatable if consistency is what makes someone great. As far as playing 1 great match goes, that's what we call one hit wonders. Nadal has played hundreds of great matches, and done so against the best players on tour. Fed had about 270 more match wins than Rafa, but he's played about 350 more matches than him. So yeah when Rafa is out he's out, but when he's playing he wins a whole lot.
 
WTF titles...ok, how about Masters 1000 titles...

and wait...weeks at #1>>win % and H2H...nah man, sorry but I vehemently disagree with that, no way dude, we all know how stupid the rankings are and can be, it means nothing and it meant nothing since the beginning when Nadal started dominating Federer as a 17 year old

I would say Masters titles are 4th and H2H is 5th. But the 3 most important metrics IMHO are 1. slams 2. weeks at #1 and 3 WTF titles.

And no I don't think the rankings are stupid. You just have to understand them. Federer's 302 weeks are all legit (for lack of a better word) for example since he dominated for 4 years, and his other 2 stints at #1 came off the back of RG and Wimby 2009 and his run from Basel 2011 through almost the entirety of 2012. Nadal's runs were also legit since he beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2008, and had his dominant 2010.
 
Last edited:
Fed, Rafa would take too many sick days :P

Jokes aside, the thing is, if Nadal won all his FO over 20 years, he'd still be great without bring consistent. It's debatable if consistency is what makes someone great. As far as playing 1 great match goes, that's what we call one hit wonders. Nadal has played hundreds of great matches, and done so against the best players on tour. Fed had about 270 more match wins than Rafa, but he's played about 350 more matches than him. So yeah when Rafa is out he's out, but when he's playing he wins a whole lot.

Good points. Now, his fans can rejoice. He is playing amazing. Will be nr.1.
If he keeps playing on HC and even fast HC this well next years, he will get more HC majors and ranking points. That will make him higher on the goat list.

Maybe Fed should sometimes sacrifice his consistency a bit for his peak play. To be fresh more for the big ones. Fed would have less consecutive finals and semis and less ranking points but more bigger wins and maybe better h2h vs the big boys.

This is what Serena and Rafa are doing. Sacrificing their consistency for better peak play.

Still, Feds peak play with 17 majors and 6 WTFs and all those masters is still quite high.

Maybe it's a bit unfair comparing Fed with the current top 3. We should compare him with his generation in the h2h department.

Maybe it's also unfair to compare achievements of Fed vs Nadal for the same reason. That's why Fed should be considered greatest only NOW and we compare their achievements after Nadal retires.
 
I would say Masters titles are 4th and H2H is 5th. But the 3 most important metrics IMHO are 1. slams 2. weeks at #1 and 3 WTF titles.

And no I don't think the rankings are stupid. You just have to understand them. Federer's 302 weeks are all legit (for lack of a better word) for example since he dominated for 4 years, and his other 2 stints at #1 came off the back of RG and Wimby 2009 and his run from Basel 2011 through almost the entirety of 2012. Nadal's runs were also legit since he beat Federer at Wimbledon in 2008, and had his dominant 2010.

I think most people agree on almost everything except the h2h. It's a tough call. Because it's so subjective. In theory it's much worse for Fed having negative h2h vs Murray. Since Murray is a lesser player. Why is it a shame for Fed not to dominate his next generation? But still being competitive with them.

I would like to see 23 years old Fed vs 28,29 years old Nole, Nadal and Murray. They are lucky they don't have greats from next generation chasing them when they are entering past their primes. If peak Fed had the chance to meet them on their decline, things would be different.
 
If Nadal is not Tier 1 with 26 master titles and 12 slams, then who is?

Fed with 17 majors and over 30 masters (WTF is at least 1,5 masters) and 302 weeks.

Maybe Laver with 2 CYGS and 199 tournament wins and 6 years being nr.1.

Unless the gap of 5 majors and 200 weeks is nothing. In this case we can put Nole and Rafa on the same tier as well.
 
Fed with 17 majors and over 30 masters (WTF is at least 1,5 masters) and 302 weeks.

Maybe Laver with 2 CYGS and 199 tournament wins and 6 years being nr.1.

Unless the gap of 5 majors and 200 weeks is nothing. In this case we can put Nole and Rafa on the same tier as well.
So a "tier" would have only 2 players in it? Sorry but that's not a tier at all.
 
Good points. Now, his fans can rejoice. He is playing amazing. Will be nr.1.
If he keeps playing on HC and even fast HC this well next years, he will get more HC majors and ranking points. That will make him higher on the goat list.

Maybe Fed should sometimes sacrifice his consistency a bit for his peak play. To be fresh more for the big ones. Fed would have less consecutive finals and semis and less ranking points but more bigger wins and maybe better h2h vs the big boys.

This is what Serena and Rafa are doing. Sacrificing their consistency for better peak play.

Still, Feds peak play with 17 majors and 6 WTFs and all those masters is still quite high.

Maybe it's a bit unfair comparing Fed with the current top 3. We should compare him with his generation in the h2h department.

Maybe it's also unfair to compare achievements of Fed vs Nadal for the same reason. That's why Fed should be considered greatest only NOW and we compare their achievements after Nadal retires.

Rafa says this all the time. I completely agree. TBH I don't this debate will ever be settled, for example no way Rafa will be able to beat Fed on all those records that come as a result of consistency. Nor will he win 6 WTF titles. He will set his own records and achieve other great things. But this thread is not about who is best, but whether or not Rafa is in the same tier as Fed. I think he is, and if people think he isn't yet, I think he certainly will be by the time he retires.
 
No there is no lies but plain facts.

Insert pointless list which does not address the post you attempted to respond to

Which at the heart was:

Well, that is to be expected spin jobs, lies all to support the questionable records of Federer: Nadal proved he was no "dirtballer" by winning two Wimbledon titles--one against the alleged best grass courter of the generation, but in their line of "thinking," Federer is one of the best clay courters of all time (with only a fluke title), yet Nadal is completely disregarded on grass.

The lies, spinning and other transparent tactics used by the Federer Fringe knows no limits, and only exposes just how desperate they are to alter history to support the false "god."

Trivia lists do not change what Federer's Fringe attempted to do with the account in bold.
 
my point was simply to highlight your intellectual dishonesty. i think NEITHER of them are doping.

So . . . in order to rail against a perceived "intellectual dishonesty", you resorted to intellectual dishonesty. Wonderful.

I suppose you thought baseball and cycling were clean too. And track.

Vigilance is the only way we're going to clean up sport. And I truly believe that Nadal is the most obvious case for reasonable grounds for suspicion.

If testing were better, the suspicion could be quickly rebutted and any concerns put to rest.
 
Disregarded on grass and HC - yet he's much more successful on those two surfaces versus Federer on clay. Some fedfans completely miss that glaring spot on his record, apparently :)

True, Nadal is greater on all 3 surfaces in existence today than Federer is on clay. Nadal is also much greater on clay than Federer is on any surface. So if you break it down by best surface to worst:

Nadal on his best surface > Federer on his best surface
Federer on his 2nd best surface > Nadal in his 2nd best surface (for now anyway)
Nadal on his worst surface > Federer on his worst surface

Nadal actually leads Federer 2 to 1 when one looks at it that way. If Federer were even a top 10 clay courter all time, Nadal would have to be a top 5 grass courter or hard courter of all time as Nadal has proven to be a better grass court player and hard court player than Federer is a clay court player. The truth is Nadal is probably just top 10 all time on grass and hard courts, but Federer might not even be top 15 on clay.
 
Nadal is 27 not 67. He had 7 months off to get healthy. His health did improve significantly. He has a chronic condition - that seems to respond well to rest. His play didn't come out of thin air.....he has been a top player since 2005. He is more muscular than most players - but not extremely so - well within the range of normal genetic variation.

Goodness. Normally confidence of ones position comes from having a strong case. But since you have no evidence whatsoever, I wonder where you get your confidence from. Again, I am primarily a Federer fan. I have no bias towards Nadal. What I do have a strong bias towards is, before people make slurs as bad a saying someone is using drugs - they have solid, hard evidence for doing so. Otherwise focus on tennis.

Your first paragraph is largely off point and mostly irrelevant. Your second is moralizing stemming from having built a straw man.

I have not said that X is using drugs. Kindly pay closer attention and get the facts straight. I have said that I strongly suspect that Nadal is using PEDs. More specifically, I suspect he may be using EPO at the very least. If true, I also suspect that he may be using others that facilitate recovery -- but to me, they're not nearly as obvious.

Nadal is primarily a retriever and grinder. His game has largely been predicated upon running down what would otherwise be winners and getting them back deep with topspin. His game is therefore dependent upon running and scrambling, the most physically taxing form of tennis. His game is therefore dependent upon endurance -- the reason he chronically stalls between points so that his muscles are completely replenished with oxygen. Yet almost miraculously he does not have an endurance athlete's build. He resembles -- more than any other player on the men's tour -- one of the power hitters in baseball during the 90s. And he shouldn't, because the taxing nature of his game should cause the catabolization of his muscles and render him as thin and gaunt as Djoker.

Furthermore I believe it safe to say that over the last five months or so he has not exhibited any signs of fatigue and does not appear to require any recovery time after marathon matches. I do not believe this to be possible without PED use. I also see no signs whatsoever of this "chronic condition" -- the one that caused him to miss 8 months -- flaring up at all. Given that he has gone deep in almost every single tournament he has played since March, this is very odd.

In fact, this should not be the case, at all. A physical drop off should be expected, especially after playing nearly every day for the past two weeks on the allegedly most harmful surface to his body. Instead, there has been no drop off in performance or any signs of fatigue. That would certainly be consistent with an athlete doping.

His beyond miraculous return makes it even more suspicious, in my view. Whenever any other top tennis player has taken more than six months off they have taken a full year to completely come back -- usually a combination of physical conditioning, technical rust, and a lack of "match fitness" or psychological reclimatization. This was the case with Muster, McEnroe, Delpo, etc. But not for Nads, apparently. Instead, Nadal was bagelling the #4 player in the world in his third tournament back -- just a few weeks after his return. I therefore do not believe he was injured to the extent he claimed, which leads me to wonder whether something else was occuring during his prolonged absence from tennis.

If Armstrong, Fuentes, the track star admissions, and Biogenesis have taught us anything, it's that if an athlete's performance seems too good to be true, it probably is. Had Nadal been on the tour fom June 2012 - March 2013 and shown gradual signs of improvement in his play over that time, that would be one thing. But to exit the sport for 3/4 of a year and show only small signs of rust while displaying beyond superhuman stamina and endurance when you reappear, I believe that should be regarded with suspicion by everyone since it seems too good to be true.
 
True, Nadal is greater on all 3 surfaces in existence today than Federer is on clay. Nadal is also much greater on clay than Federer is on any surface. So if you break it down by best surface to worst:

Nadal on his best surface > Federer on his best surface
Federer on his 2nd best surface > Nadal in his 2nd best surface (for now anyway)
Nadal on his worst surface > Federer on his worst surface

Nadal actually leads Federer 2 to 1 when one looks at it that way. If Federer were even a top 10 clay courter all time, Nadal would have to be a top 5 grass courter or hard courter of all time as Nadal has proven to be a better grass court player and hard court player than Federer is a clay court player. The truth is Nadal is probably just top 10 all time on grass and hard courts, but Federer might not even be top 15 on clay.

Nadal on HC > Federer on clay because there is two HC slams. Using that method,

Federer on HC 9 titles, 11 finals > Nadal on Clay 8 titles, 8 finals
Federer on Grass 7 titles, 8 finals> Nadal on Grass 2 titles, 5 finals
Nadal on HC 2 titles, 4 finals> Federer on Clay 1 title, 5 finals.

Or you could use their best result at one of the HC slam.

Nadal on Clay 8 titles, 8 finals > Federer on Grass 7 titles, 8 finals
Federer on HC 5 titles, 6 finals > Nadal on Grass 2 titles, 5 finals
Federer on Clay 1 title, 5 finals > Nadal on HC 1 titles, 2 finals
 
He resembles -- more than any other player on the men's tour -- one of the power hitters in baseball during the 90s.

That's comical. Have you ever seen him up close and personal, like in the player's lounge at the US Open lol? Or are you just going by what you observe on tv? He's not remotely built like a power hitter, he is actually pretty lean. Widescreen tv formats make players look distorted as well. You can also make just as good a case for PED use for Djokovic or Federer. At least Nadal's level of play and physicality has always remained constant, unlike Djokovic, who miraculously became superman in 2011. And when was the last time anyone ever saw Federer sweat or breathe hard? Either they are all getting help somehow and if so it's still a level playing field or none of them are.

dooknookem
 
This is impressive, but many of these statistics attest to federer's consistency and good health. Nadal has not been consistent, he's taken several breaks and missed tournaments. Not that it isn't admirable or a great accomplishment but it doesn't tip the scale too much in favor of Fed.

Actually it does. He plays in a way that didn't break his body down during his prime.

That's a mark of superiority.
 
That's comical. Have you ever seen him up close and personal, like in the player's lounge at the US Open lol? Or are you just going by what you observe on tv? He's not remotely built like a power hitter, he is actually pretty lean. Widescreen tv formats make players look distorted as well. You can also make just as good a case for PED use for Djokovic or Federer. At least Nadal's level of play and physicality has always remained constant, unlike Djokovic, who miraculously became superman in 2011. And when was the last time anyone ever saw Federer sweat or breathe hard? Either they are all getting help somehow and if so it's still a level playing field or none of them are.

dooknookem

the amazing thing is that 23 GS semi-finals in a row is not "too good to be true" when it totally shattered the next best streak in history which is at a measly 10! but no, that is totally within expectations. seriously man, why did i even bother breaking my TW silence? forget it.
 
the amazing thing is that 23 GS semi-finals in a row is not "too good to be true" when it totally shattered the next best streak in history which is at a measly 10! but no, that is totally within expectations. seriously man, why did i even bother breaking my TW silence? forget it.

Great, name me the PED that yields its user 23 SFs in a row.

You're simply building a straw man rather than dealing with the issues raised.
 
Nadal on HC > Federer on clay because there is two HC slams. Using that method,

Federer on HC 9 titles, 11 finals > Nadal on Clay 8 titles, 8 finals
Federer on Grass 7 titles, 8 finals> Nadal on Grass 2 titles, 5 finals
Nadal on HC 2 titles, 4 finals> Federer on Clay 1 title, 5 finals.

Or you could use their best result at one of the HC slam.

Nadal on Clay 8 titles, 8 finals > Federer on Grass 7 titles, 8 finals
Federer on HC 5 titles, 6 finals > Nadal on Grass 2 titles, 5 finals
Federer on Clay 1 title, 5 finals > Nadal on HC 1 titles, 2 finals

Lets be real here. Nobody believes Federer would have won a 2nd clay slam even if there was a 2nd French Open, considering he needed the miracle of miracles of Nadal losing while Federer was still in or near his prime to even win one. Also considering Federer could only win any of his Masters on clay at the same venue (Hamburg which turned into Madrid) Nadals Masters record on hard courts is far more impressive overall than Federers on clay.

The other huge difference is Nadal has a more than decent chance vs any player he has ever faced on hard courts. There isnt a single person he has doesnt have atleast roughly even odds overall in his career to win against in a head to head battle on hard courts, including Federer or Djokovic. While Federer vs Nadal has almost no chance vs Nadal on clay, and never did, even in his peak years.
 
Back
Top