Fed Fans - Who would you rather overtake Federer's slam total?

Who would you rather overtake Federer's slam total?


  • Total voters
    196
Lol

You really think Federer likes Novak?

I’m your (wet) dreams maybe :)
Weird attempt of deflecting. :) I just said what kind of game Novak plays, and to make it better, just before this AO Fed said himself that they are both attacking players, and it wasn't the first time that happened either. Nothing to do with their off court relationship. I am not going to lose any sleep over it, in fact I have enjoyed when he beat Fed every time and that won't change. :D

I'll resist responding to that unfortunate misspell in the last line. :p
 
Weird attempt of deflecting. :) I just said what kind of game Novak plays, and to make it better, just before this AO Fed said himself that they are both attacking players, and it wasn't the first time that happened either. Nothing to do with their off court relationship. I am not going to lose any sleep over it, in fact I have enjoyed when he beat Fed every time and that won't change. :D

I'll resist responding to that unfortunate misspell in the last line. :p
I think you're right. I remember when Roger was talking about Nadal/Djok/Murray, he said "...they (Murray and Nadal) play a similar game, rather defensive, while Novak and I are more offensive, playing close to the line, etc". I guess he puts Novak among the aggressive players.
 
Weird attempt of deflecting. :) I just said what kind of game Novak plays, and to make it better, just before this AO Fed said himself that they are both attacking players, and it wasn't the first time that happened either. Nothing to do with their off court relationship. I am not going to lose any sleep over it, in fact I have enjoyed when he beat Fed every time and that won't change. :D

I'll resist responding to that unfortunate misspell in the last line. :p
Well, its bad blood between those two and it has been that for years. Its even bad blood in the pro tennis scene between who support Novak and who support Federer. Its going so deep its even board members in ATP thinking this way.
 
This thread is about the slam record...not weeks at #1, more year end #1s, more WTFs, etc. I think Djokovic (who has the more complete/all-suface game than Rafa) has lost too many slams he should have won, and should have dominated the slams from 2012 - 2014 as he did in 2011. If peak Djokovic had consistently played at his best (like peak Federer did), he would have the slam record. Short and simple.

I'm more impressed with Rafa's slam record than Nole's. He's mostly won at the slam he should win, and has won many slams he shouldn't have won.

To be fair the duopoly of Nadal and Fed was broken by djokovic. That was something, in general, "he shouldn't have" done. If you check forums, tennis analyst commentary, fans opinions, etc at worst they would say he was a "one slam wonder, never winning a slam again, Murray is more talented (in 2009-2010)." At best "I can see him winning one or two more slams." 99% of the tennis world didn't see that coming. I'm sure plenty of djokovic fans didn't believe he would become what he has today...passing Pete Sampras in slam total, winning 4 in a row, winning 3 in a row multiple times, 3 in one season multiple times, YEC 5 times!! He could've won a slam like Chung and been swept under the rug as a great 1 time champion who had a great run.. once. Instead he surpassed everyones expectations ten fold. While rafa was a prodigy and smashed expectations of his multi surface adaptation and talent.. Djokovic absolutely demolished expectations of his talent in general. Djokovic didn't "mostly" win "at the slam he should win" and won at "many slams he shouldn't have won" because he wasn't expected to win that much at all..


And to your point. Djokovic was more slightly dominant between 2011-2016. Rafa's best 6 year stretch is 2008-2013. He won 10 slams to Djokovics 11 during that 2011-2016. Djokovic went to 18 slam finals to Nadals 16 finals. Djokovic and Nadals win percentage during their most dominant stretches are near identical..with NAdal winning 62% of slam finals during that stretch compared to Djokovics 61%. My point is we could say Novak should've "dominanted" Fed, Nadal, and Murray during that stretch. But they're too great to make such a rash conclusion. He lost to better players on that day who are all time greats or GOATS in their own right. ...And right now Djokovic is 2 slams behind Rafa....while being a year younger in very good form.
 
Let me start by saying I don't agree with 'removing clay' to show how Nadal is NOT a candidate for GOAT. (which is what I reckon you're trying to counter with this tit-for-tat post here)

That said, your post actually does a great job proving just how good Federer actually IS -

12 and 9 slams are more than the entire career slams of many of the top 10 all time list - and that is after removing each of his best surfaces.

You remove Nadal's best and he's left with what - 6 slams?

Anyway, again I reiterate that doesn't mean Nadal isn't in the GOAT conversation.
I actually agree with you, Federer is great - and I'm not trying to disprove that. I am trying to put an end to this ''off-clay'' BS because it is pure statistical cherry picking.
 
In this case, Nadal moves further away from GOAThood than does Fed when you subtract the best slams.
You are right, but do you agree that arbitrarily removing a surface when looking at stats is BS? Especially when the player in question has won all four slams, the only one to win on all three surfaces more than once and has made the final at all slams multiple times.
 
Goat is not only the number of slams. It's the way you have dominated the tour, the number of weeks as world number 1, year end number 1, World tour finals.
There"s no doubt Nadal is the greatest player ever on clay, probably the best lefty player ever to have played the game, but in my opinion he's not the greatest.

His numbers of GS are inflated by his wins at Roland Garros. Greatest clay player? no doubt about that. But not the greatest on hard courts grass indoors etc etc Clay is a specialist surface that he dominates and there's a lack of competition especially the last two years. Schwartzman was the only player who took a set away from Nadal.

Djokovic is already above Nadal in my opinion. Better distribution of his slam wins. He's won all masters series event won the world tour finals 5 times. Better numbers on number of weeks as world number 1. Better Ratio win lost to Nadal who he has beaten in all GS masters series event world tour finals. He's held all 4 slams at the same time. His 2015 season is probably one of the best ever. Nadal dominates the tour on clay but has never dominated the tour like Fed and the Djoker have.

I can confirm you that an aging Fed will lose more and more to players below his level and standarts. You forgot to mention Millman at the USO 2018 . But aren't we lucky to have him play a few more years? He would have never lost to those players in his prime. Fed has dominated the tour like no one between 2003 and 2010. 16 GS in that period with mostly his losses coming to Nadal the greatest player ever on clay. Not bad. On the other hand Nadal lost to Steve Darcis at Wimbledon 2013 in probably one of his best years on tour....
I can agree with you that Rafa hasn't done enough to be considered the greatest yet and I certainly can agree with you that slams are not the only stat that matter. For me it is slams and the number 1 ranking (weeks & YE).

When you say things like 'his numbers of GS are inflated by his wins at Roland Garros' though, I have to question you because it is almost like the premise of that argument is that RG is not a slam. Of course it is, a slam is a slam is a slam. Anyone that claims any of the four are worth more than any other is in severe disagreeance with the ATP and ITF. Also, utterly dominating is not the same as lack of competition. Djokovic, Federer and Thiem have had multiple attepts at him and have come up with a combined total of 1 win. These are not mug players and if Rafa didn't exist all three would have multiple RG titles now. Saying that Rafa's dominance is due to lack of competition is like saying that Federer dominated 2004 - 2007 because of lack of competition. Neither statement is true, in both cases they just made great players look ordinary. Djoker even did it to Rafa last Sunday.

Djokovic is two slams behind, but that is only offset by 1 YE # 1 ahead and 30 something weeks at # 1. That is literally the diffence between Rafa playing out the end of last season and holding on to number 1 and him not, so no - I can't put Djoker in front as it stands now.

On Fed, he has nothing left to prove and I'm happy to still see him play on the tour, still be in the top 3 and still be challenging for major titles. Seeing these three players taking each other on is not something that I will take for granted because it will not last too much longer.
 
Last edited:
You are right, but do you agree that arbitrarily removing a surface when looking at stats is BS? Especially when the player in question has won all four slams, the only one to win on all three surfaces more than once and has made the final at all slams multiple times.
I’m as staunch a Fed fan they come (at least in my head lol) but I agree that it is disrespectful to Nadal’s achievements the way some people try to deride him with cherry picked stats. He is an all-time, all-surface great. Full stop.

Probably more a holdout from the early days of their rivalry this mutual disrespect.

Yes his wins are disproportionally weighted towards clay but barring Borg, how many clay champions can claim Wimbledon titles?

No matter what anyone says, winning 17 slams is evidence of GOAT-category performance. No explanations necessary.

On the flip side many Nadal and Novak fans keep deriding Roger as a weak era opportunist who got lucky which has got to stop. No one gets to 20 slams in a career more than half of which was spent in the era of Nadal and Djokovic that is not in the same GOAT conversation.

Perhaps you are guilty of that too? Which may explain some of the vitriol ;)

Cheers.
 
I’m as staunch a Fed fan they come (at least in my head lol) but I agree that it is disrespectful to Nadal’s achievements the way some people try to deride him with cherry picked stats. He is an all-time, all-surface great. Full stop.

Probably more a holdout from the early days of their rivalry this mutual disrespect.

Yes his wins are disproportionally weighted towards clay but barring Borg, how many clay champions can claim Wimbledon titles?

No matter what anyone says, winning 17 slams is evidence of GOAT-category performance. No explanations necessary.

On the flip side many Nadal and Novak fans keep deriding Roger as a weak era opportunist who got lucky which has got to stop. No one gets to 20 slams in a career more than half of which was spent in the era of Nadal and Djokovic that is not in the same GOAT conversation.

Perhaps you are guilty of that too? Which may explain some of the vitriol ;)

Cheers.
That was a fair post. I'm actually with you on the Federer issue. I don't subscribe to the weak era theories and have consistently stated that in my posts. Federer was just much better than his generation.
 
You are right, but do you agree that arbitrarily removing a surface when looking at stats is BS? Especially when the player in question has won all four slams, the only one to win on all three surfaces more than once and has made the final at all slams multiple times.
I don't want to remove any surfaces. The whole point of removing surface is not to remove them, can't you see that? The point is to show that Nadal's slam distribution is more skewed. If you guys can simply admit that, then no one would be removing anything. And no, you cannot group AO and USO together as HC, they are separate slams, the question is about slam distribution.
 
I used to dislike Djokovic quite a lot. But, he has transformed greatly from a punk who couldn't complete a match, to a great competitor. Having seen him live at the US Open and watching him win the way he does, he has earned my respect as a tennis player and a champion. Federer might always edge him out as my personal favorite, but if he surpasses Fed, it will be deserved and I will consider him the GOAT.
 
I don't want to remove any surfaces. The whole point of removing surface is not to remove them, can't you see that? The point is to show that Nadal's slam distribution is more skewed. If you guys can simply admit that, then no one would be removing anything. And no, you cannot group AO and USO together as HC, they are separate slams, the question is about slam distribution.
There's nothing to admit. RG makes up 64% of Nadal's slam count, so what? A slam is a slam - you still have to win them, they don't just hand the RG trophy to Rafa because he turned up on day 1. Who is ''you guys''? I thought you were talking to me one-on-one?

On the US and AO scenario, yes they are separate slams, but isn't the point of the meaningless slam distribution stat to show the ability to win on the three different surfaces? Or is the point of the meaningless stat to just isolate RG to make yourself feel better? Yes, AO & USO are different court speeds, sure, but they are hard courts. Do you think Wimbledon hasn't had different grass speeds over the years? It is still grass though.

Nadal: 64% of slams on clay
Djoker: 66% of slams on hard
 
There's nothing to admit. RG makes up 64% of Nadal's slam count, so what? A slam is a slam - you still have to win them, they don't just hand the RG trophy to Rafa because he turned up on day 1. Who is ''you guys''? I thought you were talking to me one-on-one?

On the US and AO scenario, yes they are separate slams, but isn't the point of the meaningless slam distribution stat to show the ability to win on the three different surfaces? Or is the point of the meaningless stat to just isolate RG to make yourself feel better? Yes, AO & USO are different court speeds, sure, but they are hard courts. Do you think Wimbledon hasn't had different grass speeds over the years? It is still grass though.

Nadal: 64% of slams on clay
Djoker: 66% of slams on hard
Yes a slam is a slam, but if two guys had 17 slams, one with distribution 11, 1, 2, 3 other with 5, 4, 4, 4. Most would put second above first. Why is that so hard for you people to understand? No it's not just about ability to win at different surfaces but rather at the biggest events in the sport. Nadal is most skewed there.
 
Yes a slam is a slam, but if two guys had 17 slams, one with distribution 11, 1, 2, 3 other with 5, 4, 4, 4. Most would put second above first. Why is that so hard for you people to understand? No it's not just about ability to win at different surfaces but rather at the biggest events in the sport. Nadal is most skewed there.
As long as you've won all four then why does it matter? Also, who are 'you people'? Isn't it just you and I discussing this one-on-one?

So, in the current era, we have a grass GOAT, a clay GOAT and what will almost certainly end up as the hard court GOAT in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. These are arguably the best three ever.

The clay GOAT wins six slams outside of clay in the era of the best two ever on the other two surfaces which also happens to cover off on the other three slams. The grass and hard court GOATs have combined to win just two slams on clay.

Let that sink in for a second and tell me if Nadal is just a clay court specialist or if he has an exceptional record against two of the three best ever and as the cherry on top has utterly dominated his preferred surface like no other player has ever done.
 
Rafa since he's been the more significant player than Novak. People can bring up Novak's stats all they want but need to remember that Rafa is close and still ahead of Novak despite missing large chunks of seasons through injury. People thought he'd be finished now.

And to be honest as a Federer fan - wouldn't you rather see the player who challenged Fed in his prime years do it, as opposed to the player who has only beat a more aged version of Fed. Hard to remember now but Fed owned Novak so much back in the day, ditto Rafa.
 
As long as you've won all four then why does it matter? Also, who are 'you people'? Isn't it just you and I discussing this one-on-one?

So, in the current era, we have a grass GOAT, a clay GOAT and what will almost certainly end up as the hard court GOAT in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. These are arguably the best three ever.

The clay GOAT wins six slams outside of clay in the era of the best two ever on the other two surfaces which also happens to cover off on the other three slams. The grass and hard court GOATs have combined to win just two slams on clay.

Let that sink in for a second and tell me if Nadal is just a clay court specialist or if he has an exceptional record against two of the three best ever and as the cherry on top has utterly dominated his preferred surface like no other player has ever done.
When all the guys you are comparing have won all 4, of course then it matter what the distribution is. As I already pointed out, for two guys with 20 slams, 8 6 5 1 is better than 14 3 2 1.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it matters if Nadal overtakes Federer's total - I don't think it will make him the greatest, because so much of his count will be made up of FO wins that it really doesn't enhance his legacy any more than it already does.

Nadal is already the Clay GOAT, winning another 4 RG titles doesn't also make him the GOAT on hard court and grass court.

If Djokovic, on the other hand, overtakes Federer's 20, he will have a much greater chance of claiming that status. There are intangibles outside of winning which add to Federer's greatness and I'm not sure Djokovic winning those slams alone will be enough to do it, but add in some more YE1s and Tour Finals wins and he has a shout.
 
I don't think it matters if Nadal overtakes Federer's total - I don't think it will make him the greatest, because so much of his count will be made up of FO wins that it really doesn't enhance his legacy any more than it already does.

Nadal is already the Clay GOAT, winning another 4 RG titles doesn't also make him the GOAT on hard court and grass court.

If Djokovic, on the other hand, overtakes Federer's 20, he will have a much greater chance of claiming that status. There are intangibles outside of winning which add to Federer's greatness and I'm not sure Djokovic winning those slams alone will be enough to do it, but add in some more YE1s and Tour Finals wins and he has a shout.
There is no way Djokovic will even catch Federer in slams without trumping him in all #1 and most/all non slam stats. It will be much easier for him to pass him in all #1 stats than it will be to catch/beat him in slams. He is already ahead in Masters, and only 1 behind in YEC.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
The fact is that no matter how good Nadal's game is, you'd still recommend Djokovic's over his (and over Federer's) on anything but clay.

Whatever his ultimate standing in the game, Djokovic is currently the 'state of the art' tennis player.
 
Why are Maestronians not more quick to accept Nadal? It makes no sense, they shared so many big moments and pushed each other to be greater, going on 15 years ago, and then this third wheel comes and starts mopping up slams and you prefer him? Still mad over AO 09 and Wimby 08, SMH. Even Federer would say he'd rather it be Nadal.
 
When all the guys you are comparing have won all 4, of course then it matter what the distribution is. As I already pointed out, for two guys with 20 slams, 8 6 5 1 is better than 14 3 2 1.
Not according to the ATP as all slams are worth 2000 points and therefore a slam is a slam. Also, not according to the tennis and general sports media who almost never discuss slam distribution, just total slams won.

I guess though with the meaningless stat of distribution, you are trying to prove versatility right? Ok, who is the only guy to have won at least two slams on all slam surfaces? Who is the only guy to win RG and Wimbleon back-to-back twice (the two most polar opposite surfaces on the tour)? Which of the ATG's have failed to win RG more than once in their long careers?

  • The clay GOAT has lost to the other two once at RG but has also snatched a Wimbledon title off the grass GOAT (2008) and one hard court title off the hard court GOAT since his arrival in 2011 (2013)
  • The grass GOAT has lost three times to the other two at Wimby, hasn't beated the clay GOAT at RG and hasn't beaten the hard court GOAT at either AO or USO since his arrival in 2011
  • Since 2011, the hard court GOAT has lost once to the other two at AO and USO, has beaten the clay GOAT at RG (2015) and has beated the grass GOAT twice at Wimby (2014 & 2015)

Rafa has nothing left to prove in terms versatility and as I have previously pointed out, neither the ATP, the tennis media or the general sports media speak of slam distribution in terms of greatness.
 
Not according to the ATP as all slams are worth 2000 points and therefore a slam is a slam. Also, not according to the tennis and general sports media who almost never discuss slam distribution, just total slams won.

I guess though with the meaningless stat of distribution, you are trying to prove versatility right? Ok, who is the only guy to have won at least two slams on all slam surfaces? Who is the only guy to win RG and Wimbleon back-to-back twice (the two most polar opposite surfaces on the tour)? Which of the ATG's have failed to win RG more than once in their long careers?

  • The clay GOAT has lost to the other two once at RG but has also snatched a Wimbledon title off the grass GOAT (2008) and one hard court title off the hard court GOAT since his arrival in 2011 (2013)
  • The grass GOAT has lost three times to the other two at Wimby, hasn't beated the clay GOAT at RG and hasn't beaten the hard court GOAT at either AO or USO since his arrival in 2011
  • Since 2011, the hard court GOAT has lost once to the other two at AO and USO, has beaten the clay GOAT at RG (2015) and has beated the grass GOAT twice at Wimby (2014 & 2015)

Rafa has nothing left to prove in terms versatility and as I have previously pointed out, neither the ATP, the tennis media or the general sports media speak of slam distribution in terms of greatness.
Not to mention they are underrating how fn hard it is to win the FO 11 times. LOL at just brushing something so amazing aside to suit an argument on a forum.

 

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
Nadal for me. When Federer started GOATing, Nadal was his nemesis, and the world knows this. He was the only one who genuinely stopped peak Fed and still alive. Djoko is more the outsider who wouldn't even be in the discussion if not for his majesty extending his own time to make him relevant. If fed had made way 5 years ago, every single one of Novak's slam would be questioned in ttw as "What if Fed was around...". Fed did a favour to novak by making him relevant in that sense. Whereas Nadal complemented, supplemented, created and defined the very basic essence of the golden era by his presence and exploits. I'll take Nadal.
 
Not according to the ATP as all slams are worth 2000 points and therefore a slam is a slam. Also, not according to the tennis and general sports media who almost never discuss slam distribution, just total slams won.

I guess though with the meaningless stat of distribution, you are trying to prove versatility right? Ok, who is the only guy to have won at least two slams on all slam surfaces? Who is the only guy to win RG and Wimbleon back-to-back twice (the two most polar opposite surfaces on the tour)? Which of the ATG's have failed to win RG more than once in their long careers?

  • The clay GOAT has lost to the other two once at RG but has also snatched a Wimbledon title off the grass GOAT (2008) and one hard court title off the hard court GOAT since his arrival in 2011 (2013)
  • The grass GOAT has lost three times to the other two at Wimby, hasn't beated the clay GOAT at RG and hasn't beaten the hard court GOAT at either AO or USO since his arrival in 2011
  • Since 2011, the hard court GOAT has lost once to the other two at AO and USO, has beaten the clay GOAT at RG (2015) and has beated the grass GOAT twice at Wimby (2014 & 2015)

Rafa has nothing left to prove in terms versatility and as I have previously pointed out, neither the ATP, the tennis media or the general sports media speak of slam distribution in terms of greatness.
We're not talking about the ATP, we're talking about a tennis forum topic that asks what is better to have a more even slam distribution or a lop-sided slam distribution. Most reasonable people choose the former. Go figure.
 
We're not talking about the ATP, we're talking about a tennis forum topic that asks what is better to have a more even slam distribution or a lop-sided slam distribution. Most reasonable people choose the former. Go figure.
But that has nothing to do with who will be considered GOAT at the end of their careers. It is using stats to fit an agenda.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
As long as you've won all four then why does it matter?

I guess though with the meaningless stat of distribution...
Remember your many believe-in-the-double-career-grand-slam posts during the Australian Open? That distribution stat was something you found so important when you thought Nadal might achieve it. Now suddenly, slam distribution is meaningless.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
I feel like Fed would rather want Rafa to overtake him since him and Nole have never really gotten along over the years, but his fans would likely want Novak since Novak’s career pathway and numbers seem like a slightly lesser version of Rogers.

Nadals career trajectory is completely different from pretty much every ATG besides Borg due to his preference on clay, whereas most other ATGs thrive on hard or grass
 
I feel like Fed would rather want Rafa to overtake him since him and Nole have never really gotten along over the years, but his fans would likely want Novak since Novak’s career pathway and numbers seem like a slightly lesser version of Rogers.

Nadals career trajectory is completely different from pretty much every ATG besides Borg due to his preference on clay, whereas most other ATGs thrive on hard or grass
To be honest with you, I doubt that Fed prefers one or another. I think he couldn't care less. He'd like to stand alone and why not? Also, if we look at the big picture it's irrelevant what a certain player base want. We can only watch and see what really happens. When all 3 retire and the final results are 'in' we can talk about goats although I think that's not that important ... IMO, the big 3 have written the tennis history together, one by another, and one against another, or shall I say 'one with another' ... You can't talk about Federer without talking about Djokovic and Nadal. You can't talk about Nadal without including Fed and Nole. You can't talk about Novak and forget about Fed ad Rafa ...

All 3 of them needed one another to become who they are today (y). I'd prefer to look at it that way no matter what the final major count is.
 
Last edited:

clout

Hall of Fame
To be honest with you, I doubt that Fed prefers one or another. I think he couldn't care less. He'd like to stand alone and why not? Also, if we look at the big picture it's irrelevant what a certain player base want. We can only watch and see what really happens. When all 3 retires and the final results are 'in' we can talk about goats although I think that's not that important ... IMO, the big 3 have written the tennis history together, one by another, and one against another ... You can't talk about Federer without talking about Djokovic and Nadal. You can't talk about Nadal without including Fed and Nole. You can't talk about Novak and forget about Fed ad Rafa ...

All 3 of them needed one another to become who they are today (y). I'd prefer to look at it that way no matter what the final major count is.
100% agree. Really couldn't have said it better myself. We've been spoiled rotten as tennis fans over the last 15 or so years, so we've all become so caught up on comparing them, that sometimes we forget to appreciate their greatness in the moment. I don't think we'll ever see an era quite like this one ever again, not just in tennis but in any sport; this is literally the equivalent of having Messi, Maradona and Pele all playing in the same era
 
Remember your many believe-in-the-double-career-grand-slam posts during the Australian Open? That distribution stat was something you found so important when you thought Nadal might achieve it. Now suddenly, slam distribution is meaningless.
Good observation skills. Did you also take note in many of my posts that I've repeatedly stated that if players have won all four slams, and made multiple finals at all four slams that distribution is irrelevant? It extremely rarely mentioned in the tennis media when it comes to any ATG.

I point out the potential double career grand slam regularly, I also point out the facts that Rafa is the only of the three to have won a slam twice on all three surfaces and is the only one of the three to have won the channel slam twice to show that there is a fair bit of cherry picking going on when it comes to distribution. There are things that Rafa has achieved in terms of diversity that just isn't mentioned conveniently. The other thing that is constantly mentioned is Rafa's supposed short comings, but Djoker and Federer's utter failure to break through with any sort of consistently at RG is just swept under the rug. Despite the fact that at this stage of their careers distribution is meaningless, consider it a community service that I'm providing to remind some posters that they are being selective with their stats.
 
Well I guess it's a case of perspective. I disagree that novak or particularly feds only one RG is swept under the carpet. It's always mentioned. However it won't be now moving forward as for the VB nadal is in the exact same boat as fed and novak at the AO as they were in RG (or actually nadal is a bit worse as he never beat the AO goat to get his 1 title and can't blame. The AO goat for not having 2 plus titles as non ATGs have regularly stopped him too}) . So we won't be hearing much about fed and novak at RG anymore. Similarly h2h won't be mentioned much and definetly so if novak takes it something like 31 wins to 25 or whatever
Do you often wonder why Nadal only winning AO once isn't a big a deal as Djokerer only winning RG once? Because Nadal has won four hard court slams beating Djokovic in the final in two of them and has won two grass court slams, beating Federer in the final of one of them. Djokerer have combined to beat Nadal once at RG.... that's it. But keep sweeping those inconvenient stats under the rug...
 
Saying things like Nadal has only X slams off clay or something is utterly stupid as is removing it from h2h.

However, where it is entirely valid is in things like Nadal facing Novak 7 times in RG and leading 6-1 while only meeting 2x in AO and losing 2-0 so thats why H2H is pretty poor indicator... thats entirely different to saying lets remove clay. Its saying the heavy clay is testament to Novak and Federers versatility in reaching rafa in clay slams and masters FINALS (pretty much just finals and a few semis for Novak) while Nadal can't return the favour in HC slams and particularly masters and WTF so obviously h2h will be skewed
Absolutely agree with your first sentence.

The reasons for the comparative lack of meetings outside of RG would probably surprise you, it is not as overwhelmingly Rafa's fault for not going deep enough in tournaments as you would excpect:

At AO, there were 11 potential meetings that didn't happen between Djoker & Rafa with Djoker exiting earlier than Rafa 6 times to Rafa's 5 and there were 10 potential meetings that didn't happen between Fed & Rafa with Rafa exiting earlier than Fed 6 times and Fed exiting earlier than Rafa 4 times.

At Wimby the stats are in favour of Fed & Djoker as Rafa had his horror run between 2012 and 2017 with Rafa exiting earlier than Djoker 6 times to Djoker's 3 and Rafa exiting earlier 6 times to Fed's 4 out of the potential meetings that didn't happen.

In terms of the USO Rafa exited earlier that Djoker 4 times to Djoker's 1 time exiting earlier than Rafa and Rafa exited earlier than Fed 6 times to Fed's 5 times exiting earlier than Rafa.

The only real shockers there are probably him not getting deep enough often enough against Djoker at the USO & Wimbledon. Once you balance that out with Rafa going deeper more often at AO & RG, it is not as one sided as you would think.
 
He has won one AO while losing what 4 or 5 finals? uso is another slam. They are distinct slams hence fed nadal and djokovic have very different performances amongst the two slams. And once again he had never beaten djokovic there to get his 1 lone title and had as recently as 2 weeks ago lost a slam final there in a straight sets blowout...

Djokovic has beaten nadal at RG so not sure what your point is. Similarly nadal has won a Wimbledon vs berdych and one vs Federer. So he has 1 won vs Federer. Novak has 1 win over Nadal at RG too
Yes, of course the USO is a distinct slam but it is still a hard court. My point was not to bash Djoker or Federer at all, but it was to point out to those that make a habit of bashing Nadal that the guy has two hard court slams v Djokovic and one v Federer and therefore trying to diminish his off clay record is fairly futile.
 
Nadal is an ATG even if he never stepped on clay via his non clay career. Anyone who says he sucks off clay (I mean does anyone even say that?) is trolling or is an idiot. Add in his clay to the mix and he becomes one of the greatest modern sportsmen ever.

As for the other point it still stands. Nadal has only 1 AO and is is in the exact same boat as Federer and djokovic so any VB bashing about for example fed only having 1 FO now leaves those same trolls with egg on their face as the exact same thing happened to nadal.** And nadal has 1 Wimbledon vs fed and 2 USO v djokovic if I recall (1 if you count after novak finally became a no1 and ATG player) which is great but is entirely matched by for example djokovic who has many more slams by beating fed on grass or hard and has also beat nadal at RG. Similarly fed has many slams beating novak on hardcourts or grass (novak is a grass ATG with 4 wimbeldons)

**also talk of weak era now leaves them with egg on their face as the exact same thing has happened to nadal who has slams from berdych, feeder, soderling, Anderson etc. Same thing about all that h2h talk which has happened against nadal now. You couldnt make it up. YE1 was being massively hyped by the VB when they thought nadal was going to get 5 or 6 but now they realise nadal will likely never get another and it is another thing djokovic will have over nadal it's importance is rapidly trying to be diminished

The prize however must go to sports thread about his change of mind on slam count and his "realisation" that 2 slams are on hardcourt. Man I feel embarrassed for him. Its a shame as he can be a great poster.
I agree with your first paragraph, and yes, a quick scan of this forum will show you plenty of posters that claim than Rafa sucks off clay.

On your second paragraph, I don't see nearly as much bashing of Djoker and Federer for their lack of RG success as Rafa gets. Fed hasn't beaten peak Djoker (post 2011) on hard or any version of Rafa on clay.

On your last post, you can review my posts for my views on weak eras, the # 1 ranking and the H2H and you might be surprised by my comments rather than just lumping my opinions in with others.
 
Top