Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Mike Sams, Oct 1, 2012.
Yes because he was not nr 1, logical isn't it?
But, at the same time, a GOAT candidate can be 2-8 in slams against his main 'rival', and be 10-18 overall?
Sorry, I have no idea who you're talking about. Can you elaborate?
Well they say the size of a mans font is equal to the size of his ......
And there was no misreping
Here we go. Go ahead and spill out the rest of your argument, intellectual!
Becker is only ONE of the GOATs if you have 40 people you call "one of the GOATs." He is nowhere near the vicinity of being in even the off-thought discussions of being THE GOAT.
How about 0-3 in GS finals last year? and 0-1 at AO this year? so by that standard, should we also elevate Djoker above your invicible GOAT?
And Nadal beat Federer on Grass when Federer was suffering from a Heart-Attack. Now prove me wrong.
:lol: I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're like a parrot, the same old "head-to-head" argument ad nauseum, which doesn't really mean anymore than Nadal's record against Davydenko. Federer is the GOAT and, deep down, you know it. Which is why you spend so much time with the same (worn off) argument. See ya!
11 slams. How about 17?
Career Grand Slam? Fed doesn't have it? LOL
#1 in the world? So does Fed. Now how long for Rafa? And how long for Fed?
Owned Fed his whole career? A H2H of 18-10 hardly qualifies as OWNING. Come back and tell me when it's like 100-10. That's OWNING. That's DOMINATION. 18-10. HARDLY!
"Thats enough for GOAT consideration." And not Fed? Humm...
"GOAT-like resume". "LIKE" is the keyword. How about simply a GOAT resume. Hardly there yet. Let's talk over in a few years when he racks up to 17.
Wise decision! Second that.
Hence why I said it was GOAT-like.. And hes also crapped on the guy with 17 slams for his entire career Fed is in GOAT consideration or course. But Nadal definitely should be.. Afterall, half of his slam count (or a little over) he has beaten Roger.
However, the majority of Fed's slam hes had to AVOID Nadal to win them. ROFL
Another great point by kiki.
And we certainly shouldn't forget about all the champs during mediaeval times when tennis was known as Jeu de Paume.
I highly doubt these N°1's had a losing record against their main rivals.
What's your take on that kiki? You got some insider facts on that?
More like Nadal FAILING to reach Federer. ROFL....XD :lol:
Well I think the point is if someone is hands down GOAT supposedly to so many people... Why does he have to avoid his main rival in the hope to win slams? Shouldn't the hands down GOAT be so great he shouldn't have to "avoid" anyone?
Avoiding is falling in the 2nd round or the Quarterfinals. Not making it to the finals like a boss.
Ok so it's slams only.
Your circular argument holds no grounds. Either the majors are NOT the only thing that count, and the h2h is much close and far moer competitive, or the majors are the only thing that matters, at which point Federer has a sizeable advantage compared to Nadal..
Which will you go with?
What kind of English are we using here? Perhaps TDK and you should explain this to us: When Fed won all these GS titles against these supposedly very lousy, weak, lucky players such as Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Philippoussis, Fed was there in these finals. Now in these EXACT SAME tournaments, where was Rafa? By your definition, that's how Fed avoided Rafa? WT**** is that? Fed was in these finals, Rafa was nowhere to be found, and you claimed FED AVOIDED RAFA!!! Again, let me emphasize this point: Fed was there in these finals. Where was Rafa? If the other lousy players made it to the finals, and not Rafa. Then should Rafa be above or below them? Who avoided who here?
Wow! Welcome up to the bandwagon.
He goes with both and doesn't go with both at the same time :twisted:
Oh, I would love to know the results of the main events held during the Jeu de Pomme years.A Davis Cup jeu de Pomme contest must have been the most exciting and probably bleeding event ever held...thanks for bringing it up.
Joker did have one good year. Nadal on the other hand has been beating Federer since he was 18 or was it 17 ......a teenager beating the veteran supposed greatest player that ever lived ? Over and over and over again ?
Sorry ....bit different than Joker one great year......
No....you don't listen. That's why I have to repeat it again.
Nadal vs Fed is not merely a head to head. It's utter domination on every surface in the World Series of tennis the Super Bowl a.k.a. THE GRAND SLAMS.
Davydenko on the other hand is merely a regular season head to head on one surface (hard) in a best of three.
Hopefully I won't have to repeat that again.
Fortunate for Federer.
Nadal at 26 has missed 6 slams and am Olympics by the way.
Who has ever done more than that with such little time ?
That's why Nadal is the goat.
By the way those 6 slams Nadal missed ( correct me if I'm wrong please ).....
If I'm right about Nadal missing 6 slams then watch this:
17-6 = 11 or 11 +6= 17
Federer has never missed a slam and is 31 .....quite a bit more chances . Nadal has done more with far less chances....and beaten Federer.
To me Nadal is therefore greater.
So you assume Nadal would've won all 6 if he played them?
Ahh, the game of assumption. How about this: if not for Rafa, Fed would have had 6 more FO, 1 more AO, 1 more Wimby. Add on top of it: if not for Djoker, at least 2 more USO, all 3 GS titles of last year where Rafa got owned by Djoker. Where are we already in the count for Fed in this game of assumption:
17+6+1+1+1+2+3 = 31 GS
Repeat after THIRTY-ONE. We're not talking about GOAT anymore. We're talking about GOD, pure and simple.
"That's why Nadal is the goat." Excuses are the loser. Let's talk it over when your Rafa reaches 17 GS. At the rate he's going, he'll lucky to get the next FO before Djoker and Murray started to own him for good there too.
And how about this: the spanking at Indian Wells 2012 by a VERY OLD 31-yr Fed? What's the excuse there? Skip, nah. Injury, nah. Still too young, really? HC, didn't you say he also owned Fed there too? We're all listening...
My god, even worse logic than NSK. Even he acknowledges Nadal can't win the tournaments he skips.
Deep joke. I guess I just had to get in tune with your definition of deep and intellectual.
About misrep, I wont go there too much. Theres the "Nadal always wins", the insinuation that somebody has accused you of thinking Federer is garbage, the "all you have is 17 GS" allthough the list goes on and on, the manipulative quoting of for instance Rod Laver, the listing of facts you "believe" that are wrong, and so on and so on....
Last time I went, it was November. maybe Christmas is just getting earlier every year.
Well I realize what I'm saying is offensive as you want to believe in your hero and cannot really defend your position. This is why you have to resort to attacking me personally or trying to pick apart picayune points .
When I say "always" I didn't mean that Nadal wins every single time....but you already knew that.
What I meant was that Nadal has "always" been beating Federer throughout Nadals entire career. From the very first moment they met.
The domination has "always" existed. Fed has never been in the lead ,pre peak post peak ,mid peak ,kinda peak ,mediocre peak, high peak , double jig peak, mid afternoon peak........always.
No misrep there.....it is a fact.
No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .
Federer was the direct beneficiary and faced Roddick I'm the final for the fourth time.
Yes Roger won that wimby and that's another wimby for the record books......but the defending champion was not in that tournament.
I think on paper it looks beautiful for Fed but on paper it was a hollow win because the defending champion wasn't even in the tournament .
Oh I have no problem defending my point, while you just roboticly keep repeating yours. And it is a fact that you have expressed yourself misleadingly on many counts, which points to the problem you have. But as you say it depends on who is the judge. None of us here are judges really, but I am happy not to agree with someone as untrustworthy as you.
hey, atleast federer had taken nadal to 9-7 in the 5th ...
and nadal hadn't won two wimbys in a row ... he had won just one, wimby 2008, that too narrowly ...
What had nadal done vs del potro in USO 2009 .....oh wait, he had lost 2,2 and 2 .....
now see that is an unworthy/totally hollow win - USO 2010 ......
You choose not to debate.
That's fine. Again debate is something to be enjoyed by two consenting participants.
No he didn't. He won 2008 Wimbledon 9-7 in the fifth, did not play 2009, won 2010. Get your facts straight. And that's a huge excuse for him to not defend his title.. Why do you make so many excuses for Nadal? You make more excuses than he does.. and in fact undermine his legendary determination by suggesting that something like personal issues with his parents would force him to SKIP a MAJOR.
And Roddick was a worthy opponent. Don't act like the guy can't play tennis. I guess Rafa was lucky that he didn't have to play peak Djokovic for his whole career... he'd be a few majors short of what he is now.
Ok so you're suggesting that everytime that someone DOESN'T beat the defending champion it shouldn't count? That would strip Nadal of nearly all his majors, bub. All his FO's, his AO, his USO, one Wimbledon. So he'd be sitting with one major.
See above. You're really awful at making arguments.. they have no connection to reality LOL.
Not being in a slam is not an excuse. He didn't play. That's a fact.
Roddick is the weak era #1 and #2. He is not weak but he is no Nadal. I think everyone would agree.
Federer was the direct beneficiary of Nadal not being able to play in that Wimbledon .
No not every time. But in the Nadal Federer rivalry it's a glaring fault In Feds career . Fed seems to win slams by basically not having to play Nadal.
Sorry, but being defeated 7 straight times across 3 different surfaces, and 3 of them in slams, especially Wimbledon, in conditions that heavily favored nadal, does not bode well for a supposed GOAT candidate.
Djoker couldn't keep that streak up however. And Nadal got some big wins back on DJoker at a slam and at a masters. SOmething Fed hasn't been able to do to Nadal at a slam since 2007
looks like you've just made an excuse here..
And that's Federer's fault that Nadal didnt reach him every time? You can only beat who is in front of you; Nadal didn't make it that far, so he didn't play Federer. Who's to say that he'd have won all of those matches?
You're just making crap up, tryign to make your hero sound like GOAT. He's not. he only has 11 majors, and less than 150 weeks at number one. Zero WTF's. Not GOAT material, not yet.
Don't punish Federer because your guy isn't good enough to make it to him during his prime.
Like I said earlier, he had to wait until clay season, and that too when Djoker was under serious emotional stress. After all, *******s regularly cite his parents' divorce as significantly affecting his game; shouldn't the passing of a loved one consequently affect Djoker's game as well?
Of course divorce is worse than death. Well, it may be the other way around. The problem is that Djoker doesn't have a PR team devoted to making up excuses for all of his losses like Nadal does. He should look into that.
They already have Christmas lights and "Season's Greetings" signs in Jackson Heights - I saw it when I was there last night.
PS: Your previous signature....was that a reference to the introduction of the Stig in Top Gear?
Let the political smearing commence :twisted:
Why are people against Rafa being a GOAT candidate exactly?:
He has 11 slams. (Borg and Laver have 11 slams and they are GOAT candidates aren't they?)
Has destroyed another GOAT candidate at slams for his entire career. Check
Career Grand Slams (check)
Was Number 1 in the world (check)
Has close to record number of masters event (Check)
Positive h2h vs. his main rivals (Murray, Fed, Djoker) Check
What more does the guy need exactly? There is no hands down GOAT anyways.. So you can make a case for Rafa as least being a candidate since thats all we have anyways.. Candidates. There is no hands down for sure GOAT.
Hasn't he beaten Federer enough? Does he need to beat him more? Hasn't he beaten his other main rivals enough? Does he need to beat Murray and Djokovic more? He could use maybe a few more slams sure.. But does he need more masters events? Hasn't he won enough of those?
Yep, it was one of the introductions for the Stig.
I'm not saying that he isn't a candidate, only that he isn't going to get elected, and it is going to be a landslide.
Well the list of Federers records over Nadal is a bit more than that.
Except that he can only win when Nadal ain't around.
The man skipped Wimbledon . He was not in the tournament ! That's not an excuse like mono......the man didn't play at all.
They met plenty .....more so than anyone else in history. They have met 8 times in slams and Fed has come up short on all surfaces . Come on.
No he didn't you dupe account. Gb2 MTF.
Pure poetry. Let's go a step further....
How many other Goats have as many slams as Nadal?
Agassi....nope ( I think?)
Separate names with a comma.