How many slams will Rafa win if he were playing in the 90s?

D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
NadalAgassi can't continue to add more people to his ignore list. Eventually he'll run out of space because the signature is limited to certain amount of characters.

Prediction is fine. What irks me is when someone criticize your opinion just because you have a different point of view. And later find out that his/her prediction was totally wrong and yours was correct.

I am sure he can keep mentioning the list in the actual body of the post, because it is soooo important to show everyone who you are ignoring. Yet, everytime you post, you remember them, because they are a part of your sig! :)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm don't understand how Gaudio2004 end up in his ignore list because I don't recalled they had any confrontation. And Gaudio2004 is a great poster.
 

Blocker

Professional
I could see Nadal winning half as many FOs as he has now, and probably one more. Yes he is the FO GOAT but the 90s had far far more depth as far as clay court specialists are concerned. Guys like Courier and Muster are extreme competitors too, so even if Nadal gets past one of them, they'll see to it that Nadal leaves everything he had on the court, but then he's got to get up for the next match, which would be just as taxing. He would probably still have the most FOs in his era (ie the 90s) but he would probably be behind Borg who sits on 6. It is possible that Nadal would face Courier, Brug, Muster all in succession and that's just before he gets to the final. This is not a poor reflection on Nadal, it's more a reflection of how deep the clay field was in the 90s.

As for Federer, I could not see him winning any FOs in the 90s. I can barely see him making a FO final. He would be like Sampras, maybe have a good year where he makes a run for it, but too much tough competition would get him in the end. Besides, he would also have one eye on Wimbledon, his pet event along with Sampras, so he would be half preserving himself for that. Similar to Nadal, he would face some of the best clay courters in the open era, all back to back to back. It would be too much even for the great Federer.
 
N

NadalDramaQueen

Guest
I could see Nadal winning half as many FOs as he has now, and probably one more. Yes he is the FO GOAT but the 90s had far far more depth as far as clay court specialists are concerned. Guys like Courier and Muster are extreme competitors too, so even if Nadal gets past one of them, they'll see to it that Nadal leaves everything he had on the court, but then he's got to get up for the next match, which would be just as taxing. He would probably still have the most FOs in his era (ie the 90s) but he would probably be behind Borg who sits on 6. It is possible that Nadal would face Courier, Brug, Muster all in succession and that's just before he gets to the final. This is not a poor reflection on Nadal, it's more a reflection of how deep the clay field was in the 90s.

As for Federer, I could not see him winning any FOs in the 90s. I can barely see him making a FO final. He would be like Sampras, maybe have a good year where he makes a run for it, but too much tough competition would get him in the end. Besides, he would also have one eye on Wimbledon, his pet event along with Sampras, so he would be half preserving himself for that. Similar to Nadal, he would face some of the best clay courters in the open era, all back to back to back. It would be too much even for the great Federer.

It is hard to imagine Nadal losing to any of those guys in a best of five. The guy is a beast on clay and was able to take down great clay courters when he was sixteen. Many of the guys you mention would try to out grind Nadal and they would fail. If you want to take three sets off Nadal on a clay court, you better have the ability to hit big off both sides and catch fire. It takes a perfect storm to take him down and honestly, if you think Nadal is going to suffer by being subjected to multiple tough matches, you haven't been following his career.

As for Federer, who doesn't have anything to do with this thread, he is much better on a clay court than Sampras. His results would be similar to his results now, meaning that his number of wins would be correlated with how many fluke losses Nadal has.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
There was never a time all those players were at their best on clay at once. Bruguera's best on clay was 1993-1995. Muster's was 1995-1996. Courier's was 1991-1993. Kuerten's was 1999-2001, even though he won the 97 French when way outside of his prime beating a totally washed up Bruguera also way outside his prime in the final, with the other semifinalists being Dewful and Rafter (so much for the always super clay field of then, lol). Nadal would only have to beat 1 or on rare occasions 2 remote threats each year to win RG, most who are tremendous grinders and baseliners who are weaker versions of his own clay game. I dont know what era one would have to place Nadal in to have him come up with less RG titles, maybe the Lendl/Wilander one? In any case whichever era that is, it would also be one if you placed Borg in he would win less too. Nadal > Borg or anyone else on clay.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Oh, sorry dude! It came across that you were talking to me. :)

I have never hidden the fact that I am Djokovic fan. You know this. NadalAgassi was saying all kinds of stuff about Novak when Novak won AO 11. Like, Novak did not beat Nadal, he can't do it against him in a slam. He still won't win Wimbledon, blah blah random gibberish.....

First off you flat out lie (or perhaps that is unfair to say in your case, as I know like many posters here you are illiterate and need to be explained things like a 4 year old as simple reading is quite demanding for you). The only thing you mention I ever said which I actually did was Djokovic would probably not win Wimbledon, but that is how 95% of people including Djokovic fans felt before the year 2011. As I have already mentioned, only the most desperate ones who have nothing on me, which you certainly fall into, ever go there, such as people like the 3 village idiots on the last page of this thread having their little dumbo party.

As for Nadal playing his worst season of clay tennis ever in 2011, well worst excluding his pre top 30 player days of 2004 and earlier, that is quite simply something anyone with a brain who observed his play on the surface that year would agree on. Even the vast majority of Nadal haters have agreed on this point, but if you are too blind and delusional to believe that, that is your problem. It was not even related to taking credit away from Djokovic, since in contrast to your baseless and fabricated claims, I have given Djokovic tremendous credit constantly on this forum in 2011 and 2012, pretty much more than anyone who isnt a major Djokovic fan. It is also impossible to take away from Nadal's successes on clay or his wins vs Djokovic on clay, since it has happened constantly for almost a decade now. Lets see, 12-2 vs Djokovic on clay, 7 French titles vs 1 French Open runner up, the undisputed clay court GOAT vs not top 40 all time on clay yet, Nadal in no way needs to prove superiority over Djokovic on clay, nor will he ever have to. Djokovic on clay at this point is a dog even compared to Federer, never mind Nadal, lol! Given your proven problems with basic reading though, just so you dont try and misquote me in the future though, I do think he will end up with a Federer-like career on clay eventually, but at this point he has a long way to go even for that.

Lastly you are the last one to try and refer to anyone elses predictions Mr. Djokovic will beat Nadal at RG, Djokovic will beat Federer in the semis and win Wimbledon, Djokovic will win the Olympics, Djokovic will win the U.S Open (fail, fail, epic fail, fail again). You are close to the biggest Djokovic **** on the forum, at the very least you would easily be in the top 3 along with that 5555 poster, so for you to call me a ********* is freaking hilarious, as my assessments of Nadal, his abilities, and his chances, are 2000% more reasonable than yours on Djokovic ever have been.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Dunno about the rest of them, but I actually think that prime Courier would be a good match against Nadal on clay - he's a guy with the fitness and tenacity of a grinder but the ability to blast the hell out of the ball with his FH and at the very least keep his BH from being a liability.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Dunno about the rest of them, but I actually think that prime Courier would be a good match against Nadal on clay - he's a guy with the fitness and tenacity of a grinder but the ability to blast the hell out of the ball with his FH and at the very least keep his BH from being a liability.
Courier would have to play out of his mind to beat him.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
First off you flat out lie (or perhaps that is unfair to say in your case, as I know like many posters here you are illiterate and need to be explained things like a 4 year old as simple reading is quite demanding for you). The only thing you mention I ever said which I actually did was Djokovic would probably not win Wimbledon, but that is how 95% of people including Djokovic fans felt before the year 2011. As I have already mentioned, only the most desperate ones who have nothing on me, which you certainly fall into, ever go there, such as people like the 3 village idiots on the last page of this thread having their little dumbo party.

As for Nadal playing his worst season of clay tennis ever in 2011, well worst excluding his pre top 30 player days of 2004 and earlier, that is quite simply something anyone with a brain who observed his play on the surface that year would agree on. Even the vast majority of Nadal haters have agreed on this point, but if you are too blind and delusional to believe that, that is your problem. It was not even related to taking credit away from Djokovic, since in contrast to your baseless and fabricated claims, I have given Djokovic tremendous credit constantly on this forum in 2011 and 2012, pretty much more than anyone who isnt a major Djokovic fan. It is also impossible to take away from Nadal's successes on clay or his wins vs Djokovic on clay, since it has happened constantly for almost a decade now. Lets see, 12-2 vs Djokovic on clay, 7 French titles vs 1 French Open runner up, the undisputed clay court GOAT vs not top 40 all time on clay yet, Nadal in no way needs to prove superiority over Djokovic on clay, nor will he ever have to. Djokovic on clay at this point is a dog even compared to Federer, never mind Nadal, lol! Given your proven problems with basic reading though, just so you dont try and misquote me in the future though, I do think he will end up with a Federer-like career on clay eventually, but at this point he has a long way to go even for that.

Lastly you are the last one to try and refer to anyone elses predictions Mr. Djokovic will beat Nadal at RG, Djokovic will beat Federer in the semis and win Wimbledon, Djokovic will win the Olympics, Djokovic will win the U.S Open (fail, fail, epic fail, fail again). You are close to the biggest Djokovic **** on the forum, at the very least you would easily be in the top 3 along with that 5555 poster, so for you to call me a ********* is freaking hilarious, as my assessments of Nadal, his abilities, and his chances, are 2000% more reasonable than yours on Djokovic ever have been.

Hmmm. Firstly I have not recalled myself taking away from Nadal's incredible clay court career. Again, if you weren't so blinded by your self perception of superiority, you would have seen that I have always given him credit. Tell me where I haven't, I have called him the greatest clay court player of his era, and one of the greatest of all time without a doubt. Again your Nardism comes shining through annointing Nadal undisputed. Really, you rip into Federer and Djokovic as far as their ranking is concerned in being clay court players, calling Djokovic a dog in your post above, but Nadal is clearly undisputed. So exactly what immense depth of talent did Nadal beat on clay to be undisputed? How many wins over Borg? Over Lendl? Over Kuerten? Did he play with wooden racquets also? See...I have all already challenged this undisputed claim. Don't come to me with hypotheticals as fact, that is BS, but everyone can see that when you post. Because you, I or anyone else will never know what would have happened if Nadal and Borg had crossed paths. So keep that undisputed stuff to yourself. Winning RG against non legendary clay courters such as Federer and Djokovic shows that Nadal won against weak competition.

And if you are going to use the reason that he was simply too good for everyone, then all those Federer fans that you constantly berate by saying Federer thrived in weaker competition is hypocritical on your behalf. Nadal is the most successful title wise, so yes, in that sense he has the best resume. But you can't be undisputed, if you only face competiton for only a fraction of the time the sport has been in existence. It's not Nadal's fault, but he didn't beat multi time FO champions for his titles either. And yes, you do take away from Djokovic, you have your ways. Saying that Nadal was in massive decline IS taking away from what Djokovic did, but when Federer fans said that about Federer in 08, that was just BS from their part, right?

Call me a Djokovic ****, big deal....it doesn't take away from you being a ******* pretending to be unbiased.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Clarky21

Banned
Hmmm. Firstly I have not recalled myself taking away from Nadal's incredible clay court career. Again, if you weren't so blinded by your self perception of superiority, you would have seen that I have always given him credit. Tell me where I haven't, I have called him the greatest clay court player of his era, and one of the greatest of all time without a doubt. Again your Nardism comes shining through annointing Nadal undisputed. Really, you rip into Federer and Djokovic as far as their ranking is concerned in being clay court players, calling Djokovic a dog in your post above, but Nadal is clearly undisputed. So exactly what immense depth of talent did Nadal beat on clay to be undisputed? How many wins over Borg? Over Lendl? Over Kuerten? Did he play with wooden racquets also? See...I have all already challenged this undisputed claim. Don't come to me with hypotheticals as fact, that is BS, but everyone can see that when you post. Because you, I or anyone else will never know what would have happened if Nadal and Borg had crossed paths. So keep that undisputed stuff to yourself. Winning RG against non legendary clay courters such as Federer and Djokovic shows that Nadal won against weak competition.

And if you are going to use the reason that he was simply too good for everyone, then all those Federer fans that you constantly berate by saying Federer thrived in weaker competition is hypocritical on your behalf. Nadal is the most successful title wise, so yes, in that sense he has the best resume. But you can't be undisputed, if you only face competiton for only a fraction of the time the sport has been in existence. It's not Nadal's fault, but he didn't beat multi time FO champions for his titles either. And yes, you do take away from Djokovic, you have your ways. Saying that Nadal was in massive decline IS taking away from what Djokovic did, but when Federer fans said that about Federer in 08, that was just BS from their part, right?

Call me a Djokovic ****, big deal....it doesn't take away from you being a ******* pretending to be unbiased.


This right here proves you are hopeless. One of the greatest? Gtfo.

You are definitely the biggest ********* on here next to 5555 and F1bob. You're way worse about tooting your favorite player's horn than Nadalagassi is about his(and lots of other posters for that matter). As a matter of fact you made it onto my ignore list quite a few times with a few reprieves when Eeyore lost a few matches. Your *********ism is so annoying I couldn't stand it anymore.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
This right here proves you are hopeless. One of the greatest? Gtfo.

You are definitely the biggest ********* on here next to 5555 and F1bob. You're way worse about tooting your favorite player's horn than Nadalagassi is about his(and lots of other posters for that matter). As a matter of fact you made it onto my ignore list quite a few times with a few reprieves when Eeyore lost a few matches. Your *********ism is so annoying I couldn't stand it anymore.

You want me to call Nadal the greatest? Why the hell should I, when all that has been proven is that he is greatest of his generation. I give him massive credit, don't make me out to be a Nadal hater, because I am not. I give him a alot more credit that you ever did, and you call yourself a Nadal fan? At least NA actually supports his player, you just rip him to shreds that even the decent Nadal fans call you out on it....apart from sounding like a broken record saying Nadal is done...have you actually said anything else? Oh yeah of course, you constantly attack Djokovic with those stupid names. Your hatred for Novak is absurd.

Again, I'll say this. If you want to put someone on ignore, then put them on ignore. Making a song and dance about it, is immature and hardly ignoring. And it's also petty to say to someone that I had you on ignore. You want to put me on ignore, just do it. No need to tell me about it, because that is hardly ignoring, that is engaging in direct conversation.
 

Clarky21

Banned
You want me to call Nadal the greatest? Why the hell should I, when all that has been proven is that he is greatest of his generation. I give him massive credit, don't make me out to be a Nadal hater, because I am not. I give him a alot more credit that you ever did, and you call yourself a Nadal fan? At least NA actually supports his player, you just rip him to shreds that even the decent Nadal fans call you out on it....apart from sounding like a broken record saying Nadal is done...have you actually said anything else? Oh yeah of course, you constantly attack Djokovic with those stupid names. Your hatred for Novak is absurd.

Again, I'll say this. If you want to put someone on ignore, then put them on ignore. Making a song and dance about it, is immature and hardly ignoring. And it's also petty to say to someone that I had you on ignore. You want to put me on ignore, just do it. No need to tell me about it, because that is hardly ignoring, that is engaging in direct conversation.


On clay? Yep.


I wanted to give you a chance is all because other than the *********ism, you're alright.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I could see Nadal winning half as many FOs as he has now, and probably one more. Yes he is the FO GOAT but the 90s had far far more depth as far as clay court specialists are concerned. Guys like Courier and Muster are extreme competitors too, so even if Nadal gets past one of them, they'll see to it that Nadal leaves everything he had on the court, but then he's got to get up for the next match, which would be just as taxing. He would probably still have the most FOs in his era (ie the 90s) but he would probably be behind Borg who sits on 6. It is possible that Nadal would face Courier, Brug, Muster all in succession and that's just before he gets to the final. This is not a poor reflection on Nadal, it's more a reflection of how deep the clay field was in the 90s. .

Except that Courier, Bruguera and Muster hardly all played great CC tennis at the same time so Nadal wouldn't have to go through all of them in their best respective forms to win, not to mention that their peaks on clay were pretty short lived, heck Muster had only one truly great year on clay, Courier burned out fairly quickly etc.

As for Federer, I could not see him winning any FOs in the 90s. I can barely see him making a FO final. He would be like Sampras, maybe have a good year where he makes a run for it, but too much tough competition would get him in the end. Besides, he would also have one eye on Wimbledon, his pet event along with Sampras, so he would be half preserving himself for that. Similar to Nadal, he would face some of the best clay courters in the open era, all back to back to back. It would be too much even for the great Federer.

Except that Federer is better CC player than Sampras and the vast majority of time it hardly took great CC players like Bruguera or Courier to dispose of Sampras at the FO, during the 90s he had as many losses at FO to players like Delgado and Schaller (who probably wouldn't take a set off Fed in 10 matches at FO against him) as he did to Courier and Bruguera.

Also if players like Moya, Kafelnikov, Magnus Norman, Stich etc. reached the FO final or won it in the 90s I sincerely doubt Fed wouldn't have a few finals to his name at the very least (and definitely a title or two without Nadal in the field).
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Why are people giving Hitman a hard time?

If there's any slight problem with his present on this board then the mod should ban 99.999% of the posters.
 
I think there are a lot of players that you could plug them into other time periods where their game would excel...and then ask "what if"...

you could ask that about many of us as players we have higher skill sets and athletic abilities than many professional players "back in the day". They are famous, while we're infamous at the club.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Nadal is considered the undisputed best clay courter of all time at this point. Even ****s on this forum who hate Nadal with a passion and have a search and destroy outlook on him admit Nadal is clearly the clay court GOAT. All of his major numbers and stats and records on clay surpasses Borg, or anyone else at this point. All experts and former champions on the sport be it McEnroe, Carillo, Navratilova, Federer, Borg himself, Wilander, Evert, have all in recent years taken to calling him the greatest clay courter in history. So to call referring to him as that (the undisputed clay court GOAT), something everyone now calls him, as Nardism, is merely proof of Retardism.¸ As for the Federer comparision, if he wins an 8th Wimbledon I will take to referring to him as the undisputed Wimbledon GOAT if that makes one happy. Right now fact is he only has 7, same as Sampras, so it leaves it open to discussion and personal opinion to who had he higher playing level, who had tougher competion, which IMO is definitely Sampras, but obviously large numbers of people will side either way at this point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Also if players like Moya, Kafelnikov, Magnus Norman, Stich etc. reached the FO final or won it in the 90s I sincerely doubt Fed wouldn't have a few finals to his name at the very least (and definitely a title or two without Nadal in the field).

¸I definitely agree with this. Put Federer in the 90s without Nadal and he probably wins anywhere from 1 to 3 FOs. Put Federer in the 90s with Nadal however, which was the original hypothetical being discussed, and he likely wins 0.
 

dyldore

Rookie
Since we are pondering things...how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Before you all get angry...I know that there is no way to know for sure, because woodchucks can't chuck wood...but if they COULD, how much do wood do you think they would chuck?
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Why are people giving Hitman a hard time?

If there's any slight problem with his present on this board then the mod should ban 99.999% of the posters.

Hey buddy, no problems. I'm cool with it. :)

But in regards to all this undisputed claims discussion, if everyone is anointing Nadal the undisputed clay court player, then Federer must be the undisputed hard court player of all time also. More slams on hard than any other, won them on decoturf, plexicushion, and rebound ace. 6 WTF. More ATP tour level HC titles than anyone else. Longest HC win streak....right?

And if numbers are what define greatness, then Federer has more numbers to his name than any other player. He breaks records more often than people change their underwear. I guess that makes him GOAT, also considering that he mostly widely acclaimed by his peers and legends of the past, as well as most as being the GOAT. Am I right TMF?

Because if you hold one player's greatness to the numbers, then it must be for all, other that would be narrowed minded ****ism at its best. Don't you agree?
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Hey buddy, no problems. I'm cool with it. :)

But in regards to all this undisputed claims discussion, if everyone is anointing Nadal the undisputed clay court player, then Federer must be the undisputed hard court player of all time also. More slams on hard than any other, won them on decoturf, plexicushion, and rebound ace. 6 WTF. More ATP tour level HC titles than anyone else. Longest HC win streak....right?

And if numbers are what define greatness, then Federer has more numbers to his name than any other player. He breaks records more often than people change their underwear. I guess that makes him GOAT, also considering that he mostly widely acclaimed by his peers and legends of the past, as well as most as being the GOAT. Am I right TMF?

Because if you hold one player's greatness to the numbers, then it must be for all, other that would be narrowed minded ****ism at its best. Don't you agree?

lol yeah, have you ever noticed NadalAgassi will say stuff like "if federer wins an 8th Wimbledon I will call him the Wimbledon GOAT if it makes people happy"

In other words he still won't believe it, he still won't mean it. But everyone else is a plain idiot if the believe that Borg still has a claim as the clay GOAT, because they are just plain wrong. NA won't say Federer is undisputed GOAT even though he has 17 slams, no apparently Sampras for instance has a claim. Why? Less HC slams, less clay slams, the same amount on grass and less total slams. Yet he still has a claim. So why doesn't Borg have a claim as clay GOAT? He has one less RG but at the age he retired, Nadal at the same age had the same amount. Borg was less dominant on clay, but had tougher competition.

Don't get me wrong, I view Nadal as the clay GOAT, but it isn't by that much, and who knows how much Borg could have done if he carried on playing. But some posters have such double standards on here.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
I'd give Nadal 8 slams in the 90's. I still think he wins his 7 RG, and he maintains the 1 AO he has, but he doesn't win Wimbledon or the USO.
 

kragster

Hall of Fame
Some amazing logic in this thread - Rafa doesn't win as many RG because of tougher competition but somehow Fed still wins his 1 RG (some even have him at 2) despite tougher competition

I think there are many key factors to consider:

1) Are Sampras/Agassi still playing
2) Are we assuming Rafa/Fed would adapt their styles or should we assume their styles as is:

For the sake of simplicity , I am going to assume Sampras/Agassi are still playing and Rafa/Fed dont change their styles

If so:

Rafa
6 RG (Might lose 1 to Kuerten or Muster)
0 Wimby (With Fed and Sampras plus big servers, this is a tough call)
0 AO ( With Fed/Sampras/Agassi around really tough)
0 USO


Fed
0 RG (With Nadal still around plus good clay courters, no win here)
3-4 Wimbys (split with Sampras )
3 USOs (Split with Sampras)
2 AOs ( Sampras + Agassi + Nadal who is still a bad matchup)
Total : 8- 9 Slams

Notice that even though Sampras is tied with Fed on Wimby/USO count, I am giving Fed more than 50% of the slams. It is pure conjecture how much Fed would steal from prime Sampras/Agassi so I am basing this on slam count plus advantage to Fed since he is overall a greater player than Sampras/Agassi.

So in a sense the 90s would have been relatively worse for Fed than Rafa. Rafa is a one surface specialist, so he goes on making his living on clay independent of era. Fed is an all surface great but he also runs into grass/USO great Pete and AO great Agassi. Now if you put Rafa/Fed in the Borg Era, that would be a lot worse for Rafa than Fed as Rafa meets the only guy who can truly challenge him on clay.
 
Last edited:

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
So in a sense the 90s would have been relatively worse for Fed than Rafa. Rafa is a one surface specialist, so he goes on making his living on clay independent of era. Fed is an all surface great but he also runs into grass/USO great Pete and AO great Agassi. Now if you put Rafa/Fed in the Borg Era, that would be a lot worse for Rafa than Fed as Rafa meets the only guy who can truly challenge him on clay.

Yeah I agree with this.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Hey buddy, no problems. I'm cool with it. :)

But in regards to all this undisputed claims discussion, if everyone is anointing Nadal the undisputed clay court player, then Federer must be the undisputed hard court player of all time also. More slams on hard than any other, won them on decoturf, plexicushion, and rebound ace. 6 WTF. More ATP tour level HC titles than anyone else. Longest HC win streak....right?

And if numbers are what define greatness, then Federer has more numbers to his name than any other player. He breaks records more often than people change their underwear. I guess that makes him GOAT, also considering that he mostly widely acclaimed by his peers and legends of the past, as well as most as being the GOAT. Am I right TMF?

Fully agree hitman.

There's no obligation for you having to say Nadal is the undisputed clay goat, because I can tell you are generous/respect to a great player like Borg. As you said, Fed has set so much records/streaks, has big numbers, and deserve to be consider a goat. Yet, you don't believe in a goat(I know you like Federer), but instead you are generous/respect to all the past legends by saying "there's no goat, only greatest player in his own era". I respect that, because many fans are not that generous(e.g. Nadal fans will always have their idol > borg on clay, and I will always believe Fed > Sampras:)). Although there's nothing wrong in saying Nadal is a goat on clay and Fed is goat on hard court, because they have achieved enough, and are backup by majority of fans/experts/ex-players who support the same idea.

Because if you hold one player's greatness to the numbers, then it must be for all, other that would be narrowed minded ****ism at its best. Don't you agree?

Correct. Another words is being consistent. If someone say Nadal is slam dunk goat on clay, then if Roger win another Wimbledon and AO, he should be a slam dunk goat on those 2 grand slam tournaments.



Note: for those of you who don't know hitman, he's one of the most objective/fair poster you can ever find on this forum. Here's an example...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6732687&postcount=165
 

Xemi666

Professional
He would still have 12 FO + whatever else he can win on other surfaces. So, he'd still be on two digits slam number. Fed and sampras on the other hand, would take many titles on grass and HCs away from each other if they were playin together, they would be much worse off in this hypothetical situation.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Wow, Clarky21 was something else...

This right here proves you are hopeless. One of the greatest? Gtfo.

You are definitely the biggest ********* on here next to 5555 and F1bob. You're way worse about tooting your favorite player's horn than Nadalagassi is about his(and lots of other posters for that matter). As a matter of fact you made it onto my ignore list quite a few times with a few reprieves when Eeyore lost a few matches. Your *********ism is so annoying I couldn't stand it anymore.
On clay? Yep.


I wanted to give you a chance is all because other than the *********ism, you're alright.
 

hypercube

New User
It wouldn't be much different. He would still have the career Grand Slam and a double-digits Grand Slam count. Those who think he'd win less because of "faster surfaces" are missing the point, Nadal would have developed his game differently. He's one of the most talented and versatile tennis players ever.

Recall also that Agassi won the CYS in the 90s, and even a (comparatively) one-dimensional player like Sampras won 11 slams during that decade. They would have won less during that period as Rafa would have outperformed them.
 
Last edited:

buscemi

Legend
Let's assume that Nadal's 2006 (made his first Major final off of clay) was instead his 1990, making Nadal's 2019 his 2003.

French: I assume Nadal is still at 12 French Open titles. Notably, Nadal's 2016 is now his 2000, which was probably Kuerten's best year, so Nadal probably doesn't win the title either year.​
U.S. Open: Nadal's 2010 is now his 1994; Nadal's 2011 is now his 1995; Nadal's 2013 is now his 1997. Nadal's 2017 is now his 2001; Nadal's 2019 is now his 2003. I think Nadal takes the 2003 U.S. Open over Roddick, the 2001 U.S. Open over Hewitt, and maybe the 1997 U.S. Open over Rafter. 2-3 U.S. Open titles.​
Wimbledon: Nadal's 2008 is now his 1992; Nadal's 2010 is now his 1994; Nadal's 2011 is now his 1995; Nadal's 2018 is now his 2002. Nadal's 2019 is now his 2003. I think Nadal takes Wimbledon 2002 over Hewitt. 1 Wimbledon title.​
Australian Open: Nadal's 2009 is now his 1993; Nadal's 2012 is now his 1996; Nadal's 2014 is now his 1998; Nadal's 2017 is now his 2001; Nadal's 2018 (5 set loss to Cilic is QF) is now his 2002; Nadal's 2019 is now his 2003. I think Nadal takes the 2002 Australian Open over Johansson, the 1998 Australian Open over Korda, and possibly the 1996 Australian Open over Becker and/or the 1993 Australian Open over Courier. 3-4 Australian Open titles.​

So, overall, he's probably still at about 19 Majors.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
People saying Sampras would have denied Fed are funny, Sampras lost his only match to Fed, at Wimbledon no less.

Yes, he was older, but Fed was also two years away from winning his first Slam. Neither man was at his peak.
 
D

Deleted member 758560

Guest
People saying Sampras would have denied Fed are funny, Sampras lost his only match to Fed,
exactly, you answered your own question, it's farcically to measure something based on 1 match only plus if the age difference is so huge
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top