If an Injured Nadal beats Fed at the US Open on Nadals worst and Feds Best surface

Turning Pro

Turning Pro

Hall of Fame
If Nadal beats Fed at the US Open on Nadals worst and Feds Best surface

Then Federer is indisputedly NOT the GOAT. And Nadal isn't even the GOAT yet or even ever. Imagine if players like Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, Becker etc in their primes were in this era. Henman, Hewitt in their primes owned Federer, when they left their prime, Federer entered his. 34-35 year old old Agassi with his cortisone/steroid injection's to keep himself moving nearly defeated prime federer in the 04/05 u.s opens, seriously that IS MESSED UP. Agassi would DESTROY federer in his prime but couldn't deal with Sampras in their own primes. Federer can't claim to be the GOAT when he isn't even the GOAT in his own era (nadal).

lol It would be a travesty if a less than 100% Nadal who hasn't had the momentum of winning Cincy (apparantly the true slam) and 2 grand slams and a great year to be losing to Nadal in the final on his worst surface by far and feds best surface. Nadal nearly straight setted fed on his similairly best surface (wimby 08) and it'd be funny to see Fed lose again in his prime. Fed is definitely in his prime if he can win the french and wimby back to back UNLESS it's a weak era without Nadal.

2-6 in slams and 2-5 in slam finals and 7-13 overall v the only opponent never frightened of supposed goat statisically.

GAME OVER for Fed's legacy.

Edit: Exclude injured Nadal for 2010. 4 Slams losses on every surface is a Tainted legacy to anyone in the pre/open era if they ever saw one :)
 
Last edited:
agreed. I think their is only one argument that prevents fed from having the goat title: he gets owned by his only rival.

Losing to Nadal in all four slam finals would be pretty embarassing. If Nadal wins US open, then he might have a claim for goat 5/6 years from now.
 
Quit saying that Nadal is injured. Everybody is injured. Nadal just happens to be the player whose camp flaunts his injuries the most.

Federer played grand slam tournaments with a bad back before and you'd not hear a peep about it.
 
CyBorg said:
Quit saying that Nadal is injured. Everybody is injured. Nadal just happens to be the player whose camp flaunts his injuries the most.

Federer played grand slam tournaments with a bad back before and you'd not hear a peep about it.
Click to expand...
precisely.
And no,one stat makes no difference to Roger's legacy.
 
Rippy said:
Or... you could look at all the other records of Fed, and not just the H2H...
Click to expand...

True. Lotsof records including the 15 slams. 22 grand slam semifinals is just amazing. And the 3 times he lost in the semis it was to the eventual champion.

I'd still like to see Roger win a Davis Cup. I realize his teammates would have to step things up, but w/o that, I think GOAT status is still in debate.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946 said:
agreed. I think their is only one argument that prevents fed from having the goat title: he gets owned by his only rival.

Losing to Nadal in all four slam finals would be pretty embarassing. If Nadal wins US open, then he might have a claim for goat 5/6 years from now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in five years, Rafa will have the knees of a 40 yr old, instead of just a 35 yr old. Big diff.

I beleive Rafa can win this, and go down comfortably in the same paragraph as the other career-4-slammers (Budge, Perry, Laver, Roger and Andre..am I missing one?).

But I am rooting for Rog. Actually, I'm rooting for a five set final.
 
I will just copy what I said on another thread:

I currently rank Federer as the 8th greatest male player of all time. He would drop to 11th if he by some miracle he ever lost in the U.S Open final this year to Nadal though.

The OP's only stupid comment are the references to Hewitt and Henman. Hewitt was playing as well as ever in 2004-2005, Federer is just flat out better than Hewitt and an awful matchup for him to boot. Judging by the Hewitt avatar the OP is obviously a Hewitt fan so can be forgiven for his obvious bias there. Henman isnt that good and would get owned by prime Federer regardless, and 2004 was one of his best years ever anyway. However other than those two everything else the OP said is right on.
 
Last edited:
grafselesfan said:
I will just copy what I said on another thread:

I currently rank Federer as the 8th greatest male player of all time. He would drop to 11th if he by some miracle he ever lost in the U.S Open final this year to Nadal though.

The OP's only stupid comment are the references to Hewitt and Henman. Hewitt was playing as well as ever in 2004-2005, Federer is just flat out better than Hewitt and an awful matchup for him to boot. Judging by the Hewitt avatar the OP is obviously a Hewitt fan so can be forgiven for his obvious bias there. Henman isnt that good and would get owned by prime Federer regardless, and 2004 was one of his best years ever anyway. However other than those two everything else the OP said is right on.
Click to expand...

YOu sir, are an idiot.
 
grafselesfan said:
I currently rank Federer as the 8th greatest male player of all time. He would drop to 11th if he by some miracle he ever lost in the U.S Open final this year to Nadal though.
Click to expand...

You should really try to hide the fact that your supposed views are totally out of touch with reality. I rate you as the 8th greatest troll of all time.
 
grafselesfan said:
I will just copy what I said on another thread:

I currently rank Federer as the 8th greatest male player of all time. He would drop to 11th if he by some miracle he ever lost in the U.S Open final this year to Nadal though.

The OP's only stupid comment are the references to Hewitt and Henman. Hewitt was playing as well as ever in 2004-2005, Federer is just flat out better than Hewitt and an awful matchup for him to boot. Judging by the Hewitt avatar the OP is obviously a Hewitt fan so can be forgiven for his obvious bias there. Henman isnt that good and would get owned by prime Federer regardless, and 2004 was one of his best years ever anyway. However other than those two everything else the OP said is right on.
Click to expand...

Well i could be referring to a TRUE S+V giving Fed trouble in his prime, on the old 90's quick surfaces.
 
Turning Pro said:
Then Federer is indisputedly NOT the GOAT. And Nadal isn't even the GOAT yet or even ever. Imagine if players like Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Connors, Becker etc in their primes were in this era. Henman, Hewitt in their primes owned Federer, when they left their prime, Federer entered his. 34-35 year old old Agassi with his cortisone/steroid injection's to keep himself moving nearly defeated prime federer in the 04/05 u.s opens, seriously that IS MESSED UP. Agassi would DESTROY federer in his prime but couldn't deal with Sampras in their own primes. Federer can't claim to be the GOAT when he isn't even the GOAT in his own era (nadal).

lol It would be a travesty if a less than 100% Nadal who hasn't had the momentum of winning Cincy (apparantly the true slam) and 2 grand slams and a great year to be losing to Nadal in the final on his worst surface by far and feds best surface. Nadal nearly straight setted fed on his similairly best surface (wimby 08) and it'd be funny to see Fed lose again in his prime. Fed is definitely in his prime if he can win the french and wimby back to back UNLESS it's a weak era without Nadal.

2-6 in slams and 2-5 in slam finals and 7-13 overall v the only opponent never frightened of supposed goat statisically.

GAME OVER for Fed's legacy.
Click to expand...

ROTFL!!! Too much worthless crap to even sift through it all. The funniest part was prime Agassi destroying prime Federer. Thanks for the laughs I got out of that one. Anyway what the heck is prime Agassi, about as much a phantom individual as Nadal with a huge serve. Perhaps you mean prime Agassi was 20-21 year old Agassi in 1990-1991 who volunteerly skipped 3 different slams, lost a French Open final to 30 year old Andres Gomez, lost at Wimbledon to David Wheaton, and was thrashed in straight sets of the 1st round of the U.S Open to Aaron Krickstein who would go on to lose to 39 year old Jimmy Connors. Or maybe 22 year old Agassi in 1992 who without his shock Wimbledon title would have ended the year ranked outside the top 10, and who was completely owned and crushed repeatedly by Jim Courier. Or maybe 23 year old Agassi in 1993 who skipped 2 slams and lost 1st round to a teenage Tomas Enqvist in the other. Or the 24 year old Agassi in 1994 who didnt get past the round of 16 of any slam other than the U.S Open. Or the 26 year old Agassi in 1996 who could not get a single set off Michael Chang in 2 hard court slam semifinals, and who lost early to guys named Woodruff and Doug Flach in his other 2 slams. Or the 27 year old Agassi who ended the year #122 and completed a head to head vs Luke Jensen and Doug Flach for 96-97 of 0-3. Or the 28 year old Agassi in 1998 who lost in the 3rd round of Australia to B-clay courter Berasetegui, 1st round of the French to an 18 year old Safin, 2nd round of Wimbledon to teenage Haas, and 4th round of the U.S Open to Kucera. Get a clue. Outside of 1995, Agassi's best tennis was all from age 29-
30 something.

Agassi in his best year ever in 99 lost to Vince Spadea at his favorite slam. Won his only French Open with an even easier draw and more struggle/luck than Federer this year, including 2 points from a 4 set loss to Arnaud Clement, being a set an 2 breaks in the 2nd to a slumping Carlos Moya, and was killed in the first 2 sets of the final by past his prime 100th ranked Andrei Medvedev. Won the U.S Open by beating Kafelnikov in a 4 set semi after losing the first set 6-1, and then winning in 5 very hard fought sets over slamless Todd Martin in the twilight of his career. Yet prime Agassi would be able to crush Federer, classic stuff.
 
Last edited:
CyBorg said:
Quit saying that Nadal is injured. Everybody is injured. Nadal just happens to be the player whose camp flaunts his injuries the most.

Federer played grand slam tournaments with a bad back before and you'd not hear a peep about it.[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...




We heard all about his bad back post Australian Open. We heard all it about his mono as well.
Click to expand...
 
To the OP: So, if an all-time great player loses a match to another great player, he can't be a GOAT? You're saying that the GOAT, whoever it is, can never lose a match to another player under any circumstances? Pete Sampras never lost to anyone? Rod Laver never lost to anyone? Nadal never lost to anyone? Federer never lost to anyone?

What a silly premise....
 
It's silly to assume a 28 year old has to win every slam he plays in to be the GOAT, and that any loss he takes anywhere proves that he isn't. With all he's accomplished, there isn't even a debate.
 
What does head-to-head have anything to do with being the GOAT? :confused:

Was Kucera a greater tennis player than Agassi just because he has a winning record against Agassi? Um...nope.

Was Krajicek a greater tennis player than Sampras just because he has a winning record against Sampras? Um..nope, again!

Newsflash! H2H is in no way related to who's the GOAT. The only thing that matters are achievements and Grand Slam titles.
 
BreakPoint said:
What does head-to-head have anything to do with being the GOAT? :confused:

Was Kucera a greater tennis player than Agassi just because he has a winning record against Agassi? Um...nope.

Was Krajicek a greater tennis player than Sampras just because he has a winning record against Sampras? Um..nope, again!

Newsflash! H2H is in no way related to who's the GOAT. The only thing that matters are achievements and Grand Slam titles.
Click to expand...



A h2h blemish of significant proportions especially slam finals hurt a GOAT candidacy IMO.. There is no way around it. Its a BLEMISH!!!! It wouldnt be as bad if Fed can get a little revenge at some slam finals vs. Nadal.. But when you are 2-6 in slam finals, and lose 3 out of 4 slams finals in a row to your rival, how can THAT NOT HURT your credibility as GOAT?
 
Bruguera said:
A h2h blemish of significant proportions especially slam finals hurt a GOAT candidacy IMO.. There is no way around it. Its a BLEMISH!!!!
Click to expand...

No, it just proves he isn't unbeatable. If someone wasn't able to beat him, we'd just have to hear more about how the clown era is a blemish.
 
BreakPoint said:
What does head-to-head have anything to do with being the GOAT? :confused:

Was Kucera a greater tennis player than Agassi just because he has a winning record against Agassi? Um...nope.

Was Krajicek a greater tennis player than Sampras just because he has a winning record against Sampras? Um..nope, again!

Newsflash! H2H is in no way related to who's the GOAT. The only thing that matters are achievements and Grand Slam titles.
Click to expand...

Read the OP AGAIN. Not just the h2h. But the H2H is particularly important in this case and every other case. It's the magnitude of the defeats. 4 different defeats on 4 different slam FINALS (if it happens, even so nadal would have defeated him in 3 different SLAM final surfaces anyways). Get it? Arguably The BIGGEST rivarly of all time. Not just 1 or 2 nobodies. Nadal is in contention himself. It wouldn't matter if Nalbandian or Murray has a better h2h, we all know which is the better player at this time.
 
Polvorin said:
No, it just proves he isn't unbeatable. If someone wasn't able to beat him, we'd just have to hear more about how the clown era is a blemish.
Click to expand...

Yea but we wouldnt be able to prove it. All we could prove is Roger would have been the most dominant force in the history of tennis and would be working on maybe his 20-21st slam victory already if not for Nadal. We couldnt prove a pathetic field of men's tennis incapable of winning and Fed's GOAT status would be all the more undeniable
 
Turning Pro said:
Read the OP AGAIN. Not just the h2h. But the H2H is particularly important in this case and every other case. It's the magnitude of the defeats. 4 different defeats on 4 different slam FINALS (if it happens, even so nadal would have defeated him in 3 different SLAM final surfaces anyways). Get it? Arguably The BIGGEST rivarly of all time. Not just 1 or 2 nobodies. Nadal is in contention himself. It wouldn't matter if Nalbandian or Murray has a better h2h, we all know which is the better player at this time.
Click to expand...

But equally we know Federer is better than Nadal, at this point in time anyway.

15 > 6. Nadal could of course overtake Fed in slams, but we'll have to wait and see.
 
Bruguera said:
We heard all about his bad back post Australian Open. We heard all it about his mono as well.
Click to expand...
You only heard about his mono in March and even then he quite clearly said Djokovic would've beaten him anyhow.And he himself stated he had no bad back at the AO so I dont know where you got that from.Know your facts before you distort them.
Click to expand...
 
Bruguera said:
A h2h blemish of significant proportions especially slam finals hurt a GOAT candidacy IMO.. There is no way around it. Its a BLEMISH!!!! It wouldnt be as bad if Fed can get a little revenge at some slam finals vs. Nadal.. But when you are 2-6 in slam finals, and lose 3 out of 4 slams finals in a row to your rival, how can THAT NOT HURT your credibility as GOAT?
Click to expand...
It's not Federer's fault that Nadal never makes it to a US Open final and only one Aus Open final where Federer would have spanked him multiple times. Federer would be ahead in GS finals wins had Nadal made the last 5 US Open finals and the last 5 Aus Open finals.
 
Regardless if Nadal wins 7 slams and the career slam, getting 8 more slams would be a tall order for Nadal IMO regardless. Thats a few more years of top notch tennis Nadal would have to put out.. Is he physically capable of doing so?
 
Federer has won 15 Slams.. more than anybody else so he's goat. Period. And i'm a Nadal fan but i'm sick of stupid posts full of hatred.
 
Turning Pro said:
Read the OP AGAIN. Not just the h2h. But the H2H is particularly important in this case and every other case. It's the magnitude of the defeats. 4 different defeats on 4 different slam FINALS (if it happens, even so nadal would have defeated him in 3 different SLAM final surfaces anyways). Get it? Arguably The BIGGEST rivarly of all time. Not just 1 or 2 nobodies. Nadal is in contention himself. It wouldn't matter if Nalbandian or Murray has a better h2h, we all know which is the better player at this time.
Click to expand...
Newsflash! H2H is NEVER important. Grand Slam titles and weeks at #1 are, period!

That's why people talk about Federer and Sampras as being the GOAT, and not Murray and Krajicek.
 
Rippy said:
Yes, Nadal is definitely catching up, but being the youngest career slam ever doesn't prove much by itself. Players peak at different ages.
Click to expand...

I don't think Nadal is built to win Slams into his late 20's. I think he'll either be like Borg and win 1-2 Slams a year until age 25-26 and retire or he'll be like Wilander: get to 7-8 Slams by 24 and not win one again.
 
If Nadal can just continue winning 1 slam a year ( very possible he can do this) he can get right up there with Pete and Roger in the slam count by time he is in his late 20s.

I dont think he dominate week in week out.. But he certainly can manage winning the slam a year.
 
Very interesting dilemma for federer if nadal goes first and wins. Does he want the challenge of perosnally stopping nadal's low chance attempt at his 15 and increase his own total? or does he let someone with a good backhand like djokovic do the deed and also protect the h-h from getting worse.

I don't think federer does that calculation because I am sure he doesn't think like that. But fun to think about.
 
Rippy said:
Yes, Nadal is definitely catching up, but being the youngest career slam ever doesn't prove much by itself. Players peak at different ages.
Click to expand...
Exactly!! Michael Chang won his first Grand Slam at 17. Guess what? He never won another one. Thus, there's no guarantee that Nadal will ever win another Grand Slam. Both play the same style and that style burns you out at a young age. It happened to Hewitt and Wilander as well.
 
not only that Federer and nadal have been on tour for the same amount of years, he just happened to start earlier, just like how del po went on tour when he was 14-15.
 
BreakPoint said:
Exactly!! Michael Chang won his first Grand Slam at 17. Guess what? He never won another one. Thus, there's no guarantee that Nadal will ever win another Grand Slam. Both play the same style and that style burns you out at a young age. It happened to Hewitt and Wilander as well.
Click to expand...

Thats Michael Chang though..Not Nadal. And Hewitt is Hewitt. These guys dont have what Nadal has. Nadal has continually defied the odds. Many said he could never win a hardcourt slam.. He proved everyone wrong.. Many have said wont see success at the USO. THe last two years at the AO he has reached the semis at least. He won an olympic gold in singles, a buttload of masters titles. He has beaten Fed countless times. If anyone can do it its Nadal.

I wouldnt compare a Chang or Hewitt to Nadal. ever
 
If it turns out to be a Federer-Nadal final, Federer will certainly win. I guarantee it. And I usually hate it when people make these type of quasi-prophetic statements.
 
Bruguera said:
Thats Michael Chang though..Not Nadal. And Hewitt is Hewitt. These guys dont have what Nadal has. Nadal has continually defied the odds. Many said he could never win a hardcourt slam.. He proved everyone wrong.. Many have said wont see success at the USO. THe last two years at the AO he has reached the semis at least. He won an olympic gold in singles, a buttload of masters titles. He has beaten Fed countless times. If anyone can do it its Nadal.

I wouldnt compare a Chang or Hewitt to Nadal. ever
Click to expand...
Nadal won a hardcourt Slam against an injured Federer.

Many said Hewitt couldn't win Wimbledon as well.
 
^Nadal wasn't even 70-80% in the final after playing the longest mens singles match in AO HISTORY, Fed had a 1 day advantage rest and STILL couldn't beat him getting destroyed in the 5th set. Fed was fine because he destroyed Roddick and Delpo without a hitch. It's not Nadal's fault Fed couldn't serve as well and crumbled under pressure.
 
BreakPoint said:
Newsflash! H2H is NEVER important. Grand Slam titles and weeks at #1 are, period!

That's why people talk about Federer and Sampras as being the GOAT, and not Murray and Krajicek.
Click to expand...


Well this is not boxing break point, where a few losses to a certain boxer can taint a certain boxers greatness. It's acceptable to have losing records in tennis against a few players that you did not play over 20 times. Add to that nadal is federers MAIN rivalry. Nadal cleaned Federers clock at the french a couple times, beat him at Wimbledon, AND the Australian Open. And now the possibilty of the US OPEN. It's obvious if fed loses to nadal, 'again' in a GS final, at the Open, he cleary dominated the rivalry and is the best of his generation. Murray and krajicek references of no weight in this matter, it's nowhere near as relevant.
 
Bruguera said:
A h2h blemish of significant proportions especially slam finals hurt a GOAT candidacy IMO.. There is no way around it. Its a BLEMISH!!!! It wouldnt be as bad if Fed can get a little revenge at some slam finals vs. Nadal.. But when you are 2-6 in slam finals, and lose 3 out of 4 slams finals in a row to your rival, how can THAT NOT HURT your credibility as GOAT?
Click to expand...



And? Just because Adriana Lima isn't perfect doesn't mean she isn't one of the most beautiful women in the world?



No one is perfect. But Federer so far is displaying that he is about as close to it as it gets in terms of tennis.
 
Ultra2HolyGrail said:
Well this is not boxing break point, where a few losses to a certain boxer can taint a certain boxers greatness. It's acceptable to have losing records in tennis against a few players that you did not play over 20 times. Add to that nadal is federers MAIN rivalry. Nadal cleaned Federers clock at the french a couple times, beat him at Wimbledon, AND the Australian Open. And now the possibilty of the US OPEN. It's obvious if fed loses to nadal, 'again' in a GS final, at the Open, he cleary dominated the rivalry and is the best of his generation. Murray and krajicek references of no weight in this matter, it's nowhere near as relevant.
Click to expand...

Nadal would definitely not be the greatest of the era even if he beat Fed in the US Open final. No offence, but that's ridiculous.

7 slams VS 15. Beating one player doesn't make you the best of the era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wondertoy
Sampras would have beaten Fed at their primes
6 7 8
Replies
360
Views
16K
edberg505
edberg505
Y
  • Poll Poll
Which of these greats (including Federer and Nadal) are best on their worst surface
Replies
5
Views
983
tennisaddict
tennisaddict
Grunge123
Best and Worst Surface of each of the top 10
Replies
17
Views
2K
*Sparkle*
S
noeledmonds
Best Male Open-Era Tennis Rivalry
Replies
24
Views
2K
coloskier
C
F
If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age
8 9 10
Replies
467
Views
33K
Sunny014
Sunny014
Back
Top