Federer beat Nadal twice at wimbledon. Nadal won his first Wimbledon. If Federer wasn't around he would have 3 Wimbledon titles with his French open titles. Federer slowed down Nadal major titles for 3 yrs. I dont think Nadal will ever win 15 grand slam titles because of Federer. Yet Nadal is denying Federer from winning 15 grand slams. Lol, it quite funny that their denying each other of being the best player of all times. Yet that what makes a good rivalry.
If Federer wasn't around would Nadal be the greatest tennis player around?
- Thread starter friedalo1
- Start date
oranges
Hall of Fame
You're aware that it was not only Federer who stopped Nadal in the past 3 years? You're aware the question is pointless speculation? You're aware he's expected to reach No1 unless he has really dismal results in the rest of the season? If the answer is yes to all three above questions, why make a thread about it?
I dont think its speculation. The truth is nadal will start winning all the grand slams soon. Wimbledon and the French are the hardest slams to win. Australian open is nothing but a push up Master event. U.S open is better ,than the French but not Wimbledon. Nadal work ethics are superior to the rest of the players. Nadal wins match before he walks on the court Federer use to have that. Nadal is the new king of the court. Even if I dont like it, or you dont like it. Nadal is coming like a hurricane. He starting to dominate the tour.
It is pointlesssssss, but a lot of Federer fans like to say "but for Nadal," Federer would have won several FOs and thus already be the GOAT...so this is just putting the shoe on the foot.
All rather ridiculous because the notion of being GOAT is that you don't have these "but for" situations since, obviously, the GOAT should have a winning record against the top players of his day...
All rather ridiculous because the notion of being GOAT is that you don't have these "but for" situations since, obviously, the GOAT should have a winning record against the top players of his day...
oranges
Hall of Fame
You don't think it's speculation to ask what if Federer wasn't around? How much more of a speculation can it be. What if Federer had there hands, would he have won the 2008 Wimby? If they could genetically morph Safin and Sampras, would that be the best player ever? I can think of a few more I find more interesting to speculate about, but equally ridiculous as the thread title question.
matchmaker
Hall of Fame
Well, if Federer wasn't around Nadal would have been number 1 for the past 4 years. However he wouldn't have won as many slams as Federer. The field would be more open. Until this year he looked vulnerable at moments but now he has this aura of invincibility hanging over him. Let's see how the rest of the HC season goes. Until now he is on the right track it seems. The FO-Wimbledon double must have given him an extra boost in confidence and the number one spot being at a grasp must have stimulated even more his motivation.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Fed really hasn't hurt Nadal that much. Actually Nadal has been the one doing the hurt to Fed's GOAT status.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
No it's easily been grass. Natural surfaces have been kinder to him similar to Nadal. Losing to Nadal is more likely for him on clay than losing on hardcourt to somebody else. He has a bigger shot of winning on a hardcourt but also has a bigger chance of getting upsetted.
Last edited:
Similar threads
