If Nadal stays at 14 or 15 will hardcore Nadal fans concede GOAT status to Federer?

[irishnadalfan1983]

That's fine. I'm not saying people can't notice other contingencies. But it would be weird to use such contingencies as a ground for why someone can't be GOAT. Tennis is played against the field whether one likes it or not.

It is the main ground for him not being GOAT in my eyes.

He got whipped so many times. If it were close I would look past it but he was beaten 23 times by 1 guy.

Anyway tis all just opinion's but for me this is the main reason Fed ain't GOAT followed by him winning GS in a relatively weaker era than say the last 5 years. However Fed is class.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Interesting thus far that only The_Order amongst the Nadal heavy artillery has stuck his nose above the parapet. Where all the others? Come on girls we know you are out there!

Though some of us Federer fans can make a good case for being unhinged, at least we showed up and played along and could say when enough is enough...

Or is it perhaps the case that the army of Nadal fan crack troops are not as humble as their great icon!? I think we should be told.....

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No. Federer would never be GOAT in my eyes. LOAT maybe but not GOAT.

And we're meant to care, why?

 

[vanioMan]

Interesting thus far that only The_Order amongst the Nadal heavy artillery has stuck his nose above the parapet. Where all the others? Come on girls we know you are out there!

Though some of us Federer fans can make a good case for being unhinged, at least we showed up and played along and could say when enough is enough...

Or is it perhaps the case that the army of Nadal fan crack troops are not as humble as their great icon!? I think we should be told.....

Because:
A. If Nadal fans don't show up you will say we're running scared. If we show up you will be unhappy about something we wrote. And God forbid if we ever disagree with a statement of yours.
B. These threads create only pointless arguments and hatred between fanbases.
C. I as a Nadal fan don't care what Federer or Djokovic fans think about Rafa. So I don't understand why do you care. After all you support Roger, I don't (although he is among my favourite players), so my opinion should be irrelevant to you.
D. Read B again.

 

[Steve0904]

Because:
A. If Nadal fans don't show up you will say we're running scared. If we show up you will be unhappy about something we wrote. And God forbid if we ever disagree with a statement of yours.
B. These threads create only pointless arguments and hatred between fanbases.
C. I as a Nadal fan don't care what Federer or Djokovic fans think about Rafa. So I don't understand why do you care. After all you support Roger, I don't (although he is among my favourite players), so my opinion should be irrelevant to you.
D. Read B again.

E. Read D again. :lol:

 

[Sirius Black]

Which bandwagon will the Sampras fans/Federer haters jump on?

 

[ultradr]

It would be hard argue against Federer being the best player of last 10+ years.

 

[zep]

Haha. Oh, well. Would have thought he was very unlucky to have a younger rival on the level of Nadal ;-)

15 of his 17 slams are without facing that rival. The ones he did face were when Nadal was not in his peak. One can argue that 2007 was part of his prime but certainly 2006 was not. LOAT

 

[zep]

Didn't know the ATP handed out trophies for that.

ATP does not give GOAT trophies either, it's a matter of perception.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

15 of his 17 slams are without facing that rival. The ones he did face were when Nadal was not in his peak. One can argue that 2007 was part of his prime but certainly 2006 was not. LOAT

Typical excuses coming from the worst member on this forum.

 

[RF-18]

15 of his 17 slams are without facing that rival. The ones he did face were when Nadal was not in his peak. One can argue that 2007 was part of his prime but certainly 2006 was not. LOAT

Federer met peak Nadal on grass.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

ATP does not give GOAT trophies either, it's a matter of perception.

Your "perception" is one of delusion; every one of your 250+ posts is either pumping up Nadal (or his competition) or putting down Federer's. People like you are what give Nadal fans a bad name.

 

[zep]

And we're meant to care, why?

Weak era inflated resume. I am ready to give him the title of MCOAT along with LOAT but not GOAT.

 

[zep]

Federer met peak Nadal on grass.

Ha ha Nadal was not in his peak on grass in 2006. In 2007 he probably was and it was a narrow win for Federer. In 2008 he lost.

 

[BringBackSV]

Federer met peak Nadal on grass.

and lost....

 

[zep]

Your "perception" is one of delusion; every one of your 250+ posts is either pumping up Nadal (or his competition) or putting down Federer's. People like you are what give Nadal fans a bad name.

And people like you give genuine Hewitt fans a bad name.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Also, prime Nadal was from 2005+.. Anybody who isn't biased can see that.. Clay counts.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Weak era inflated resume. I am ready to give him the title of MCOAT along with LOAT but not GOAT.

According to someone who compares Ferrer to Hewitt..

 

[zep]

Also, prime Nadal was from 2005+.. Anybody who isn't biased can see that.. Clay counts.

Of course Nadal has been in prime for 10 years whereas Federer prime lasted only 4 years. LOL

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And people like you give genuine Hewitt fans a bad name.

I'm not just a fan of Hewitt. I like several different players (even your boy, Nadal).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Of course Nadal has been in prime for 10 years whereas Federer prime lasted only 4 years. LOL

Federer's prime; 2003-2012.
Nadal's prime; 2005-2015?

Take it or leave it..

 

[zep]

According to someone who compares Ferrer to Hewitt..

Hewitt would be as successful as Ferrer if he played alongside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, in their prime. Anyone who is not a delusional and sensitive Hewitt fanboy like you would agree to that.

 

[zep]

Federer's prime; 2003-2012.
Nadal's prime; 2005-2015?

Take it or leave it..

No, Federer's prime was 2004-2009. Nadal's prime was 2008-2013.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt would be as successful as Ferrer if he played alongside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, in their prime. Anyone who is not a delusional and sensitive Hewitt fanboy like you would agree to that.

Nope, because he'd still beat Djokovic/Nadal in slams, just like Murray..

Anybody who isn't a silly H2H-guided fanboy of Nadal will see that, also anybody who doesn't automatically denounce Federer's competition as "weak" just because they like Nadal more..

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No, Federer's prime was 2004-2009. Nadal's prime was 2008-2013.

Obviously you don't know the meaning of "prime" and "peak".

 

[zep]

Nope, because he'd still beat Djokovic/Nadal in slams, just like Murray..

Anybody who isn't a silly H2H-guided fanboy of Nadal will see that, also anybody who doesn't automatically denounce Federer's competition as "weak" just because they like Nadal more..

Not a chance. He struggled to beat 18 year old Nadal in his peak. He has no chance of beating prime Nadal or Djokovic at slams. Murray at his best is a much better player with better weapons than Hewitt. Hewitt just got lucky in the transition era. I mean the guy has 2 masters 1000 title and just 4 slam finals. Even Murray has a better resume than that.

 

[eldanger25]

I don't think 15 would be enough for Nadal. Maybe if he won his 15th at Wimbledon, and paired it that same season with a YEC title and another YE #1 finish, he'd have an argument with at least 3 majors on all 3 surfaces, 4 YE #1s, and no more YEC-sized gaps in the resume.

Even then, I think Federer would be clearly ahead - but I wouldn't think somebody was unreasonable for arguing Nadal at 15 under circumstances like the above.

 

[zep]

Obviously you don't know the meaning of "prime" and "peak".

Your opinion is worth nothing.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Your opinion is worth nothing.

And you act like your teeny-bopper way of pumping up Nadal is worth anything.

 

[zep]

And you act like your teeny-bopper way of pumping up Nadal is worth anything.

Much better than pumping up Hewitt.

 

[RF-18]

and lost....

Yeah that year federer suffered from illnes and mono, first half of the year. You can't compare fed 2008 to 2007 because it was a totally different story. A shocking difference. In 2009 he fully recovered and yet again dominated and took 3/5 next slams.

Nevertheless, federer still wiped the floor with him majority of the three matches. 2-1

"Federer's success in 2008 was severely hampered by a lingering bout of mononucleosis which he suffered from during the first half of the year. At the end of the year he would suffer a back injury that would prove to be reoccurring throughout the end of his career"

"Later in the year, it was found Federer had been suffering from mononucleosis at the start of the year, particularly during the Australian Open"

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Not a chance. He struggled to beat 18 year old Nadal in his peak. He has no chance of beating prime Nadal or Djokovic at slams. Murray at his best is a much better player with better weapons than Hewitt. Hewitt just got lucky in the transition era. I mean the guy has 2 masters 1000 title and just 4 slam finals. Even Murray has a better resume than that.

Absolutely ridiculous..

He struggled to beat "18 year old Nadal" on a surface he never progressed past the 4th round on before. Even journeyman have beat him at the AO, that's meaningless..

Murray at his best is equal to Roddick/Hewitt and everybody, bar you and a select few Nadal fans can see that (you only say that because it fits your construed agenda). Why do you think it was called the Big 3 + 1?

Murray doesn't have 2 YECs (or even a final). Hewitt has 3 finals and 2 wins..

Slam finals don't mean anything on a resume unless you convert them and Murray didn't. Murray has also had more a chance to add to his resume given Hewitt was done by the age of 24..

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Because:
A. If Nadal fans don't show up you will say we're running scared. If we show up you will be unhappy about something we wrote. And God forbid if we ever disagree with a statement of yours.
B. These threads create only pointless arguments and hatred between fanbases.
C. I as a Nadal fan don't care what Federer or Djokovic fans think about Rafa. So I don't understand why do you care. After all you support Roger, I don't (although he is among my favourite players), so my opinion should be irrelevant to you.
D. Read B again.

VanioMan I'm sure you are a reasonable person, so please just give a reasonable answer to the question. If you truly believed what you wrote these threads would be empty and you in particular would feel no need to pontificate on such matters.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Much better than pumping up Hewitt.

Saying Hewitt and Murray are equal is hardly pumping him up.. It's giving him the respect he deserves.. Some people even rate Hewitt higher, but I don't.

 

[RF-18]

Stop arguing against federer. In the end you will all end up looking like fools because all facts is against you. There is no point in trying to diminish him and have a go at him.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

I don't think 15 would be enough for Nadal. Maybe if he won his 15th at Wimbledon, and paired it that same season with a YEC title and another YE #1 finish, he'd have an argument with at least 3 majors on all 3 surfaces, 4 YE #1s, and no more YEC-sized gaps in the resume.



Even then, I think Federer would be clearly ahead - but I wouldn't think somebody was unreasonable for arguing Nadal at 15 under circumstances like the above.

Fair dinkum! Maybe not a popular view from Federer's box but nevertheless an honest stab at dissecting the question.

 

[zep]

Yeah that year federer suffered from illnes and mono, first half of the year. You can't compare fed 2008 to 2007 because it was a totally different story. A shocking difference. In 2009 he fully recovered and yet again dominated and took 3/5 next slams.

Nevertheless, federer still wiped the floor with him majority of the three matches. 2-1

"Federer's success in 2008 was severely hampered by a lingering bout of mononucleosis which he suffered from during the first half of the year. At the end of the year he would suffer a back injury that would prove to be reoccurring throughout the end of his career"

"Later in the year, it was found Federer had been suffering from mononucleosis at the start of the year, particularly during the Australian Open"

Federer had the best grass season of his career in 2008 till the Wimbledon final. Anyone who has seen him play would agree. He did not drop a single set from Halle till the final of Wimbledon and was able to play a long match without any physical issue. The mono excuse in BS. You can say that Nadal and Federer played 10 sets on grass when they were in their peak and the result was 5-5.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Federer had the best grass season of his career in 2008 till the Wimbledon final. Anyone who has seen him play would agree. He did not drop a single set from Halle till the final of Wimbledon and was able to play a long match without any physical issue. The mono excuse in BS. You can say that Nadal and Federer played 10 sets on grass when they were in their peak and the result was 5-5.

Ridiculous and opinionated..

Federer's best grass season arguably came in 2003.

 

[zep]

Saying Hewitt and Murray are equal is hardly pumping him up.. It's giving him the respect he deserves.. Some people even rate Hewitt higher, but I don't.

I rate Murray a lot higher because of the competition he has had to face and his general level of play.

 

[zep]

Ridiculous and opinionated..

Federer's best grass season arguably came in 2003.

Let me modify it then, one of the best. The facts back it up. It is a fact that he did not lose a set from Halle till the Wimbledon final.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I rate Murray a lot higher because of the competition he has had to face and his general level of play.

So prime Agassi isn't worthwhile competition? What about Safin, Kuerten, Federer, Ferrero, Sampras, Rafter and a whole slew of players who will/should be induced into the Hall Of Fame?

Murray also won his 2 slams against Djokovic, and I firmly believe Hewitt could do the same thing.. Especially on grass.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Let me modify it then, one of the best. The facts back it up. It is a fact that he did not lose a set from Halle till the Wimbledon final.

It could be due to "competition". He faced the king of grass in the SF, it's too bad Djokovic couldn't make it instead.

 

[tennisaddict]

15 of his 17 slams are without facing that rival. The ones he did face were when Nadal was not in his peak. One can argue that 2007 was part of his prime but certainly 2006 was not. LOAT

Fed had 1 major when Rafa came on tour and faced the same set of opponents.

Fed should have forfeited all the matches the moment Rafa lost to Muller, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Youzhny, Blake at majors.

Only those times when Rafa made it to the finals , he should have won his matches

 

[zep]

Fed had 1 major when Rafa came on tour and faced the same set of opponents.

Fed should have forfeited all the matches the moment Rafa lost to Muller, Ferrer, Gonzalez, Youzhny, Blake at majors.

Only those times when Rafa made it to the finals , he should have won his matches

Rafa was 18-21 between 2004-07. He was very good on clay but was just progressing on other surfaces. Just for a comparison, Federer did squat at the same age, do you want me to list the opponents he lost to at the same age?

 

[zep]

It could be due to "competition". He faced the king of grass in the SF, it's too bad Djokovic couldn't make it instead.

Ha ha ha so when it suits you, you cite weak competition but when others do the same you don't agree. Perfect hypocrisy.

 

[The_Order]

It could be due to "competition". He faced the king of grass in the SF, it's too bad Djokovic couldn't make it instead.

Yeah because Rochus was much tougher competition. He had mp against Roger in Halle in 06 :shock:

Roger's competition in 2006 was a LOT weaker than 08. He had freaking Bjorkman in the semi's in 06.

In 07 he had a walkover, followed by grass God JC Ferrero and then gassed out Gasquet in the sf :lol:

In 05, he had grass gods JC Ferrero and Gonzalez before meeting Hewitt who was just coming back from injury.

If anything, 08 was one of his toughest Wimbledon draws...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Ha ha ha so when it suits you, you cite weak competition but when others do the same you don't agree. Perfect hypocrisy.

I was being sarcastic. Actually, I used that argument to prove a point - you can make out any time frame to be a "weak era" and it's abysmally horrid..

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yeah because Rochus was much tougher competition. He had mp against Roger in Halle in 06 :shock:

Roger's competition in 2006 was a LOT weaker than 08. He had freaking Bjorkman in the semi's in 06.

In 07 he had a walkover, followed by grass God JC Ferrero and then gassed out Gasquet in the sf :lol:

In 05, he had grass gods JC Ferrero and Gonzalez before meeting Hewitt who was just coming back from injury.

If anything, 08 was one of his toughest Wimbledon draws...

I wasn't being serious with that post in the least, just pointing out how ridiculous the "weak era" argument can seem.

 

[zep]

I was being sarcastic. Actually, I used that argument to prove a point - you can make out any time frame to be a "weak era" and it's abysmally horrid..

It is a fact that there was no all time great competitors outside clay who could challenge Federer. In every GS final he went in as a heavy favorite because the other player was just not in the same league. The period was so bad that he played different opponents in all his hard court GS finals in the weak era, some 8-9 different opponents in as many finals, many of them were first timers or one timers. On the the other hand Nadal and Djokovic have had to face all time great players to win majority of their slams. It is a fact based on real data.

 

[Sirius Black]

It is a fact that there was no all time great competitors outside clay who could challenge Federer. In every GS final he went in as a heavy favorite because the other player was just not in the same league. The period was so bad that he played different opponents in all his hard court GS finals in the weak era, some 10-11 opponents in as many finals, many of them first timers or one timers. On the the other hand Nadal and Djokovic have had to face all time great players to win majority of their slams. It is a fact based on real data.

This could also be a testament to the strength and depth of the era. Since baby Nadal "owned Federer" he should have had no problem against these "weak era mugs." Also, enough of these excuses for a young Nadal. His form was arguably better than his present showing.