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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 733170
  • Start date Start date
zep said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't a "fact". It's fiction. Like everything else you post; "fantasy".

Federer's era was deeper and was more competitive from #4 down.. "One timers" like Baghdatis and Gonzalez also beat Nadal en-route to the final, so I don't see how that classifies as "weak".

Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer and many others are not "all time greats". You ignore Nadal/Djokovic's easy wins and put your magnifying lens over Federer's.

What's true is that Federer has had to deal with Nadal much longer than Nadal has had to deal with Djokovic. What's also true is that Nadal is double the player Djokovic is, while Federer certainly doesn't have this distinction against Nadal.

All in all, you once again spat rubbish out and then claimed it's "true" because you have misconstrued facts behind it.
 
Sirius Black said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is a testament of inconsistency of everyone else other than Federer and Nadal on clay. Tell me one player in the open era who was a consistent champion across all surfaces in the age range 18-21. A players enters his prime at around 22 which generally lasts till late 20s. If he wins before that it's because he is extremely good and Nadal was extremely good on clay. It is common sense not excuse.
 
Last edited:
zep said:
It is a testament of inconsistency of everyone else other than Federer and Nadal on clay. Tell me one player in the open era who was a consistent across all surfaces in the age range 18-21. A players enters his prime at around 22 which generally lasts till late 20s. If he wins before that it's because he is extremely good and Nadal was extremely good on clay. It is common sense not excuse.
Click to expand...
Rubbish..

Players can enter their prime as young as 18, look at Becker for example..
 
zep said:
It is a testament of inconsistency of everyone else other than Federer and Nadal on clay. Tell me one player in the open era who was a consistent across all surfaces in the age range 18-21. A players enters his prime at around 22 which generally lasts till late 20s. If he wins before that it's because he is extremely good and Nadal was extremely good on clay. It is common sense not excuse.
Click to expand...

Who has been consistent in making slam finals in the past few years besides Djokovic and somewhat Nadal? The occasional Murray or Past prime Fed appearance is no more than a zoning Badhdatis or Gonzalez.

If we exclude Djokovic and Nadal and Murray, who are the first time slam finalists Federer has faced. Phillopousis? Soderling? Gonzalez? Baghdatis? Who are the ones Nadal has faced? Puerta? Berdych? Wawrinka? Ferrer?
 
Sabratha said:
No, it isn't a "fact". It's fiction. Like everything else you post; "fantasy".

Federer's era was deeper and was more competitive from #4 down.. "One timers" like Baghdatis and Gonzalez also beat Nadal en-route to the final, so I don't see how that classifies as "weak".
Click to expand...

Henman, Ancic etc beat Federer at Wimbledon around the same age. It is the growing age.

Sabratha said:
Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer and many others are not "all time greats". You ignore Nadal/Djokovic's easy wins and put your magnifying lens over Federer's.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming them to be. However Djokovic and Nadal have had to beat one of the "top 3" at some stage to win majority of their slams.

Sabratha said:
What's true is that Federer has had to deal with Nadal much longer than Nadal has had to deal with Djokovic. What's also true is that Nadal is double the player Djokovic is, while Federer certainly doesn't have this distinction against Nadal.

All in all, you once again spat rubbish out and then claimed it's "true" because you have misconstrued facts behind it.
Click to expand...

And Federer lost most of those to Nadal, we are only talking about the slams where he won without having to face any all time greats. The number is --surprise surprise--majority of his slams.
 
zep said:
One exception does not change a norm. Sampras also won a slam at 19 but his entered his prime in 22.
Click to expand...
Nadal is an exception.

How many Masters titles (HC or otherwise) did Nadal win in 2005? Yet he wasn't in his prime? Why is this? Simply because he was 19? Ridiculous.
 
Sirius Black said:
Who has been consistent in making slam finals in the past few years besides Djokovic and somewhat Nadal? The occasional Murray or Past prime Fed appearance is no more than a zoning Badhdatis or Gonzalez.

If we exclude Djokovic and Nadal and Murray, who are the first time slam finalists Federer has faced. Phillopousis? Soderling? Gonzalez? Baghdatis? Who are the ones Nadal has faced? Puerta? Berdych? Wawrinka? Ferrer?
Click to expand...

You are conveniently ignoring the fact than Nadal had to face Federer/Djokovic in the semi in 3 of those 4 occasions.
 
zep said:
Henman, Ancic etc beat Federer at Wimbledon around the same age. It is the growing age.
Click to expand...
Federer also wasn't an early bloomer but he was still relatively close to his prime at 20/21..

zep said:
No one is claiming them to be. However Djokovic and Nadal have had to beat one of the "top 3" at some stage to win majority of their slams.
Click to expand...
Federer has too.


zep said:
And Federer lost most of those to Nadal, we are only talking about the slams where he won without having to face any all time greats. The number is --surprise surprise--majority of his slams.
Click to expand...
So because he lost those encounters they don't count? Somehow he didn't face Nadal in those slams because he didn't win? Are you seriously trying to argue this?
 
Sabratha said:
Nadal is an exception.

How many Masters titles (HC or otherwise) did Nadal win in 2005? Yet he wasn't in his prime? Why is this? Simply because he was 19? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Nadal is an exception on clay, not outside. Outside clay like most other players he reached his prime at around 22.
 
Sabratha said:
Federer also wasn't an early bloomer but he was still relatively close to his prime at 20/21..


Federer has too.



So because he lost those encounters they don't count? Somehow he didn't face Nadal in those slams because he didn't win? Are you seriously trying to argue this?
Click to expand...

No but his resume is inflated because of an extremely weak era outside clay, which is why I don't take them as a benchmark to prove his GOATness. He is one of the all time greats but definitely not GOAT in my eyes. In fact no one is. Laver might be the one closest to it but I did not see him so can't comment on that.
 
zep said:
You are conveniently ignoring the fact than Nadal had to face Federer/Djokovic in the semi in 3 of those 4 occasions.
Click to expand...

And who did Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Del Potro, Soderling, and even Murray beat to reach their first final?
 
zep said:
Nadal is an exception on clay, not outside. Outside clay like most other players he reached his prime at around 22.
Click to expand...
Outside clay he was already winning multiple HC Masters and making slam finals on grass as young as 20..

He reached his prime elsewhere before 22 (he most likely reached his prime on grass in '07, and showed parts of his prime on HC in '05 even).
 
zep said:
No but his resume is inflated because of an extremely weak era outside clay, which is why I don't take them as a benchmark to prove his GOATness. He is one of the all time greats but definitely not GOAT in my eyes. In fact no one is. Laver might be the one closest to it but I did not see him so can't comment on that.
Click to expand...

Clay era is strong? Lol?
 
zep said:
No but his resume is inflated because of an extremely weak era outside clay, which is why I don't take them as a benchmark to prove his GOATness. He is one of the all time greats but definitely not GOAT in my eyes. In fact no one is. Laver might be the one closest to it but I did not see him so can't comment on that.
Click to expand...
In my opinion his resume wasn't "inflated". You beat who is in front of you. Sampras is a prime example of this, as he played in (arguably) the weakest period in the game ('96-'99) but is never downtrodden for that because he also played in a strong era ('93-'95), much like Federer played in a strong era from '08-'12.

Laver also is not the GOAT in my eyes and it isn't even close.
 
zep said:
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?
Click to expand...

Are you so naive not to understand different players peak at different ages ?

Nadal's tennis career path needs to be studied at Harvard. His career path reminds me of Seinfeld 'Magic Loogie Theory' ( reference to the "Magic Bullet Theory" )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBz3PqA2Fmc#t=83

Rafa peaks first at clay between 2004-08, decides that was enough, starts to peak on grass from 2008-2010. Completes that and it is now time for hard court. Achieves that and now starts his mastery on hard from 2010-13 while tapers down on clay and loses to players he never lost before.

Now that the clock is complete, he once again decides he needs to go back to doing well on clay.

Rafa's body and mind focusses on one surface and one major at a time. :)
 
Last edited:
tennisaddict said:
Are you so naive not to understand different players peak at different ages ?

Nadal's tennis career path needs to be studied at Harvard. His career path reminds me of Seinfeld 'Magic Loogie Theory' ( reference to the "Magic Bullet Theory" )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBz3PqA2Fmc#t=83

Rafa peaks first at clay between 2004-08, decides that was enough, starts to peak on grass from 2008-2010. Completes that and it is now time for hard court. Achieves that and now starts his mastery on hard from 2010-13 while tapers down on clay and loses to players he never lost before.

Now that the clock is complete, he once again decides he needs to go back to doing well on clay.

Rafa's body and mind focusses on one surface and one major at a time. :)
Click to expand...

Which is why he's the only player to win slams on all 3 surfaces in one calendar year.
 
Noleberic123 said:
I know im joking.....
Click to expand...

He might not comparable achievement-wise with guys such as Federer, Nadal, Sampras or even Borg ..but tennis-wise he is up there imo.

I think he is in terms of pure level among the best 7 names of the open era

Laver, Fed, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Lendl and Djokovic.
 
90's Clay said:
If Nadal gets to 15 (especially winning the Australian giving him at least 2 slams at each venue) Nadal definitely deserves open era GOAT status when you factor in all his other accolades and domination of the guy with 17 slams.
Click to expand...

I do agree

1) Nadal
2) Sampras
3) Fed

Fed needs double slam count as Sampras to be compared with Nadal..due to weaker era where he won 12/17 slams, isnt it? :lol:
 
The_Order said:
Well he was doping, so that would make him harder to beat than usual...
Click to expand...
Harder to beat than usual, but you have to remember that this guy was a journeyman most of his career. His level would have been higher, but as high as Gonzalez at the AO in '07? I doubt it..
 
Sabratha said:
Nadal is an exception.

How many Masters titles (HC or otherwise) did Nadal win in 2005? Yet he wasn't in his prime? Why is this? Simply because he was 19? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Rafa wasn't in his prime anywhere in 2005 and certainly nowhere near on HC. Rafa's prime started around 2008 on HC.
 
BringBackSV said:
Rafa wasn't in his prime anywhere in 2005 and certainly nowhere near on HC. Rafa's prime started around 2008 on HC.
Click to expand...

So was it a weak era then, since non prime teenager was nr.2 and winning slams during Fed's prime?

So, then all Nadal's results at the time also have to be discounted.
 
BringBackSV said:
Rafa wasn't in his prime anywhere in 2005 and certainly nowhere near on HC. Rafa's prime started around 2008 on HC.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous.. He won a slam on clay and several HC/Clay Masters. That's enough for me to say that he was in his prime on clay and showing prime form in patches on HC..
 
I would. He needs to at least tie and ideally surpass slam count with at least 1 and ideally 2 more off clay.

I certainly wouldn't count on him staying at 14 or even 15 though...
 
Sabratha said:
It was Federer's first time through to the SF at Roland Garros too. He was much better in 2006, Nadal still won, but it was closer..
Click to expand...

I think that was due to Nadal not being as good on clay in 2006 though.

The reasons being, first he was under pressure to defend all the tournaments he won in 05, plus the fact he was coming back from a serious foot injury.

His level of play on clay in 2006 was probably the worst apart from 2011 and 2013+.
 
jg153040 said:
Rafa is the best of all time, I agree. That means, Roger had the toughest competition ever.

Rafa only had to deal with nr.2 player. Roger had to deal with goat and he still won the most.
Click to expand...

Except roger DIDNT deal with nadal.... 2-9 is not dealing with, its failing.
 
zep said:
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.
Click to expand...
The difference in results from '7 to '8 is evident, it has been debated pretty comprehensively here.
 
zep said:
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?
Click to expand...
It is not when you do it, it is what you do.
 
tennisaddict said:
Ah, the classic.... Nadal's resume needs to refer Federer.
Click to expand...
Im not talking about Nadal's resume, Im saying that federer did not deal with Nadal at all, he won in Nadal's absence.

Federer's claim to GOAThood pretty much rests on nadal losing early at RG 2009 anyway. Without RG, feds resume gets a lot weaker.
 
zep said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet on the other hand, had Federer not been around, the era had been stronger with more multiple major winners.
 
Povl Carstensen said:
Federer was 5-2 against Nadal in his prime, kept him at no. 2 for a record number of weeks, it is ok.
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure 5-2 is off clay? Do we not even mention that anymore? Is it just understood that clay doesnt count? The off-clay H2H is now the accepted H2H?

Federer didnt keep nadal at number 2, nadal did, since his results off clay were inconsistent.
 
drm025 said:
Im not talking about Nadal's resume, Im saying that federer did not deal with Nadal at all, he won in Nadal's absence.

Federer's claim to GOAThood pretty much rests on nadal losing early at RG 2009 anyway. Without RG, feds resume gets a lot weaker.
Click to expand...
Yes but that is hypothetical.
 
drm025 said:
Im pretty sure 5-2 is off clay? Do we not even mention that anymore? Is it just understood that clay doesnt count? The off-clay H2H is now the accepted H2H?

Federer didnt keep nadal at number 2, nadal did, since his results off clay were inconsistent.
Click to expand...
I just corrected it, thank you. Yes, but had Federer not been no 1, Nadal would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
If Nadal wins Wimby, I'm ready to concede he's the GOAT in my book
5 6 7
Replies
301
Views
18K
cknobman
cknobman
B
DO Nadal fans NOT believe Rafa can be GOAT??
Replies
29
Views
2K
flyinghippos101
flyinghippos101
S
Nadal cannot be GOAT even if he wins 17 or more slams
2 3 4
Replies
153
Views
18K
Deleted member 743561
D
OddJack
Federer vs Nadal vs History
2
Replies
75
Views
8K
Flash O'Groove
Flash O'Groove
Hitman
Alcaraz is all gas and no breaks - Will he topple Federer to become the GOAT of Indian Wells?
2
Replies
91
Views
1K
messiahrobins
M
Back
Top