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
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...
Nadal was not great off clay when he was younger.
What was shocking was how comfortably he was at number 2 in the rankings
Also drm, there's a debate going on here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=521836&page=27
 
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...

Nad did it by not being as good as Fed = Fed did it by being by being better then Nad.

Silly to negate something that means the same.
 
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...

Federer beat the guy in straights who annihilated Rafa. End of story.
 
drm025 said:
Doesn't that just speak to how weak the other top competition was then? If Nadal could be number 1 based on clay results alone?
Click to expand...

That says that competition on other surfaces was deeper and more spread (beyond Fed of course) whereas on clay it was not. So, must be weak clay era then which allowed Nadal to collect those points.
 
drm025 said:
Doesn't that just speak to how weak the other top competition was then? If Nadal could be number 1 based on clay results alone?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should look at his results. He was beating lots of good players on other surfaces as well. Just that he was taken to the shed when it came to majors.
 
drm025 said:
Compare Soderling's level against Nadal to his level against Fed in the final. Rare to see a first-time slam finalist playing up to their potential. Fed feasted off of that.
Click to expand...

Berdych, Ferrer...
 
Sysyphus said:
That says that competition on other surfaces was deeper and more spread (beyond Fed of course) whereas on clay it was not. So, must be weak clay era then which allowed Nadal to collect those points.
Click to expand...

That only makes sense if there was a group of top players who were consistently losing to each other. The fact is that none of the players outside of Federer had this kind of consistency. That's what makes it weak.

Nadal always had the consistent competition on clay in Federer, Djokovic, and even Ferrer. You don't beat 3 players 15 times at one slam unless they are extremely consistent.

Name a slam where Federer had to face 3 players a whopping 15 times! (not to mention winning every time)
 
Last edited:
Amritia said:
This is a ridiculous post.
He had to play Djokovic or Federer in 12 out of his 14 Grand Slam wins.
Click to expand...

You use Soderling to ridicule Federer's era, so I am doing the same. Would Federer look better if he wasn't so consistent and didn't make all those French Open finals to lose to Nadal? Or would he then be "avoiding" Rafa?
 
drm025 said:
That only makes sense if there was a group of top players who were consistently losing to each other. The fact is that none of the players outside of Federer had this kind of consistency. That's what makes it weak.

Nadal always had the consistent competition on clay in Federer, Djokovic, and even Ferrer. You don't beat 3 players 15 times at one slam unless they are extremely consistent.
Click to expand...

Consistency ≠ strong. If I play in a tennis league of people who absolutely suck I would be very consistent. It wouldn't make me any better. If there are many good players at all times capable of taking each other out, then it will be strong still. Logical fallacy.
 
Sysyphus said:
Consistency ≠ strong. If I play in a tennis league of people who absolutely suck I would be very consistent. It wouldn't make me any better. If there are many good players at all times capable of taking each other out, then it will be strong still. Logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

If that is true, then throw out a bunch of Federer's records.....

Tennis is a mental game. Many feel that at the top level it is even more mental than physical. Consistency proves your mental abilities. It proves that you can bring your best match-after-match, and its what separates the great players from the good players. The great players are closer to their best more often, and thats why they win more.

No logical fallacy here, no one had great consistency from 2004-2007 outside of Federer and Nadal on clay. They didn't have the mental game. And guess what the one surface was that Fed went slamless on?
 
drm025 said:
If that is true, then throw out a bunch of Federer's records.....
Click to expand...

Yes, Fed's case too. His consistency didn't itself make his level at one specific point higher. It only says something about how long he held a level, not how high it was in a absolute sense. That's the logical fallacy.


Tennis is a mental game. Many feel that at the top level it is even more mental than physical. Consistency proves your mental abilities. It proves that you can bring your best match-after-match, and its what separates the great players from the good players. The great players are closer to their best more often, and thats why they win more.

No logical fallacy here, no one had great consistency from 2004-2007 outside of Federer and Nadal on clay. They didn't have the mental game. And guess what the one surface was that Fed went slamless on?
Click to expand...

If many have the same high mental toughness, then no one will be as consistent. Many will be able to beat each other given little fluctuations in level.
In another era where most suck in this department and three players are medium, the three will be very consistent. So still a logical fallacy. Consistency does not say anything about the absolute level of a field, only relative levels within it.
 
Sysyphus said:
Yes, Fed's case too. His consistency didn't itself make his level at one specific point higher. It only says something about how long he held a level, not how high it was in a absolute sense. That's the logical fallacy.




If many have the same high mental toughness, then no one will be as consistent. Many will be able to beat each other given little fluctuations in level.
In another era where most suck in this department and three players are medium, the three will be very consistent. So still a logical fallacy. Consistency does not say anything about the absolute level of a field, only relative levels within it.
Click to expand...

How many had this same high mental toughness? You fail to understand that these players would need to be only losing to each other to establish that they all have the consistency and mental toughness, but this was not established in 2004-2007. It has been established since, with the rise of the Big 4, mostly only losing to each other on the big stages.

How many players from 2004-2007 had this mental toughness and consistency? Show me which group of players only lost to each other. I don't think you can, because they could lose to anybody. Roddick comes the closest to this consistency, but most agree that his level doesn't approach Fed, Nadal, or Djokovic.
 
drm025 said:
How many had this same high mental toughness? You fail to understand that these players would need to be only losing to each other to establish that they all have the consistency and mental toughness, but this was not established in 2004-2007. It has been established since, with the rise of the Big 4, mostly only losing to each other on the big stages.

How many players from 2004-2007 had this mental toughness and consistency? Show me which group of players only lost to each other. I don't think you can, because they could lose to anybody. Roddick comes the closest to this consistency, but most agree that his level doesn't approach Fed, Nadal, or Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Nail on the head.
 
drm025 said:
How many had this same high mental toughness? You fail to understand that these players would need to be only losing to each other to establish that they all have the consistency and mental toughness, but this was not established in 2004-2007. It has been established since, with the rise of the Big 4, mostly only losing to each other on the big stages.

How many players from 2004-2007 had this mental toughness and consistency? Show me which group of players only lost to each other. I don't think you can, because they could lose to anybody. Roddick comes the closest to this consistency, but most agree that his level doesn't approach Fed, Nadal, or Djokovic.
Click to expand...

I just told why consistency doesn't say anything about the absolute strength of competition. Is it so hard? A mediocre player can be consistent against a sucky field. He will then be extremely mentally tough, no? Likewise, a very good player can be much less consistent in a very strong field. Hence it's a moot point.
 
Sysyphus said:
I just told why consistency doesn't say anything about the absolute strength of competition. Is it so hard? A mediocre player can be consistent against a sucky field. He will then be extremely mentally tough, no? Likewise, a very good player can be much less consistent in a very strong field. Hence it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that there were many more strong players from 2004-2007 but they just couldn't bring it consistently?
 
drm025 said:
So your argument is that there were many more strong players from 2004-2007 but they just couldn't bring it consistently?
Click to expand...

No. I'm arguing that this is as plausible as your claims, and that your argument is thus meaningless. Both of them are nothing but just-so stories that everyone can create about any era.
 
jg153040 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The era was decent, lacking greats at the top. You can discount all the Rafa slams you want, you likely already do, and the world keeps moving...
 
Sabratha said:
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..
Click to expand...

Winning a clay slam might be sufficient barometer for one's prime, if they never got better. Rafa has been winning clay slams over the past 10 years, so that's certainly not enough of a reason. His form on HC was ok, certainly not his prime though, that started around 2008. Which would make him 22, which is a perfectly normal age for him to be in his prime.
 
BringBackSV said:
Winning a clay slam might be sufficient barometer for one's prime, if they never got better. Rafa has been winning clay slams over the past 10 years, so that's certainly not enough of a reason. His form on HC was ok, certainly not his prime though, that started around 2008. Which would make him 22, which is a perfectly normal age for him to be in his prime.
Click to expand...

Players don't wait for the calendar to flip to age 22 to turn "on" their peak. For every player it is different.

And Nadal is really really peculiar. Has distinct peaks on every surface , kind of like Sine Curve.. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Sysyphus said:
No. I'm arguing that this is as plausible as your claims, and that your argument is thus meaningless. Both of them are nothing but just-so stories that everyone can create about any era.
Click to expand...

True. What he is doing is using circular reasoning. And that is a fact.
 
Sysyphus said:
No. I'm arguing that this is as plausible as your claims, and that your argument is thus meaningless. Both of them are nothing but just-so stories that everyone can create about any era.
Click to expand...
Its not a story that 3 players in todays game will go down as all-time greats. To say they are only ATGs because today's field is awful, thats a story. You seem to claim that a players success is dependent upon who else is playing at the time, I say that players create their own success. This seems to be where we differ in opinion.
 
tennisaddict said:
Players don't wait for the calendar to flip to age 22 to turn "on" their peak. For every player it is different.

And Nadal is really really peculiar. Has distinct peaks on every surface , kind of like Sine Curve.. LOL.
Click to expand...

It just generally turns out that way with the greats. If your prime started at 19, it's because your prime lasted a short period of time.
 
vanioMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Steve0904 said:
E. Read D again. :lol:
Click to expand...

F. Read E again. Can't stress enough on it :lol:
 
Steve0904 said:
We need more posters like you. Please stick around. :)
Click to expand...


What, self-important little functionaries who insist on nannying the rest of us around?

This is a fair question, can Nadal fans find it in them to say hey Federer is the better player if Nadal stays at 14 slams or 15? Please note I deliberately did not make it 16 or 17. Under such a scenario which looks like reasonably probable, say 50%, we may then have an accord on the GOAT wars. The dreaded h2h will be right sized to what it is.

Now that you have buried yourself in the trench you will of course not see it that way...
 
YetAnotherFedFan said:
What, self-important little functionaries who insist on nannying the rest of us around?

This is a fair question, can Nadal fans find it in them to say hey Federer is the better player if Nadal stays at 14 slams or 15? Please note I deliberately did not make it 16 or 17. Under such a scenario which looks like reasonably probable, say 50%, we may then have an accord on the GOAT wars. The dreaded h2h will be right sized to what it is.

Now that you have buried yourself in the trench you will of course not see it that way...
Click to expand...

Do you think you would enjoy tennis more if you weren't worried about the fictional notion of a GOAT?
 
BringBackSV said:
Do you think you would enjoy tennis more if you weren't worried about the fictional notion of a GOAT?
Click to expand...


One man's fiction is another man' reality. Though to answer your question I would not enjoy it more, given the intent of your question, nor would I enjoy it less.

Just as much as I am fixated by GOAT's you are consumed by weak era's. Do such phenomenon impinge upon your viewing enjoyment?

You will notice however that the post you were quoting made reference to Federer being better. I diplomatically left out the GOAT word and made reference to it only for the benefit of TTW vernacular to describe the ongoing conflict....
 
YetAnotherFedFan said:
What, self-important little functionaries who insist on nannying the rest of us around?

This is a fair question, can Nadal fans find it in them to say hey Federer is the better player if Nadal stays at 14 slams or 15? Please note I deliberately did not make it 16 or 17. Under such a scenario which looks like reasonably probable, say 50%, we may then have an accord on the GOAT wars. The dreaded h2h will be right sized to what it is.

Now that you have buried yourself in the trench you will of course not see it that way...
Click to expand...

This is a honest answer. I as a Rafa fan do not care about the GOAT debate. I never cared about Rafa surpassing Sampras or Borg or Federer. As an old saying goes - the only person you should try to be better than is the person you were yesterday. I only wish Rafa to get better than he was or to surpass himself if you will. Rafa's only challenge is Rafa himself. This is my point of view.

If you believe Roger is the greatest that is fine. If you are a true Federer fan you should not care about what Rafa or Novak fans think on that infamous and never ending debate. So it's quite clear that this thread can lead to nothing but pointless arguements and hatred. Like we don't have enought of those already.
 
Last edited:
From my calculations, Nadal should win ~20 slams if he can continue until
early 30s. That is probably a base assumption that lots of people argue
Nadal is better player than Federer.

But if he stops winning slams here at 14, Federer would be generally considered
the base player of last 10+ years.
 
vanioMan said:
This is a honest answer. I as a Rafa fan do not care about the GOAT debate. I never cared about Rafa surpassing Sampras or Borg or Federer. As an old saying goes - the only person you should try to be better than is the person you were yesterday. I only wish Rafa to get better than he was or to surpass himself if you will. Rafa's only challenge is Rafa himself. This is my point of view.

If you believe Roger is the greatest that is fine. If you are a true Federer fan you should not care about what Rafa or Novak fans think on that infamous and never ending debate. So it's quite clear that this thread can lead to nothing but pointless arguements and hatred. Like we don't have enought of those already.
Click to expand...


You have spoken your truth, thank you.

You are welcome to jump to whatever conclusions you like about the intent of this thread. The crux of the matter remains that if the facts had not been so greatly distorted by certain fans in their insistence to rubbish other players, we would likely have no need for such a thread. However, like you felt the need to weigh in on this discussion, so do I to understand what the cut off is for continuing to undermine Federer on the perceived notion that the H2H actually matters in terms of tennis resumes.

It appears that that the hardcore element still think a two to three slam advantage is not enough. That is real hatred my friend.
 
YetAnotherFedFan said:
You have spoken your truth, thank you.

You are welcome to jump to whatever conclusions you like about the intent of this thread. The crux of the matter remains that if the facts had not been so greatly distorted by certain fans in their insistence to rubbish other players, we would likely have no need for such a thread. However, like you felt the need to weigh in on this discussion, so do I to understand what the cut off is for continuing to undermine Federer on the perceived notion that the H2H actually matters in terms of tennis resumes.

It appears that that the hardcore element still think a two to three slam advantage is not enough. That is real hatred my friend.
Click to expand...

I just like both players and admire their achievements. It sucks when either fanbase tries to diminish the achievements of one or the other. Being a fan of one player does not mean you should despise his rival and belittle his accomplishments. Especially when we're talking about two of the greatest sports figures in all sports. People can't even realise how lucky they are to witness them play together for over a decade.

Believe me, one day Rafa and Roger will both retire and all those haters (not pointing anybody in particular) will realise how unnecessary their hatred was and how immature they behaved. But it will be too late :)
 
Last edited:
vanioMan said:
I just like both players and admire their achievements. It sucks when either fanbase tries to diminish the achievements of one or the other. Being a fan of one player does not mean you should despise his rival and belittle his accomplishments.

Believe me, one Rafa and Roger will both retire and all those haters (not pointing anybody in particular) will realise how unnecessary their hatred was and how immature they behaved. But it will be too late :)
Click to expand...

Great post, mate!
 
YetAnotherFedFan said:
One man's fiction is another man' reality. Though to answer your question I would not enjoy it more, given the intent of your question, nor would I enjoy it less.

Just as much as I am fixated by GOAT's you are consumed by weak era's. Do such phenomenon impinge upon your viewing enjoyment?

You will notice however that the post you were quoting made reference to Federer being better. I diplomatically left out the GOAT word and made reference to it only for the benefit of TTW vernacular to describe the ongoing conflict....
Click to expand...

I don't think you actually know my position then. Do I get a bit annoyed by Fed fans who want to turn everything into an argument about who is the greatest? Sure and I'm sure that in response to this I've talked about relative strength of era's but it's certainly nothing I'd start a thread about.

Honestly, if you think Fed is better, why do you need Rafa fans to agree with you? This is my biggest issue, some Fed fans just can't take it if people don't agree with them on the matter. Is it really that big of a deal ?
 
YetAnotherFedFan said:
You have spoken your truth, thank you.

You are welcome to jump to whatever conclusions you like about the intent of this thread. The crux of the matter remains that if the facts had not been so greatly distorted by certain fans in their insistence to rubbish other players, we would likely have no need for such a thread. However, like you felt the need to weigh in on this discussion, so do I to understand what the cut off is for continuing to undermine Federer on the perceived notion that the H2H actually matters in terms of tennis resumes.

It appears that that the hardcore element still think a two to three slam advantage is not enough. That is real hatred my friend.
Click to expand...

You sound like Chico...
 
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...

Yes, yes, we all know that Nadal is already vastly superior to Sampras but this thread is asking if he if will ever approach Federer.
 
vanioMan said:
I just like both players and admire their achievements. It sucks when either fanbase tries to diminish the achievements of one or the other. Being a fan of one player does not mean you should despise his rival and belittle his accomplishments. Especially when we're talking about two of the greatest sports figures in all sports. People can't even realise how lucky they are to witness them play together for over a decade.

Believe me, one day Rafa and Roger will both retire and all those haters (not pointing anybody in particular) will realise how unnecessary their hatred was and how immature they behaved. But it will be too late :)
Click to expand...
I've been saying the same for nearly a decade now. Thanks mate!

dudeski said:
Yes, yes, we all know that Nadal is already vastly superior to Sampras but this thread is asking if he if will ever approach Federer.
Click to expand...
:twisted: *PAWNED*
 
BringBackSV said:
I don't think you actually know my position then. Do I get a bit annoyed by Fed fans who want to turn everything into an argument about who is the greatest? Sure and I'm sure that in response to this I've talked about relative strength of era's but it's certainly nothing I'd start a thread about.



Honestly, if you think Fed is better, why do you need Rafa fans to agree with you? This is my biggest issue, some Fed fans just can't take it if people don't agree with them on the matter. Is it really that big of a deal ?
Click to expand...


So you are saying it is unreasonable to pose the question then?

One thing I can be sure about however is that you like to argue for the sake of an argument. I mean you write on this thread not about the actual issue but making contrary arguments about the actual issue being discussed. And then you have the chutzpah to have an 'issue' with some Federer fans in turn having an issue to being disagreed with....
 
With the generally accepted convention that 'All Time' = 'Open Era' and 'Greatest' meaning 'The one with the greatest achievements' , the answer has to be a resounding 'YES'.
 
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