blarvitread
Banned
Yes I agree. It would be about a toss up between the 2 in that scenario.
If Nadal won the AO final would it have been his year?
- Thread starter The_Order
- Start date
Yes I agree. It would be about a toss up between the 2 in that scenario.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
7 majors difference is far, far too large a gap for any amount of other achievements to bridge, and I consider myself to be a member of the "slams aren't everything" club.
They are still the most important stat.
If Nadal gets 1-2 majors ahead of Federer, I would still pick Federer because of his insane weeks at #1, 6 WTFs, and loads of other records.
Also a better balance of titles vs. a very clay-heavy resume.
I think Nadal would need 20 GS for GOAT status as things currently stand with Fed's career.
I think Roger's total career is undervalued at 17 GS, I think 20-22 is more on the mark.
But if Djokovic wants to get in the conversation with Nadal, he needs 12 majors minimum IMO, and that's if Nadal wins no more.
I personally would have him ahead of Nadal at 14 due to Djoker's superior #1 weeks and WTFs.
But Djokovic isn't getting 14, I doubt he gets more than 10 TBH.
They are still the most important stat.
If Nadal gets 1-2 majors ahead of Federer, I would still pick Federer because of his insane weeks at #1, 6 WTFs, and loads of other records.
Also a better balance of titles vs. a very clay-heavy resume.
I think Nadal would need 20 GS for GOAT status as things currently stand with Fed's career.
I think Roger's total career is undervalued at 17 GS, I think 20-22 is more on the mark.
But if Djokovic wants to get in the conversation with Nadal, he needs 12 majors minimum IMO, and that's if Nadal wins no more.
I personally would have him ahead of Nadal at 14 due to Djoker's superior #1 weeks and WTFs.
But Djokovic isn't getting 14, I doubt he gets more than 10 TBH.
Last edited by a moderator:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Prabhanjan
Professional
A simple answer: YES, it would be his year no matter the rankings and Nole and Fed give their nod too (may be not officially).
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Completely agree. There's no way Djokovic could ever earn enough weeks at #1 to make up a 7 slam difference, especially since Nadal has held the position for 141 weeks himself.
If Nadal ends up with 18 or 19, he would be ahead of not just Federer but everyone else.
What's this supposed to mean? That he should have 20-22 majors? I don't see how you can say this considering he had his chance to win that many but wasn't good enough to beat Nadal.
Yeah 12 majors and a LOT more weeks at #1 and significantly more Masters and maybe he'd be considered for greater achiever than Nadal, but I'd still take 14 majors over 12.
But yeah, I agree, Novak should end up with 10-11 majors. For him to pass that he'd have to perform even better from age 28-33 than Federer. Don't see that happening.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I thought you didn't believe in a GOAT? Or do you just not believe anyone is far enough above the pack for it to be clear.
---------------
On topic, if Nadal won the AO then Djokoic's YE #1 would have an * next to it - everyone would wonder what if Nadal had been healthy for the last 40% of the year. Djokovic would be rightly the best player of the year still though IMO as Nadal would not have competed enough to have that honor.
torpantennis
Legend
It would've been so ridiculous to have a two-slam winner at YE#3!
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I don't. Do you even know what GOAT stands for?
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all from a similar era. Their achievements can be compared.
You can't compare them to players from the 70's or 40's or before that.
---------------
It seems like most would prefer to be ranked #3 with 2 majors rather than ranked #1 with only 1 major...
NatF
Bionic Poster
You said Nadal would be a head of everyone else, sounds like you're comparing across era's. If you're not then once Nadal is a head of Federer no one else in this era is of consequence, so the 'everyone else' is redundant.
Anyway, we'll see where they end up
Like I said, Nadal missed a lot of the year. I think you need to play and win frequently to be the best player in the world. Missing out so much of the year doesn't cut it IMO.
Whether someone would prefer one or the other is slightly different. I'd take Djokovic's year if I was offered a choice between the 2, I don't fancy the back pain, appendicitis and fooked wrist despite the extra slam. I also rate the #1 ranking very highly. But many would believe Nadal when healthy was the best player that year - and they'd be right. Unfortunately he wasn't healthy.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
You Sirius?My apologies, I won't post here no more
Bender
G.O.A.T.
Typical underrating and disrespect of Djokovic, the real #1 by desperate Fedal coalition
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
You said Nadal would be a head of everyone else, sounds like you're comparing across era's. If you're not then once Nadal is a head of Federer no one else in this era is of consequence, so the 'everyone else' is redundant.
Anyway, we'll see where they end up
well yeah, i meant everyone else he's competing against. Djokovic in particular.
It's not about being regarded as the best player in the world though. The question is, which is a better season. 2 slams + 1 Masters or 1 slam + WTF + 4 Masters?
So far majority thinks the 2 slams are better...
NatF
Bionic Poster
He's already head and shoulders above Djokovic...
Ok, ignoring the ranking and just looking at the achievements;
Nadal;
Slams: W, W, 4R, DNP
Masters: 16-5 record, with 1 W and 2 RU
Also 1 250 and 1 500.
48-11 win/loss for 81%
Djokovic;
Slams: QF, F, W, SF
Masters: 28-4, with 4 W
Also won the WTF and a 500.
61-8 win/loss for 88%
Djokovic would of had the better year IMO. Wimbledon + WTF + 3 Masters + more consistent results edges the extra slam I think.
It's the same sort of reasoning I have for believing Roddick had the better career than Rafter despite having one less slam. It's fair enough if you and the majority think Nadal would have had the better achievements.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
I think Rafa's year in this very hypothetical situation would be better. We place importance on slams more than anyone else, and until that attitude changes, we have to accept that conclusion, even if said conclusion doesn't sound satisfying. We can't ditch an established or working logic / hierarchy just because "it didn't seem right". Not everything that seems right is necessarily correct.
Weeks at / YE #1 usually comes with winning slams or even masters titles - we never gave Wozniacki any credit for #1 because she won "Mickey Mouse" tournaments to get there.
Plus, it's not like Nadal lost 1R in every non slam tournament this year - he did go fairly deep in the masters and only really got sidelined due to injury.
But as we all recognise, this is only if Nadal had won AO. To any rational person, the best player of this year is by far Djokovic, just as it was Nadal the year before.
Weeks at / YE #1 usually comes with winning slams or even masters titles - we never gave Wozniacki any credit for #1 because she won "Mickey Mouse" tournaments to get there.
Plus, it's not like Nadal lost 1R in every non slam tournament this year - he did go fairly deep in the masters and only really got sidelined due to injury.
But as we all recognise, this is only if Nadal had won AO. To any rational person, the best player of this year is by far Djokovic, just as it was Nadal the year before.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Not according to some. They think that Novak's weeks at #1 can make up the difference even though it's going to take until April for him to surpass Nadal in that regard.
Fair enough.
Though, yeah I'd take the 2 slams.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
The truth is, Stan didn't break through he got lucky that Nadal was injured. How can 29 year old Stan motivate the younger guys to step up?
Prabhanjan
Professional
Except that he was not lucky. It is not the case that except Stan no one knew Nadal would be injured in the finals. Or that you can even say Nadal was lucky in not drawing the form that Stan exhibited on their earlier encounters.
Why not? Stan's break through might how just motivated Cilic in that Del Potro and Safin were the only exception in the last 40+slams. Note that I am not claiming it has influenced
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Couldn't agree more.
I don't really start the season with expectations for Rafa. I just want to see him play and hopefully stay healthy. If he does that, he's likely to add to his list of achievements.
I'm at the stage where Nadal has already won 14 majors. For me, that's an incredible career. Didn't think he'd get that many when I first saw him live against Hewitt in AO04 I felt like he could be a future #1 and maybe win a handful of slams, but he exceeded that pretty quickly.
I'm a satisfied fan already. If I HAD to pick 2 more majors for him to win they'd be 1 more AO and 1 more RG. Double career slam and 10 titles at a major are 2 very unique (and imo significant) achievements and they're going to be near impossible to beat, I mean will we ever see a guy win all 4 majors 3 times? Or a guy win one of the majors 11 times?
S
Sirius Black
Guest
Stan did break through and he deserved that slam, and do the names Cilic and Nishikori ring a bell?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Djokovic would still have had the better season in my opinion. #1 > #3.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Cilic had a high level (probably about Del Potro 2009 level). He barely won anything else besides the USO and was in pretty bad form right after winning it too. He is also only ending the year at #9.
Nishikori has been way more consistent than Cilic post USO and is now ranked #5 in the world. I'd back him way more than Cilic at this point.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Exactly. Nadal fans seem to think that 2 Slams > anything else no matter what the other best player wins but it doesn't quite work like that. Consistency and playing a full season are also very important but sadly this is a foreign concept to most of them.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Has nothing to do with being Nadal fans. In any year where I won 2 slams, and no one else did, I'd want those results no matter what. Ask Serena how she got to 18 slams and what she majors in :lol:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Read post #46 babes and tell me hand on heart that you'd rather have the 2 Slam season.
blarvitread
Banned
Like I said 1 slam would only overcome 2 slams in the most extreme cases. The only time I remember most people thinking a 1 slam year was legitimately better than a 2 slam year was Graf vs Navratilova in 87. Yes Graf ended the year with something around a 86-2 record (I don't remember the exact figure) and 12 titles, and Navratilova won only 4 of 14 tournaments played total. Yet even there it was a hot debate, and 40-45% of people sided with Navratilova even in that extreme differential. If you don't believe me I would be happy to link to where the debate took place.
So naturally anything less than that (and as Djokovic's 2014 is nowhere near Graf's 1987 that already applies) and the majority would side with the 2 slam year.
So naturally anything less than that (and as Djokovic's 2014 is nowhere near Graf's 1987 that already applies) and the majority would side with the 2 slam year.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
You could go undefeated the entire year, and I could win 2 slams, and I'd choose the 2 slams.
Serena says it best here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4DHCdE7quU
S
Sirius Black
Guest
To be fair, Nadal did win Madrid this year, so he'd have two slams and one masters, not just two slams.
S
Sirius Black
Guest
Lol how would this happen? The undefeated player would have to skip the slams or have a 1-0 record or something of the sort.
This is a very important topic. But perhaps a more pertinent question would be would you prefer in a year, to win 3 slams or to win 2 slams???
And to provide you with something even more provocative to consider, would you prefer 4 slams or 2 slams won in a year?? It's definitely worth discussing.
And to provide you with something even more provocative to consider, would you prefer 4 slams or 2 slams won in a year?? It's definitely worth discussing.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
True, but I'd still go with the 1 Slam year myself.
blarvitread
Banned
He meant undefeated for the rest of the year outside the slams. Which actually applies perfectly to my Graf vs Navratilova 87 example. Graf DID in fact go undefeated for the year outside the slams, and won 1 slam and reached the finals of all 3 slams she played on top of that. Navratilova won 2 slams, but almost nothing else, 2 very minor tournaments were her only remaining wins. Her W-L record, tournament titles for the year, success in next biggest tournaments (WTF, Miami, etc...) were light years behind Graf. Basically a chasm in anything but slam titles for the year, much larger than Nadal vs Djokovic would have been this year as Djokovic's 2014 comes nowhere near Graf's 1987. Yet people still debate who deserved #1 that year between Navratilova and Graf. Explain that away if you will.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
How could you not win all 4 Slams if you were to go undefeated all year?
:roll: obviously I mean the only 2 matches you lost were the slam finals to me. I.E winning every single match but those. You already knew that though and are just mad I'm not changing my mind no matter the situation :lol: troll.
He knows :lol:
And remain on tier 2.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
^^^ I genuinely didn't know what you meant baby boy! I just can't believe how much you disregard everything else, in fact it really amazes me! :shock: I do however feel another thread coming on very soon......
blarvitread
Banned
I also fully expect my Graf vs Navratilova 87 example to be ignored by the obvious parties as it bust their beloved theory that 1 slam difference can easily be made up by just winning 2 more tournaments or something like that (or in some special cases like Djokovic in 2013 can be made up even by winning 2 less Masters and 3 less tournaments amazingly. :lol: ) That seems to be the tactic here, when you cant tackle an example or rebuttal just ignore it til it goes away.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
blarvitread
Banned
Graf finished 87 as #1 anyway so what's the problem?
You don't get the point I am making. People still debate whether Graf or Navratilova deserved #1. On another forum there was a poll who deserved #1 that year and Navratilova had about 45% of the votes, after hundreds of voters. If you don't believe me I will show you the link myself. Navratilova herself b*tched and maoned about not being YE#1. This all shows my essential point, it was heavily debated who deserved #1 that year ONLY due to 2 slams vs 1. As here are their respective stats:
Graf:
13 tournaments played. 11 tournaments won, 2 runner up
non slam tournaments- 10 played, 10 won
slams- W, RU, RU
YEC- won
Miami (the 5th or 6th slam in importance then)- won
W-L for year- 75-2
Navratilova
12 tournaments played. 4 tournaments won, 4 runner up, 3 semifinal losses, 1 quarterfinal loss
non slam tournaments played- 10 played, 2 won
slams- RU, RU, W, W
YEC- quarterfinals
Miami- semifinals
W-L for year- 57-8
So why the debate if 2 slams >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 slam, as you seem to dispute. Also you cant possibly suggest Djokovic's 2014 is even in the same stratosphere as Graf's 87 so if even this is debated, it is very likely most would side with Nadal's 2014 in the proposed scenario.
edmondsm
Legend
She's at 18 majors and healthy. If you win two slams and then suffer injuries that you never recover from, will people really remember that as a great year for you?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
History will remember the slam count.
edmondsm
Legend
That's not what we're talking about. Read the thread title and stop steering off topic for the benefit of your position.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make. I agree that Graf's 87 was better than Martina's which really just highlights the point I've been trying to make, namely that a 1 Slam season can be better than a 2 Slam season if you have won the other most important titles(such as Year End championships and Masters) and have a better W/L%.
Edit: Just noticed that 'blarvitread' has been banned. Not to worry, he'll be back again this time next week.
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
^^^ Absolutely brilliant - love it! :razz:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
If I was in Nadal's position, I'd take the two slams no matter what.
He is chasing Fed's record, and every slam win counts in his current position.
If I was Djokovic, I would choose his year (1 slam, 4 MS etc.) because there is 0% chance of him ever getting the record, so it doesn't matter as much.
If I was just myself, and it was my only year on tour, I would probably choose the two slams as well.
I would want my name on AO and RG trophy, thank you very much!
The only thing here is that the one slam Djokovic won was Wimbledon.
I would like to win Wimbledon the most because of the significance, but I would also like to win the AO, my favourite slam.
I just think that the AO is the best tournament around, really.
He is chasing Fed's record, and every slam win counts in his current position.
If I was Djokovic, I would choose his year (1 slam, 4 MS etc.) because there is 0% chance of him ever getting the record, so it doesn't matter as much.
If I was just myself, and it was my only year on tour, I would probably choose the two slams as well.
I would want my name on AO and RG trophy, thank you very much!
The only thing here is that the one slam Djokovic won was Wimbledon.
I would like to win Wimbledon the most because of the significance, but I would also like to win the AO, my favourite slam.
I just think that the AO is the best tournament around, really.
Last edited by a moderator:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
^^^ Don't forget Nole also won the WTF Firstservingman! :smile:
Similar threads
- Poll
