If Nadal...

Bud

Bionic Poster
Lol, whenever Nadal loses because his knees are messed up, *******s claim that he's making excuses. Then whenever someone says Nadal will win many majors, *******s claim his knees are messed up.

Such creative logic!

That is humorous :)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Nobody cares about SF appearances
No, *********s don't care about SF appearances because Nadal is MIA in most of them. :oops:

*********s also don't care about GS final appearances because Nadal has only made 11 finals while Federer has made 22 finals. That's twice as many. :oops:

Oh, and only *********s care about H2H when no one else does. :???:
 
No, *********s don't care about SF appearances because Nadal is MIA in most of them. :oops:

*********s also don't care about GS final appearances because Nadal has only made 11 finals while Federer has made 22 finals. That's twice as many. :oops:

Oh, and only *********s care about H2H when no one else does. :???:

ummm Federer is about 5 years older than Nadal.

Who cares about Finals appearances when you need a 5 year head-start lol. Conversion rate is the key anyway, and Rafa sure has that.
 

aphex

Banned
Because he can get girls that you see on Ralph Magazine.

"Ralph's sexiest sisters"?

-Nadal is into incestuous relations and likes to eat kebab's nude?

backfire-plan-failed.jpg
 

racketspec

Rookie
I have never commented on these kind of posts before as I generally can't quite believe Nadal fans' arraogance and sheer pig headedness and quickly flick to another thread dismissing them as jealous children. However, this is just getting ridiculous.

Seriously, How old are these Nad-****s on average? 10? 11? Younger? Any older and I'd begin to wonder about how far you're going to get in life with all this pent up rage and incessant need to belittle Federer's achievements. Get a life guys. Tennis is not a one man sport.

The fact of the matter is we are currently witnessing something never seen before in the world of tennis. Two completely dominant players who have won all but two of the last 7-8 years worth of grand slams. Right now, Federer is unarguably the greatest as he has won 16 slams - this is the ONLY way people remember how great someone is. I have no idea how many masters he has won and quite simply don't care. No-one says how many Laver won (and I know they weren't around then!). Any other way of comparing achievements is just pointless. 16 (across all surfaces) is all history will remember.

Nadal may get there, but he still as 7 to go to just level Fed. That's by no means a given as there is Fed to play against, as well as Murray, Djoker and any of the top 10 who also have a serious shout of winning a slam.

Seriously guys, chill out a little, take a step back and look at it objectively. Due to Fed and now Nadal aswell, tennis is arguably as popular as it has ever been. We need both of them. If Fed kept winning everything it would become boring, despite his game being easy on the eye. If Nadal kept winning people would get turned off by his bruising style.

I for one, would love to see Murray win one. God knows he couldn't have got any closer than he already has done!
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
...His doctor is the pioneer of blood-spinning treatment. Sorry.
You can't help yourself can you? It's like some mantra to mention this in every 3rd post you make.

...I read that his treatment takes 4 days and his knee is immediately 100% after those 4 days.
This proves (yet again) what a partisan hack you are. Every sports doctor and sports person who's been injured on the planet would be laughing at you right now if they read that. Please show us where this was written by anyone with any level of credibility.

Seriously. How on earth does this stuff enter your head and make enough sense that you actually think people wont simply laugh at you when you type it as fact?

I'm actually picturing you at your keyboard with a poster of the inventor of blood spinning on the wall next to you which you reach out an touch every so often to remind yourself of his greatness.
 
Last edited:

amaze

New User
wins the AO, he will be the only man in history to hold all four grandslams on four different surfaces. He will have dominated the tour on every single surface. Add the fact that he has a gold medal in singles, which Sampras, Laver and Federer do not have, and the fact that he has the most master's despite being in the middle of his career....I think it's safe to say that if he wins the AO, he's the GOAT.

Thoughts?
Your signature says "13/09/10 <--- The day Nadal became the GOAT. "
Yet you ask us whether this AO will make him the GOAT...
Aren't you finding yourself a bit confused?:cry:
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Your signature says "13/09/10 <--- The day Nadal became the GOAT. "
Yet you ask us whether this AO will make him the GOAT...
Aren't you finding yourself a bit confused?:cry:

Oh, I already believe without a doubt that he's the GOAT. I think if he wins the AO, he will be the indisputable GOAT. Federer won most of his majors against complete chumps, whereas Nadal won most of his majors against Federer. Nadal is obviously better.
 
Oh, I already believe without a doubt that he's the GOAT. I think if he wins the AO, he will be the indisputable GOAT. Federer won most of his majors against complete chumps, whereas Nadal won most of his majors against Federer. Nadal is obviously better.

I see, so these are the same chumps that prevented Nadal from getting to more slam finals from 2005-2007?
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
I see, so these are the same chumps that prevented Nadal from getting to more slam finals from 2005-2007?

Yes, they prevented a 19 year old clay courter from making more slam finals. Now that Nadal is at his peak, those chumps are getting destroyed. Federer faced those people in his prime.
 
Yes, they prevented a 19 year old clay courter from making more slam finals. Now that Nadal is at his peak, those chumps are getting destroyed. Federer faced those people in his prime.

Yeah a 19 year old who had already won a slam. A lot more than those chumps combined! Yet those chumps somehow foiled any further slams in those years.
 
Oh, I already believe without a doubt that he's the GOAT. I think if he wins the AO, he will be the indisputable GOAT. Federer won most of his majors against complete chumps, whereas Nadal won most of his majors against Federer. Nadal is obviously better.

Nadal can't even beat one of those "chumps" in Davydenko who Federer beat 12 times in a row in his prime. Nadal is also known for his perfect records against such chumps as Hewitt, Roddick and Nalbandian

Nadal is a demolishing 18-15 against Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian combined
 
Last edited:

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Oh, I already believe without a doubt that he's the GOAT. I think if he wins the AO, he will be the indisputable GOAT. Federer won most of his majors against complete chumps, whereas Nadal won most of his majors against Federer. Nadal is obviously better.

So Nadal won most of his majors against an overrated chump who won most of his majors against chumps?

implied-facepalm.jpg
 

Speranza

Hall of Fame
I have never commented on these kind of posts before as I generally can't quite believe Nadal fans' arraogance and sheer pig headedness and quickly flick to another thread dismissing them as jealous children. However, this is just getting ridiculous.

Seriously, How old are these Nad-****s on average? 10? 11? Younger? Any older and I'd begin to wonder about how far you're going to get in life with all this pent up rage and incessant need to belittle Federer's achievements. Get a life guys. Tennis is not a one man sport.


The fact of the matter is we are currently witnessing something never seen before in the world of tennis. Two completely dominant players who have won all but two of the last 7-8 years worth of grand slams. Right now, Federer is unarguably the greatest as he has won 16 slams - this is the ONLY way people remember how great someone is. I have no idea how many masters he has won and quite simply don't care. No-one says how many Laver won (and I know they weren't around then!). Any other way of comparing achievements is just pointless. 16 (across all surfaces) is all history will remember.

Nadal may get there, but he still as 7 to go to just level Fed. That's by no means a given as there is Fed to play against, as well as Murray, Djoker and any of the top 10 who also have a serious shout of winning a slam.

Seriously guys, chill out a little, take a step back and look at it objectively. Due to Fed and now Nadal aswell, tennis is arguably as popular as it has ever been. We need both of them. If Fed kept winning everything it would become boring, despite his game being easy on the eye. If Nadal kept winning people would get turned off by his bruising style.

I for one, would love to see Murray win one. God knows he couldn't have got any closer than he already has done!

Holmes: This is already the best post I have read in the last several months.

PS I do think the bolded part explains part of the problem here.
 

JeMar

Legend
I have never commented on these kind of posts before as I generally can't quite believe Nadal fans' arraogance and sheer pig headedness and quickly flick to another thread dismissing them as jealous children. However, this is just getting ridiculous.

Seriously, How old are these Nad-****s on average? 10? 11? Younger? Any older and I'd begin to wonder about how far you're going to get in life with all this pent up rage and incessant need to belittle Federer's achievements. Get a life guys. Tennis is not a one man sport.

The fact of the matter is we are currently witnessing something never seen before in the world of tennis. Two completely dominant players who have won all but two of the last 7-8 years worth of grand slams. Right now, Federer is unarguably the greatest as he has won 16 slams - this is the ONLY way people remember how great someone is. I have no idea how many masters he has won and quite simply don't care. No-one says how many Laver won (and I know they weren't around then!). Any other way of comparing achievements is just pointless. 16 (across all surfaces) is all history will remember.

Nadal may get there, but he still as 7 to go to just level Fed. That's by no means a given as there is Fed to play against, as well as Murray, Djoker and any of the top 10 who also have a serious shout of winning a slam.

Seriously guys, chill out a little, take a step back and look at it objectively. Due to Fed and now Nadal aswell, tennis is arguably as popular as it has ever been. We need both of them. If Fed kept winning everything it would become boring, despite his game being easy on the eye. If Nadal kept winning people would get turned off by his bruising style.

I for one, would love to see Murray win one. God knows he couldn't have got any closer than he already has done!

He could've won a set in a slam final, ooooooh.


Sorry, I loved your post, but I just had to. :(
 

The-Champ

Legend
I have never commented on these kind of posts before as I generally can't quite believe Nadal fans' arraogance and sheer pig headedness and quickly flick to another thread dismissing them as jealous children. However, this is just getting ridiculous.

Seriously, How old are these Nad-****s on average? 10? 11? Younger? Any older and I'd begin to wonder about how far you're going to get in life with all this pent up rage and incessant need to belittle Federer's achievements. Get a life guys. Tennis is not a one man sport.



The fact of the matter is we are currently witnessing something never seen before in the world of tennis. Two completely dominant players who have won all but two of the last 7-8 years worth of grand slams. Right now, Federer is unarguably the greatest as he has won 16 slams - this is the ONLY way people remember how great someone is. I have no idea how many masters he has won and quite simply don't care. No-one says how many Laver won (and I know they weren't around then!). Any other way of comparing achievements is just pointless. 16 (across all surfaces) is all history will remember.

Nadal may get there, but he still as 7 to go to just level Fed. That's by no means a given as there is Fed to play against, as well as Murray, Djoker and any of the top 10 who also have a serious shout of winning a slam.

Seriously guys, chill out a little, take a step back and look at it objectively. Due to Fed and now Nadal aswell, tennis is arguably as popular as it has ever been. We need both of them. If Fed kept winning everything it would become boring, despite his game being easy on the eye. If Nadal kept winning people would get turned off by his bruising style.

I for one, would love to see Murray win one. God knows he couldn't have got any closer than he already has done!


If you want to be the ambassador of "good posting", at least try not to be biased. If Nadal-****s are 10-11 year-olds, at least they are acting their age. Fed-****s however are probably on average above 30, but act as if they were 6, by constantly reminding everyone Federer is the GOAT and that former greats are sh1t in comparison.


I agree on Murray. I hope he wins his first slam this year.
 
No, *********s don't care about SF appearances because Nadal is MIA in most of them. :oops:

*********s also don't care about GS final appearances because Nadal has only made 11 finals while Federer has made 22 finals. That's twice as many. :oops:

Oh, and only *********s care about H2H when no one else does. :???:

Bold 1) How can he be MIA? 2 SF at AO, 5 at FO, 4 at Wim and 3 at USO. How many GS SF's did Fed make it to at age 24?

Bold 2) How many slam finals did Fed make it to when he was 24? It's easy for you to compare Fed's achievements when he is 5 years older and therefore had more opportunies to reach those finals.

3) You don't care about h2h because Rafa owns him in that department, he couldn't even beat him on his favorite surface when it mattered most, he ended up crying in front of everyone. He must've learnt from his fellow countrywoman in Hingis didn't he?
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
wins the AO, he will be the only man in history to hold all four grandslams on four different surfaces. He will have dominated the tour on every single surface. Add the fact that he has a gold medal in singles, which Sampras, Laver and Federer do not have, and the fact that he has the most master's despite being in the middle of his career....I think it's safe to say that if he wins the AO, he's the GOAT.

Thoughts?

It's safe to say that 10 slams is incredibly weak for a GOAT. This is bandwagon bull.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Oh, I already believe without a doubt that he's the GOAT. I think if he wins the AO, he will be the indisputable GOAT. Federer won most of his majors against complete chumps, whereas Nadal won most of his majors against Federer. Nadal is obviously better.

So is Federer good or not for beating those chumps? If they were just chumps, and Federer didn't earn those slams, then Nadal didn't earn his slams either, because he only had to play the easy chump Federer who only got all his glory by playing other chumps. This logic is ********. Federer and Nadal are obviously both amazing tennis players and some of the greatest ever to pick up a racquet.

The only way to solve this situation is to look at it objectively without all the nonsensical retardation involved in it; that is, that EVERY grand slam is a title that is earned, because every grand slam requires you to be at the top of your game for two entire weeks, with no slip-ups. Trying to take away from Federer's 16 due to diverse final opponents or add to Nadal's 9 due to homogeneous final opponents is absurd.
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
So is Federer good or not for beating those chumps? If they were just chumps, and Federer didn't earn those slams, then Nadal didn't earn his slams either, because he only had to play the easy chump Federer who only got all his glory by playing other chumps. This logic is ********. Federer and Nadal are obviously both amazing tennis players and some of the greatest ever to pick up a racquet.

The only way to solve this situation is to look at it objectively without all the nonsensical retardation involved in it; that is, that EVERY grand slam is a title that is earned, because every grand slam requires you to be at the top of your game for two entire weeks, with no slip-ups. Trying to take away from Federer's 16 due to diverse final opponents or add to Nadal's 9 due to homogeneous final opponents is absurd.

Alright, fine. Phillipousis, Gonzalez, Baghdadis, Roddick and Hewitt are formidable opponents.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Alright, fine. Phillipousis, Gonzalez, Baghdadis, Roddick and Hewitt are formidable opponents.

Surely you can see your logic fail?

If Federer just beat "chumps" (your words), then how is it in any way impressive that Nadal beat Federer for so many of his slams?
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Surely you can see your logic fail?

If Federer just beat "chumps" (your words), then how is it in any way impressive that Nadal beat Federer for so many of his slams?

Federer still beat those idiots, which means Federer is better than them. Therefore, Nadal beat a guy who was better than all those people.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
Surely you can see your logic fail?

If Federer just beat "chumps" (your words), then how is it in any way impressive that Nadal beat Federer for so many of his slams?
Nadal's last three grand slams have been against competitive players like Soderling, Berdych, and Djokovic. Those guy's never looked defeated at all. They fought until the last point. :lol:
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I'm a Rafa fan, but even I think that the OP is jumping to conclusions here. I honestly don't see how winning the AO will make him the indisputable GOAT.

...and *******s can lay off with the insults. If there is anything that we can pretty much all agree on, it's that:

a) Fed is at the moment the GOAT; but
b) Rafa is already up there somewhere, or at the very least well on his way

Fed has gotten to a point where even if he drops dead tomorrow, he'll still be topping the list. If Rafa drops dead tomorrow, he'll be nowhere near the top of that list. That said, he may well beat Fed if, and only if he follows our extrapolations. That means that there must not be a new player he will have difficulty beating (as Rafa is to Fed atm), and that his knees won't go kaputt on him (which has already happened once). Arguing that Rafa is better than Fed because of his winning record is a flawed argument; Kolya has a winning record against Rafa, but I don't see anyone arguing that he is better than Rafa, for example.

Where does that leave you? Nowhere; it's all speculation. At least *******s have got 16 GS, 17 Masters 1000, and 5 WTFs to cite; even with Nadal having more Masters 1000s titles under his belt, he's got to at least rival Fed's number of GS before you can even think about concluding Nadal as GOAT.

No reasonable human being is denying that Nadal is definitely one of the greatest players of all time; what I'm saying is that calling him the GOAT is just uncalled for. It's just too soon.
 
Exactly. Federer steam rolled through a bunch of retards to win his slams. Nadal had to at least slay the guy who slayed retards, making his grand slams more legit.

In other words you essentially contradict yourself. Nadal beat a guy who beats chumps. And that's his claim to the GOAT??? LOLLLLLLLLLLLL. What a loser you are.
 
I'm a Rafa fan, but even I think that the OP is jumping to conclusions here. I honestly don't see how winning the AO will make him the indisputable GOAT.

...and *******s can lay off with the insults. If there is anything that we can pretty much all agree on, it's that:

a) Fed is at the moment the GOAT; but
b) Rafa is already up there somewhere, or at the very least well on his way

Fed has gotten to a point where even if he drops dead tomorrow, he'll still be topping the list. If Rafa drops dead tomorrow, he'll be nowhere near the top of that list. That said, he may well beat Fed if, and only if he follows our extrapolations. That means that there must not be a new player he will have difficulty beating (as Rafa is to Fed atm), and that his knees won't go kaputt on him (which has already happened once). Arguing that Rafa is better than Fed because of his winning record is a flawed argument; Kolya has a winning record against Rafa, but I don't see anyone arguing that he is better than Rafa, for example.

Where does that leave you? Nowhere; it's all speculation. At least *******s have got 16 GS, 17 Masters 1000, and 5 WTFs to cite; even with Nadal having more Masters 1000s titles under his belt, he's got to at least rival Fed's number of GS before you can even think about concluding Nadal as GOAT.

No reasonable human being is denying that Nadal is definitely one of the greatest players of all time; what I'm saying is that calling him the GOAT is just uncalled for. It's just too soon.

Wow! A sensible Nadal fan. I'm shocked :shock: Now I've seen it all.
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
In other words you essentially contradict yourself. Nadal beat a guy who beats chumps. And that's his claim to the GOAT??? LOLLLLLLLLLLLL. What a loser you are.

So? You idiots claim Federer is GOAT because he took advantage of a joke era until Nadal came around like smacked everyone, including Federer, around like a real tennis player.
 
So? You idiots claim Federer is GOAT because he took advantage of a joke era until Nadal came around like smacked everyone, including Federer, around like a real tennis player.

You have no credible evidence that it was a joke era. It's just your idiotic opinion. So Nadal smacked around a guy who beat joke era guys? And that makes him GOAT? What about Borg? Laver? Sampras? Did those guys play in a joke era too? Get a clue idiot.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Exactly. Federer steam rolled through a bunch of retards to win his slams. Nadal had to at least slay the guy who slayed retards, making his grand slams more legit.

OK, but then why on earth would you think Nadal is the GOAT? (Which you say in your sig.)

How does beating a chump who beat chumps make you the GOAT? It just makes him better than a chump-beater.
 

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
Alright, fine. Phillipousis, Gonzalez, Baghdadis, Roddick and Hewitt are formidable opponents.

In what universe are Roddick or Hewitt not formidable opponents? They're both former number ones and grand slam winners, which is more than we can say for Djokovic or Murray, some of Nadal's prime competition.
 

Sid_Vicious

G.O.A.T.
In what universe are Roddick or Hewitt not formidable opponents? They're both former number ones and grand slam winners, which is more than we can say for Djokovic or Murray, some of Nadal's prime competition.
Don't forget champs like Soderling and Berdych.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Wow! A sensible Nadal fan. I'm shocked :shock: Now I've seen it all.

Why thank you. I have to admit, *******s are just the worst kind of -****s. The only things that are worse are console-****s (PS3/Xbox) and macf*gs. I think I'll add COD noobs and anyone who puts 009 Sound System songs to their youtube videos on that list :p
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Oh, I already believe without a doubt that he's the GOAT. I think if he wins the AO, he will be the indisputable GOAT. Federer won most of his majors against complete chumps, whereas Nadal won most of his majors against Federer. Nadal is obviously better.

...and Davydenko has a winning record against Nadal. Therefore Kolya is GOAT?
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm a Rafa fan, but even I think that the OP is jumping to conclusions here. I honestly don't see how winning the AO will make him the indisputable GOAT.

...and *******s can lay off with the insults. If there is anything that we can pretty much all agree on, it's that:

a) Fed is at the moment the GOAT; but
b) Rafa is already up there somewhere, or at the very least well on his way

Fed has gotten to a point where even if he drops dead tomorrow, he'll still be topping the list. If Rafa drops dead tomorrow, he'll be nowhere near the top of that list. That said, he may well beat Fed if, and only if he follows our extrapolations. That means that there must not be a new player he will have difficulty beating (as Rafa is to Fed atm), and that his knees won't go kaputt on him (which has already happened once). Arguing that Rafa is better than Fed because of his winning record is a flawed argument; Kolya has a winning record against Rafa, but I don't see anyone arguing that he is better than Rafa, for example.

Where does that leave you? Nowhere; it's all speculation. At least *******s have got 16 GS, 17 Masters 1000, and 5 WTFs to cite; even with Nadal having more Masters 1000s titles under his belt, he's got to at least rival Fed's number of GS before you can even think about concluding Nadal as GOAT.No reasonable human being is denying that Nadal is definitely one of the greatest players of all time; what I'm saying is that calling him the GOAT is just uncalled for. It's just too soon.

Sensible post. First of all the whole idea of GOAT is stupid. How can you compare tennis players from different eras with different conditions, technology, etc?

However, if one is to consider Nadal the GOAT he absolutely has to equal or surpass Federer's 16 grand slam count. I am that rare breed that likes both Federer and Nadal but so much of the stuff thrown out there on Nadal being the best of all time, is speculation. He has a lot more to accomplish before he can catch up to Federer.
 
Top