Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tusharlovesrafa, Jul 8, 2013.
By your reasoning, Federer is by and far the GOAT. Would you admit to that or are you a hypocrite?
He's been beaten by his main rival too many times on the big stage. 6-2 is quite a BIG lead. He still hasn't beat him in a major for over 6 years now, if he truly is the greatest player to have ever lived then why keep losing to the same guy in multiple majors without winning?
His weak AO draws don't help his case either.
Slam count is the main criteria, though I rate quality over quantity. Nadal's had to deal with beating Federer and/or Novak to win most of his majors, Federer hasn't, he's had to deal with guys like Hewitt and/or Roddick and/or old Agassi. That's not as impressive imo.
Therefore, if Nadal surpasses his slam count, he should be considered goat.
Well, I think there are many Nadal fans who already see Nadal as the greatest ever or at least the likely 'GOAT'. More would definitely see him as the greatest though should he exceed Federer's Majors count, especially those who are too desperate for clarity or uncreative to see tennis as anything other than X number is greater than Y therefore Wilander is greater than Edberg.
If you're asking would Nadal be some sort of consensus 'Greatest', then yes I think it's possible and maybe even likely, especially if a couple of those extra Majors come outside of RG like for example his recent win at RG (refer to famous serve return position avatars).
The usual way to assess competition strength is to look at whom a player beat in the final to win a major. The problem with this method is that you "penalize" a player who was able to seize the opportunities he had. A player who entered in the same tournament but who didn't win it or reach the final is not considered as the beneficiary of a weak draw. In fact he was. He failed to seize the opportunity.
Another way to look at the quality of the opposition of a player, which I agree is very important, is to look against whom the player lost, the quality of the player who prevented him to win a major, possibly a major against a weak player in the final. For example, Sampras lost against Kucera in the AO 1998. If he hadn't lost but instead win it all against Rios in the final, he would be considered the beneficiary of a weak draw (since he met a player a lot of people don't consider a worthy finalist, with more or less reasons). And truly he was a beneficiary of a weak draw. Too bad he lost against Kucera.
So the Slam record doesn't matter... until Nadal takes it :lol: Got it.
You're just another hypocrite. Nadal's head-to-head negates 5 of Federer's Slams but Federer's 302 weeks at #1 and 6 WTF titles are apparently not enough to negate 1 additional Slam from Nadal. I'm done with you. You're blind as a bat (with its eyes closed, for good measure).
Nadal-fan logic: It's okay to lose to Rosol and Darcis, but you can't lose to Nadal. It's okay to lose to Roddick, Hewitt and Murray in the final of a Grand Slam, but if you beat them, your Slam isn't worth anything.
What's good with the h2h if you accomplished less? Davy is 6-1 against him on hc but is there an argument for Davy > Nadal on hc? No. So leave out the h2h, just show the hardware, ranking and other meaningful achievements.
Quality is subjective, there's nothing one can prove except biased poster like you never come out straight to admit it.
Slam count is the most important criteria but it's not the deal breaker. As a Fed fan, I would love the idea that the slam count is the be-all and end-all for a goat, but I'm too objective to be one-track mind like some trolls in here. The answer will always be the total achievements in a player's career, those are the metrics !
It suggests there's a problem with his GOAT ability if he was never able to turn the H2H around, or defeat the rival on said rival's best surface. The best players--even if they're not the GOAT--always managed to find a way to defeat opponents who had their number more often than not (ex. Agassi eventually found a way to get more consistent wins over Sampras).
...which is what many of the Fed fans used to beat over the heads of fans of Nadal, Sampras, et al. In fact, some who used his majors count as avatar (screaming what they felt was the defining makr of his place in history), or posted it incessantly are in this thread.
Well, McEnroe (among others) already believe Nadal reached that point.
^^ And the person in your avatar rated RFederer as the greatest player in the open era :twisted:
Awww...so desperate. Laver aslo said there's no way to judge such a thing.
..but McEnroe knows Nadal is Federer's superior.
He did say RNadal is equal in abilities though, but RFederer is greater :twisted:
In July 2012 Laver said Roger is the greatest player of all time, and still stand by his claim today.
Back to the nonsensical H2H. Saying Roger has to turn around the H2H against Nadal in order to be goat is like saying Jordan has to turn around his H2H against Isiah Thomas and Larry Bird. LOL
He has to show me more off the clay...
Which is contradicted by saying there's no way to judge it. No one forced him to say that.
Face it: even as RF is still active, the opinion are in the process of change.
No. If Nadal just loads up on clay he will not be considered the greatest. The problem for Nadal is that Fed's game is much more elegant. This means for him to outmuscle Fed as the greatest every it needs to be overwhelming..
If Nadal matches Federer's other achievements, I don't see why the H2H is the deciding factor. That would imply since Nadal didn't exceed Federer's achievements, he distributed his losses which prevented him from doing so to a variety of other players.
There is no reason why it is worse to lose to a variety of players vs. moreso to one player.
If Nadal wins more slams than Federer, there is no doubt that his name will go first in GOAT conversations.
First, but not only. I doubt he can ever be the undisputed GOAT since he is so heavily specialized on one surface. Like carpet, I see clay eventually disappear from the ATP tour.
Check and mate I believe. Well played.
Do you really think there is a chance Nadal can win 6 more slams, winning an average of 2 every year? You assuming he can win 2 titles at age 30?
He won 3 slams in the last 3 years, between ages 24 and 27.
If Rafa never wins another slam on any surface other than clay, he cannot be the greatest tennis player ever. He can be the greatest clay court player ever undoubtedly, and one of the best in history overall, but not the best. If he wins a few more hardcourts maybe 1 more wimby, he can be GOAT. *but he is about done at every grandslam except the french b/c of his knees of steel.
Even though he's already won all of the other slams at least once? Pete being the total clay mug he is, and never even making a final at RG much less actually win a title there, was still considered GOAT until Fed came along. I could also turn around and say Fed can't be GOAT until he wins 1-2 more RG titles. Does that sound fair to you?
But if he has only 4 slams off clay, then this is not bad, but it would preclude him from being goat.
SIGH. The whole argument is pointless. There is no absolute consensus for what it takes to be considered GOAT. There are a half dozen viable criteria and everyone favors those two or three that uphold his particular favorite player's argument. You can't just declare that the man with the most slams is GOAT. That may be your opinion, but it is only that---an opinion. Nor can you say that if a player totally dominates any single slam, then he is GOAT. Not so. You can't unilaterally declare the WTF wins to mean this or that, nor the Olympics, nor weeks at the top, etc. This is all opinion. OPINION. And we all use different standards to name our GOAT. I don't mind that we have different ideas about who it should be, but the fact that so many people on here argue so vehemently, like their pick absolutely has to be a foregone conclusion---where does THAT come from???
It's the same thing as asking who is the greatest NBA player of all time (Wilt, of course!), or who is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time (anybody's guess). Unless and until there is a set of standards we all accept as measurement to judge players by, all this heated chest-beating in support of this player or that player is nothing more than a comical display. Sounds strikingly like, "My dad can beat up your dad!"
Yep. He's like a dog chasing its tail. Let him be.
But anybody can see that Federer leads most of the important columns.
Most Slams? Check.
Career Slam? Check.
Most Slam Finals? Check.
Most Weeks at #1? Check.
Most WTF Titles? Check.
5+ Slam Finals at every Slam? Check.
He's also at or near the top in the other columns (whatever they may be). Nobody else has half as many big records as Federer.
This is brilliant.
I am going to add his post to my collection with absurditiues and hilarious posts from the Vamos Brigade.
I think it is completely in line with the post of one of their posters, where he claims, that the OG has a meaning only because Nadal has it.
Didn't stop people from proclaiming Pete GOAT when he was a total bum on clay and at RG for his entire career. I'm guessing that a lot of know nothing's think that since RG is played on clay it means less, so it's not a knock on Pete since he never won it. Nadal, otoh, wins all the slams, and makes multiple finals at all of them as well and it is seen as not being good enough off of his best surface to ever be considered a great. I think that's a load of tosh.
True dat. And as Federer clearly demonstrates, "Poetry is the art of uniting pleasure with truth."
Sampras was never widely ackowledged as the GOAT the way Federer is. Anyway, no way Nadal gets to 18 without winning Slams off Clay (I doubt he even gets to 16, though), so this "get Slams off Clay" argument is moot.
Most tennis records.
BIG CHECK !
How can Roger turn it around when Rafa loses first round at majors? I guess maybe Rafa got injured while he was resting. Bwahahahahaha!
It is a knock on pete that he did not win the French.
Also nadal, is a great, but just not the greatest when he has only 4 slams off clay.
"Thank you for [alerting me to your post]. I'll waste no time reading it."
adapted from the line by Moses Hadas
EVER WINNING ON ONE SURFACE??????????????
"Nadal was considered a clay court specialist until he reached five Wimbledon finals on grass, won the Australian Open on hardcourt in 2009, won the Olympic singles gold medal on hardcourt in 2008, completed his career Grand Slam at the 2010 US Open, and won six Masters titles on hardcourts, in addition to his record-breaking eight French Open titles and winning streak of 81 consecutive matches on clay."
Nadal also has a 6:2 h2h against Federer on outdoor hardcourt.
He is also the ONLY individual sportsman to win the same title 8 times.
good selection of stats to suit your desired conclusion. Question is what is your desired conculsion?
If you are trying to prove that Nadal is a great player then of course he is and well done to you for nailing the point!
If you are trying to conclude that Nadal is the greatest tennis player ever seen, then there is a problem with him only winning 4 slams off of clay. His overall results are good enough to be a great but still a long way short of the greatest.
I'm not sure what you said but you had me at your compelling mastery of the bold function and your vivid use of red and lilac fonts. I, for one, am completely convinced. Yowza.
Most arse whippings against his rival in major finals? Check.
Becoming a turkey? Check.
because he didnt visit the good Dr. Fuentes in jail and thus he did not fulfill is duties as a good natured boy. god punished him by losing another poll. now had he visited dr. Fuentes and he would have been graced with the help of god and would have won Wimbledon and this poll!!!
Too bad there aren't any trophies presented for h2h. I wonder why.
If you were a tennis pro, wouldn't you rather have Feds trophy cabinet?
Even you have to admit this.
The cabinet? Sure.
But reality tells you more than the cabinet does. Numbers and trophies don't tell the whole story. Federer racked them up against the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, old Agassi and lesser players than those. Now, don't get me wrong they're good players, but the truth is Nadal having to beat at least one of Federer, Djokovic or Murray to win every major of his bar one is more impressive.
Federer on clay is a much tougher task than Hewitt on grass or HC. Same with Roddick on his best surface. Novak on HC and clay is also much tougher than those 2. Not to mention he has beat Federer in a grass major and Novak in a HC major. Those 2 haven't overcome Nadal on clay in a major. No trophies are going to tell you this information but it is very significant.
Just because RNadal couldn't raise his level above all of them (like RFederer did) to dominate the entire tour for an entire year (right from AO to WTF) it doesn't diminish RFederer's achievements. Hell, even RNadal couldn't dominate those LHewitts, Old AAgassis, MSafins and other so called "weak era mugs/clowns" to snatch slams from RFederer. Don't give me the "baby RNadal" s**t. No baby wins a GS like that. He is a early bloomer and reached his prime at an earlier age. If RNadal was a baby then, then RFederer was an old man after 2007 and RNadal took advantage of that.
You see how things you RNadal trollboys say can be used against you :lol:
RafaelN was only great on clay from 05-06. 04 he was way too young to be considered a slam contender.
He was a youngster who only really had game on clay and it took him time to adjust his game to win on other surfaces.
Here is a fact for you troll:
RogerF made it to his first HC major final at age 22 and won it.
RafaelN made it to his first HC major final at age 22 and won it.
How the **** can you expect RafaelN to win HC majors at an earlier age than RogerF when RogerF's game suits that surface more?
Baby RogerF was losing to all sorts of mugs in majors, including successive first round exits when ranked in the top 10.
As usual the RNadal trollboys denies the fact that he reached his prime earlier.
If you want to do age wise comparisons, then here are more facts for you trollboys:
- RNadal lost to LRosol at 26 in second round of a major while RFederer reached atleast the semis (one semi and 3 finals) when he was 26.
- RNadal lost to SDarcis at 27 in a major in the first round (lol) when RFederer made ALL slam finals at that age.
How the **** do you explain this?
You can't because you are incapable of doing so. So, buzz off!
Rafa was playing his best tennis from 2005-08. As proven by MichaelNadal's post which highlighted all of Rafa's performance. He was faster, more explosive, more relentless than 2009-present. The reason why he was consistently staying at #2 in the world because Roger was a superior player. Since Roger is 5 years older and eventually past his prime, it's no secret Nadal takes the #1 in late 2008. Most of Nadal's best tennis were encounter with Roger, not Nole or Murray. If you want to argue Nadal is a better player, then he must show the numbers, that's the only way to prove how good he was. He never had a year with a 90+ winning percentage, it's no excuse.
Well, for history it doesn't matter. Trophies are trophies. The best in the world were still playing in those 7 matches that Fed won.
I'm trying to see your point of view. You seem to be saying that Nadal and Sampras would have better stats than Fed if they were playing in Feds era.
You forget that they are much prone to upsets to lesser players. So even if an era had Hewitt or Roddick, they would still lose. It's not that Nadal lost his slams to only greats. He lost to Ferrer, Murray(he had 0 majors at that time), Soderling, Rosol, Del Potro...
That is why Fed would win the most in any era. He doesn't lose to lesser players early. And on top of that his peak play is amazing, he beats also other all time greats. In 2011 past prime Fed vs Djokovic god mode. Fed almost beat him twice. Fed beat Murray in all his slam finals.
You can't just transfer Djokovic to Feds era. They are from different eras. If you put all of the greats together they ALL win less.
Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't have 6 and 12 majors in Feds era either.
You forget one thing. Feds decline is slower than Nadals. So Nadal in his era, maybe Fed wins a bit less at the beginning. But later Nadal declines. He hasn't won non clay major for 3 years now. So Fed would mop up at their decline stage.
Also Djokovic and Nadal now have accumulated knowledge of evolution. In Feds era their level would not be as high as today. That is why you can't compare level of play across eras, you can only compare achievements.
Lack of competition works both ways. Nadal didn't have to face peak Fed and peak Nole from 2008-2010. Also Djokovic and Nadal didn't have to face peak Safin, Hewitt, Roddick. On non clay those guys were tough.
We just can't compare. Maybe Roddick and Hewitt and Safin win more against non peak Fed.
25 years Roddick and Hewitt vs 31 years old Fed. I like their chances. Fed made like 2 finals in like 4 years. Roddick and company would own without Fed in finals.
My point is achievements is all we have. You can't prove what is tougher or not. Because achievements are relative to other players. When someone wins more others win less.
You should consider this point of view also. I would agree with you if you could somehow prove that peak Nadal would beat peak Safin and Roddick and Fed and Hewitt. You just can't.
So fair would be to assume every competition is tough, since Fed was playing against the best competition available in the world. And give equal credit to all achievements.
STOP! LOGICAL POST AHEAD! DANGER DANGER CANNOT PROCESS, CANNOT PROCESS, FFFFSSSSSBBBBBTTTTTTTT.......
Nadal will be lucky if he reaches 14 slams. Anything more is not happening. Even reaching 14 will be tough. He might win one more RG.
Federer says his rivalry with Nadal is unique.
"There will never be a rivalry like ours. Not even that between Borg and McEnroe, despite their different personalities and one being left-handed and the other right-handed. Murray and Djokovic are very similar. Rafa and I are extreme opposites and that's what the fans like so much. Our rivalry isn't over, I'm sure it will be back, I miss it".
That's what I like about Fed. He is a fighter. He takes his beatings like a man. And he comes back for the chance to win more.
Courage is not not being afraid. It's being afraid and still show up. And he comes back stronger. Fed is master of comebacks.
Separate names with a comma.