Lupica picks Nadal as GOAT

D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Fed is the 2nd best of his own time behind a guy that dominated him on 1 leg.:)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Federer has won more than Nadal, so he's therefore the best of this era. Nadal can carry on beating Federer when he's not expected to be winning the big titles. It's irrelevent.

How can you be the best of your era when your numbers pale in comparison to someone else?
 

bullfan

Legend
Federer has won more than Nadal, so he's therefore the best of this era. Nadal can carry on beating Federer when he's not expected to be winning the big titles. It's irrelevent.

How can you be the best of your era when your numbers pale in comparison to someone else?
And how can one be better than all the rest when he has such a dismal record against his chief rival?

Stupid circular argument that won't end.

Why these exist on a daily basis is beyond me.
 

granddog29

Banned
Yes, and Davy own Nadal(6-1 on hc)
Time to put to waste this pathetic, overused and tired spin from Federer fans:

1. Davydenko does not on any planet "own" Nadal. 6-5 is not owning someone. 21-10 is.

2. While Federer fans whine that Nadal's h2h with Federer is clay heavy, Nadal in fact has a tied h2h with Federer on non clay surfaces, a winning slam h2h with Federer on non clay surfaces, along with an overwhelming h2h with Federer on clay, thus overall total ownage. Davydenko can only beat Nadal on 1 of 3 surfaces- hard courts, while Nadal can also beat Davydenko easily on hard courts any given day, and Davydenko has absolutely no chance on the other 2 surfaces. Fortunately for Davydenko he is such a total mug on grass they will never play there, and they even rarely play on clay.

3. Most importantly of all Davydenko has never beaten Nadal in a slam. He has never even gotten far enough to play Nadal in a slam. Nadal meanwhile owns Federer where it counts the most, slams, 8-2 despite equal number of meetings on and off clay. Given that Davydenko has reached 0 slam finals he might have a 2-8 record vs Nadal in slams if they met 10 times if he was super lucky (and I mean super lucky, 1-9 or 0-10 would be far more likely).


So sorry to burst the Federer fanboy bubble but in no way is Davydenko-Nadal ever comparable to Federer-Nadal, are a successful copout for Federer of his terrible record vs by far his biggest career rival and a fellow top 5 player all time. Someone should simply copy and paste the above and post it anytime a Federer fan uses the Davydenko vs Nadal copout.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
And how can one be better than all the rest when he has such a dismal record against his chief rival?

Stupid circular argument that won't end.

Why these exist on a daily basis is beyond me.
They're even off clay. The only place Federer has a dismal record against Nadal is on clay.

Tennis isn't about beating your 5 years younger rival 6 years after your prime ends when you have a bad back. It's about winning tournaments and trophies. Being the #1 player in the world. Federer has been better at that than anyone in the open era. Nadal beating Federer hasn't translated into a better resume (as of yet). So he hasn't bested the field as much ergo he's much better versus Federer than Federer is versus Nadal, but he's not as good against the rest of the ATP when winning titles.

And it is a stupid argument that will neverend. Especially when you have one guy posting a different thread about it every two days. But obviously you only complain about it when a Federer fan responds to the bull****.
 

granddog29

Banned
Nadal beating Federer hasn't translated into a better resume (as of yet).
It isnt about Nadal being the GOAT though (despite the thread title). It isnt even about Nadal being better than Federer. It is that Federer being so badly owned his chief rival and a fellow major all time great clearly is not the GOAT and can never be. No athlete can be called GOAT when they are so embarassingly owned by their biggest rival and a fellow legend. No other GOAT candidate in tennis is so badly owned by a major rival either, men or women. Not Sampras, not Borg, not Laver, not Gonzales, not Nadal, not Graf, not Navratilova, not Evert, not Serena. Only Federer.

It is like if Seles was never stabbed and had ended up with a 30-12 head to head vs Graf. Even if she still won 18 or 19 slams nobody would consider her the female GOAT today. I am not saying that would have happened, but hypothetically speaking if it did nobody would even be talking about her as the GOAT today like they do.



As for your first sentence being "even off clay" is not good enough when you are totally owned on clay on top of that. Federer would have to have a distinct edge somewhere to balance out Nadal's massive clay dominance to even bring the rivalry even, and he doesnt, and the best he can do is break somewhat even otherwise. You cant pretend clay doesnt exist. Like I said earlier in the thread even if you give them only a measley 5 matches on clay and 2 matches at Roland Garros (which would make Federer a much poorer clay court player than Nadal is on grass or hard courts by far if they met that very low number of times, and would make him a much poorer clay courter than Djokovic, and barely a better one than Sampras) Nadal still would lead the head to head 13-8 and 5-2 in slams.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
^ the point is, h2h is close to being meaningless when ranking the all-time greats.

I'd make the argument that Sampras/Laver/Graf/Navratilova etc. would all be considered in the exact same position they are now, even if they happened to have losing h2h's against Agassi/Rosewall/Seles/Evert respectively - assuming these guys' more important stats (no of slams won, wks at No 1, etc.) were the same as they are in reality.

The h2h is merely something Fed haters use as an excuse to bash Fed.
 

JustBob

Hall of Fame
Why you people keep responding to TDK threads is beyond me. He's a troll and yet he gets you to bite every time...
 

granddog29

Banned
^ the point is, h2h is close to being meaningless when ranking the all-time greats.

I'd make the argument that Sampras/Laver/Graf/Navratilova etc. would all be considered in the exact same position they are now, even if they happened to have losing h2h's against Agassi/Rosewall/Seles/Evert respectively
and this is where you would be wrong. You are wrongfully applying your own views on what is and isnt important to the majority to the majority of people. The very fact an increasingly large number of past champions and experts are expressing increasing doubts to Federer having any serious GOAT claims due to his H2H with Nadal is infinite proof H2H is a factor for people. Certainly alot more than some of the meaningless stats Federer slams trumpet (quarterfinal streaks, who gives a flying fig about that, sorry).

Your Evert vs Navratilova is the worst and most telling example of all, as it is solely Navratilova's complete dominance of Evert during her prime years that all but elminates Evert from any serious GOAT discussion and put her firmly behind Navratilova in history, despite that for those who dont credit doubles much Evert clearly has the superior and more balanced singles career overall otherwise. There are even more people who talk about Serena as the possible GOAT than Evert at this point, which is embarassing for Chris considering her numbers lay waste to Serena for now (again apart from doubles for those who value that highly, which is the minority it seems), and an indication how much Chris is diminished due to her record vs Martina. Yet Chris even has a far better record vs Martina than Federer has in famous rivalry vs Nadal.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
and this is where you would be wrong. You are wrongfully applying your own views on what is and isnt important to the majority to the majority of people. The very fact an increasingly large number of past champions and experts are expressing increasing doubts to Federer having any serious GOAT claims due to his H2H with Nadal is infinite proof H2H is a factor for people.
The guys putting Nadal above Fed are just trying to create talking points to sell the sport, or are those pundits who change their mind more often than Rihanna changes her hairstyle (i.e. McEnroe).

Certainly alot more than some of the meaningless stats Federer slams trumpet (quarterfinal streaks, who gives a flying fig about that, sorry).
I actually agree with you on this point; I don't consider the consecutive SF and QF streaks to be particularly important. It's the winning that counts.

Your Evert vs Navratilova is the worst and most telling example of all, as it is solely Navratilova's complete dominance of Evert during her prime years that all but elminates Evert from any serious GOAT discussion and put her firmly behind Navratilova in history,
Er....what about Navratilova winning Wimbledon (the most prestigious slam) 9 times compared to Evert's 3? Or being ranked No 1 more for years than her? Or winning six slams in a row in 1983-84?

There are in fact several reasons for ranking Nav > Evert, and many of them have nothing to do with their H2H.


There are more people who even talk about Serena as the possible GOAT than Evert at this point,
Serena cannot be ranked ahead of Evert by any means, so I would question the intelligence of those who do so.
 

granddog29

Banned
The guys putting Nadal above Fed are just trying to create talking points to sell the sport, or are those pundits who change their mind more often than Rihanna changes her hairstyle (i.e. McEnroe).
I somewhat agree with this, but would add to that the guys who talked Federer up as the GOAT in the first place were doing the same thing. Only trying to create talking points to sell the sport. Neither Federer or Nadal has ever been (so far) worthy of being the GOAT. 5 years from now nobody will talk about Federer as the GOAT, and unless Nadal improves his achievements significantly (which he still has time to, but a long way to go) nobody will talk about him as the GOAT in 10 years time either.

Er....what about Navratilova winning Wimbledon (the most prestigious slam) 9 times compared to Evert's 3? Or being ranked No 1 more for years than her? Or winning six slams in a row in 1983-84?
Evert with the all time French Open slam record (7), the Open Era U.S Open record (6) and an amazing Wimbledon record of 10 finals there vs Navratilova's far weaker Roland Garros record certainly has had a greater overall singles career than Navratilova. She also has many more slam finals and semis than Martina, despite how many she missed in her ultimate prime years (more on that in a moment). She has also been recognized as the #1 player of the year more times than Martina (in the 70s this was picked by a panel of experts still) and a top 2 player of the year almost twice as many times as Martina, her consistency which Federer fans trumpet so much is light years ahead of Martina, and despite very late blooming Martina choosing to play until nearly 40 and doing well in not embarassing herself in the process, Chris's longevity I would consider greater too considering Martina won all but 3 Wimbledon slams within 1982-1987 while Chris won atleast 1 slam and was a top 2 player for the year for 13 straight years from 1974 to 1986.

Lastly had everyone played the Australian and French Opens in the 70s Evert would have about 25 majors now and Navratilova still only about 19. People would also consider that the way they do for Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall and others if it werent for Chris being so badly owned by Martina for a few years in the 80s. That H2H ownage for a period changed everything to how the two are perceived, whether you acknowledge this or not. Had Chris done better in the H2H she would be considered atleast Martina's equal today, even with the exact same stats.


There are in fact several reasons for ranking Nav > Evert, and many of them have nothing to do with their H2H.
Yes but nobody puts Evert over Martina today. It isnt even a debate. This certainly isnt just based on career success which is atleast very close between them. Are you honestly saying people wouldnt even consider it a reasonable debate to who is the greater player if the H2H element is eliminated? Sorry but Martina's career alone (taking out the H2H) is not THAT superior.


Serena cannot be ranked ahead of Evert by any means, so I would question the intelligence of those who do so.
I agree Serena probably should not rank over Chris yet but that just shows Chris is completely eliminated from any GOAT consideration in peoples minds due to her performance and H2H vs Martina. Being owned thorougly by your biggest rival and a fellow major all time great does that to you. That was my only point.
 
Last edited:

Rippy

Hall of Fame
It isnt about Nadal being the GOAT though (despite the thread title). It isnt even about Nadal being better than Federer. It is that Federer being so badly owned his chief rival and a fellow major all time great clearly is not the GOAT and can never be. No athlete can be called GOAT when they are so embarassingly owned by their biggest rival and a fellow legend. No other GOAT candidate in tennis is so badly owned by a major rival either, men or women. Not Sampras, not Borg, not Laver, not Gonzales, not Nadal, not Graf, not Navratilova, not Evert, not Serena. Only Federer.

It is like if Seles was never stabbed and had ended up with a 30-12 head to head vs Graf. Even if she still won 18 or 19 slams nobody would consider her the female GOAT today. I am not saying that would have happened, but hypothetically speaking if it did nobody would even be talking about her as the GOAT today like they do.



As for your first sentence being "even off clay" is not good enough when you are totally owned on clay on top of that. Federer would have to have a distinct edge somewhere to balance out Nadal's massive clay dominance to even bring the rivalry even, and he doesnt, and the best he can do is break somewhat even otherwise. You cant pretend clay doesnt exist. Like I said earlier in the thread even if you give them only a measley 5 matches on clay and 2 matches at Roland Garros (which would make Federer a much poorer clay court player than Nadal is on grass or hard courts by far if they met that very low number of times, and would make him a much poorer clay courter than Djokovic, and barely a better one than Sampras) Nadal still would lead the head to head 13-8 and 5-2 in slams.
Or make Federer as "good" as Sampras on clay, and he'd probably never have played Nadal at Roland Garros, and posters such as yourself with a dubious grasp of logic would then consider him a better player?

Sorry, makes no sense at all.
 

granddog29

Banned
If Federer had never played Nadal at Roland Garros, and people were aware by your logic had the clay abilities of a mug while Nadal had the clay abilities of the hands down clay GOAT, and yet Federer STILL had a losing slam H2H that would come across as even more embarassing than his current situation vs Nadal already is. His already weak GOAT claims vs someone like Laver with Sampras-like clay abilities also go down to almost nothing, and the H2H vs Nadal isnt even needed for that anymore. Also Sampras has played EVERYONE who mattered at Roland Garros, so Federer with Sampras like clay abilities would still have probably played Nadal atleast once there, and probably atleast a few times on clay, still giving him no better than a weak 2-4 slam H2H and 8-11 or worse overall H2H, even now given sh1tty clay abilities which also far pull down his overall stock as a player, and people now aware the H2H is skewed in Federer's favor as much or more as it might be to Nadal now considering he now can barely reach Nadal on clay vs how frequently Nadal reaches Federer on hard courts and the very short grass season. Sorry to say but all around your fail of an attempt to improve Federer's situation flopped as hard as a Federer backhand in a baseline exchange vs Nalbandian, Djokovic, or Nadal.


Lastly a ****** accusing ANYONE else of a dubious grasp of logic. ROTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! Thanks for that, I fell off my chair reading that part.
 
Last edited:
^ the point is, h2h is close to being meaningless when ranking the all-time greats.

I'd make the argument that Sampras/Laver/Graf/Navratilova etc. would all be considered in the exact same position they are now, even if they happened to have losing h2h's against Agassi/Rosewall/Seles/Evert respectively - assuming these guys' more important stats (no of slams won, wks at No 1, etc.) were the same as they are in reality.

The h2h is merely something Fed haters use as an excuse to bash Fed.
H2h is everything with fedal.

Never before have we had two goats battling it out on every surface.

We always try and compare a Laver to a Sampras ....it's the first time we can compare two goat candidates head to head.....

Throw in joker and Murray and its really special.....joker was damn close to being a goat.....he almost won the calendar slam....and if he had beaten Nadal at the FO this year a strong argument could have been made for him because he would have done something that Fed could only dream of.

So for the first time we have two goat candidates competing on all surfaces in all slams......

And Nadal is the winner.
 

kiki

Banned
We, as former treewalkers have such a weak memory
It has been forever that the new is better than the old and that is because for us humand, the past and present cannot be equally measured
We need time, perspective and criterion
Had been the same for any tennis generation coming and leaving and it will remain so
I don' t buy this " inmrdiate judgement" not even if it was the case of my favourite player
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
If Federer had never played Nadal at Roland Garros, and people were aware by your logic had the clay abilities of a mug while Nadal had the clay abilities of the hands down clay GOAT, and yet Federer STILL had a losing slam H2H that would come across as even more embarassing than his current situation vs Nadal already is. His already weak GOAT claims vs someone like Laver with Sampras-like clay abilities also go down to almost nothing, and the H2H vs Nadal isnt even needed for that anymore. Also Sampras has played EVERYONE who mattered at Roland Garros, so Federer with Sampras like clay abilities would still have probably played Nadal atleast once there, and probably atleast a few times on clay, still giving him no better than a weak 2-4 slam H2H and 8-11 or worse overall H2H, even now given sh1tty clay abilities which also far pull down his overall stock as a player, and people now aware the H2H is skewed in Federer's favor as much or more as it might be to Nadal now considering he now can barely reach Nadal on clay vs how frequently Nadal reaches Federer on hard courts and the very short grass season. Sorry to say but all around your fail of an attempt to improve Federer's situation flopped as hard as a Federer backhand in a baseline exchange vs Nalbandian, Djokovic, or Nadal.


Lastly a ****** accusing ANYONE else of a dubious grasp of logic. ROTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! Thanks for that, I fell off my chair reading that part.


Coming from someone who thinks old man Sampras would have beaten Safin at AO 2004. Very amusing.
 

granddog29

Banned
Coming from someone who thinks old man Sampras would have beaten Safin at AO 2004. Very amusing.
I was only talking about prime Sampras, not old man Sampras. I figured the discussion was towards the former. Considering 35 year old Agassi (undoubtably much weaker than prime Sampras, even on slow hard courts) and Roddick both nearly beat him, and his finals performance sucked, hardly far fetched.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
I was only talking about prime Sampras, not old man Sampras. I figured the discussion was towards the former. Considering 35 year old Agassi (undoubtably much weaker than prime Sampras, even on slow hard courts) and Roddick both nearly beat him, and his finals performance sucked, hardly far fetched.
You mean Agassi at #3 and Roddick at #1? Considering Sampras in 2002 couldn't beat Safin at AO, I highly doubt he could beat Safin at AO 2004. Agassi was defending champion at AO and is superior on rebound ace than Sampras.
 
Time to put to waste this pathetic, overused and tired spin from Federer fans:

1. Davydenko does not on any planet "own" Nadal. 6-5 is not owning someone. 21-10 is.

2. While Federer fans whine that Nadal's h2h with Federer is clay heavy, Nadal in fact has a tied h2h with Federer on non clay surfaces, a winning slam h2h with Federer on non clay surfaces, along with an overwhelming h2h with Federer on clay, thus overall total ownage. Davydenko can only beat Nadal on 1 of 3 surfaces- hard courts, while Nadal can also beat Davydenko easily on hard courts any given day, and Davydenko has absolutely no chance on the other 2 surfaces. Fortunately for Davydenko he is such a total mug on grass they will never play there, and they even rarely play on clay.

3. Most importantly of all Davydenko has never beaten Nadal in a slam. He has never even gotten far enough to play Nadal in a slam. Nadal meanwhile owns Federer where it counts the most, slams, 8-2 despite equal number of meetings on and off clay. Given that Davydenko has reached 0 slam finals he might have a 2-8 record vs Nadal in slams if they met 10 times if he was super lucky (and I mean super lucky, 1-9 or 0-10 would be far more likely).


So sorry to burst the Federer fanboy bubble but in no way is Davydenko-Nadal ever comparable to Federer-Nadal, are a successful copout for Federer of his terrible record vs by far his biggest career rival and a fellow top 5 player all time. Someone should simply copy and paste the above and post it anytime a Federer fan uses the Davydenko vs Nadal copout.
Let me add one more thing .....Davydenko and Nadal have never even played a five set match !!!!

You youngsters here may not know this but real tennis is 5 sets and the best of three is a bunch of b.s.......best of three is womens tennis.

It's like playing 4 innings of baseball

In order to understand this concept we have to go back and ask "where did the best of three sets for men begin ".....

Back in the day all tennis matches were the best of five ......but promoters got greedy . They wanted more tournaments .

Players were getting injured ....so they came up with the idea of best of three for men. This way more matches , more money , less injuries.

But make no mistake about it .....best of three is half a match .....it's like playing 4 innings of baseball .
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I was only talking about prime Sampras, not old man Sampras. I figured the discussion was towards the former. Considering 35 year old Agassi (undoubtably much weaker than prime Sampras, even on slow hard courts) and Roddick both nearly beat him, and his finals performance sucked, hardly far fetched.
Roddick, Safin (up to the final) and Agassi were all playing at a high level that tournament. Sampras would have struggled with any of them. Age and their names are unimportant, they were all in good form.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Let me add one more thing .....Davydenko and Nadal have never even played a five set match !!!!

You youngsters here may not know this but real tennis is 5 sets and the best of three is a bunch of b.s.......best of three is womens tennis.

It's like playing 4 innings of baseball

In order to understand this concept we have to go back and ask "where did the best of three sets for men begin ".....

Back in the day all tennis matches were the best of five ......but promoters got greedy . They wanted more tournaments .

Players were getting injured ....so they came up with the idea of best of three for men. This way more matches , more money , less injuries.

But make no mistake about it .....best of three is half a match .....it's like playing 4 innings of baseball .
What about Roddick-Djokovic? or Darcis and Rosol against Nadal?

you people are DELUSIONAL beyond belief if you think people will care about H2H records in about a decade. Simply put H2H doesnt matter, so basically even if Federer had a winning H2H against Nadal it really doesnt do much for him since he's already the GOAT by his resume.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
What about Roddick-Djokovic? or Darcis and Rosol against Nadal?

you people are DELUSIONAL beyond belief if you think people will care about H2H records in about a decade. Simply put H2H doesnt matter, so basically even if Federer had a winning H2H against Nadal it really doesnt do much for him since he's already the GOAT by his resume.
If Federer had a winning h2h with Nadal then Nadal would be a nobody compared to his current standards. He'd have less slams, less time at #1, no masters record and unbroken clay court dominance. He'd probably be included as part of Federer's weak competition if only Federer managed to win those close matches in the past.
 
If Federer had a winning h2h with Nadal then Nadal would be a nobody compared to his current standards. He'd have less slams, less time at #1, no masters record and unbroken clay court dominance. He'd probably be included as part of Federer's weak competition if only Federer managed to win those close matches in the past.
Since 2008 when Nadal lost his clay court status he is 14-4 !!!!!

He is UNDEFEATED in all sl matches since that time .

you guys attribute it to Fed getting older , mono bla bla bla bla bla.....

You give no credit to the undeniable fact that Nadal simply got better and learned to play on surfaces other than clay ....despite the fact that even Federer admits that Nadal has improved since that time .

It's practically utter domination .
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Since 2008 when Nadal lost his clay court status he is 14-4 !!!!!

He is UNDEFEATED in all sl matches since that time .

you guys attribute it to Fed getting older , mono bla bla bla bla bla.....

You give no credit to the undeniable fact that Nadal simply got better and learned to play on surfaces other than clay ....despite the fact that even Federer admits that Nadal has improved since that time .

It's practically utter domination .
Nadal can get better but Federer can't get worse?

Utter domination is what happens to all your arguments.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
What about Roddick-Djokovic? or Darcis and Rosol against Nadal?

you people are DELUSIONAL beyond belief if you think people will care about H2H records in about a decade. Simply put H2H doesnt matter, so basically even if Federer had a winning H2H against Nadal it really doesnt do much for him since he's already the GOAT by his resume.
It's impossible to explain to them that career achievement is the be-all and end-all. h2h against one player doesn't equate to win 7 straight matches or a slam. Any sane, non-hating Federer will judge greatness based on how much they win most important titles, ranking and level of domination against the field. The measuring stick is to overcome all obstacle and Roger is the most successful player on the planet. Nadal is still searching for his 1st year by winning 90+ percentage.


The funy thing is sane fans don't care Davy's 6-1 against Nadal either because acheivement wise Nadal is better. But using their h2h record just to make fun and expose the anti-fed fallacy, they get all panties in a bunch.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick, Safin (up to the final) and Agassi were all playing at a high level that tournament. Sampras would have struggled with any of them. Age and their names are unimportant, they were all in good form.
This is true. Instead of looking at the player's age to justify his game but look at the atual level/quality of the match. Agassi played great tennis and only anti-feds pretends that it wasn't. I doubt that these same player ever saw Agassi play. Fernando Gonzalez is not a hug figure player if we just look at the name, but everyone knows he play ridiculous tennis in 2007 AO.
 

granddog29

Banned
You mean Agassi at #3 and Roddick at #1? Considering Sampras in 2002 couldn't beat Safin at AO, I highly doubt he could beat Safin at AO 2004. Agassi was defending champion at AO and is superior on rebound ace than Sampras.
Prime Sampras >>>>> Roddick as a player on any surface, at any point of Roddick's career.

Prime Agassi is probably better on rebound ace than Sampras, although even then just barely, look at how hard Agassi playing his absolute best at the end of the best stretch of his tennis of his career took to beating Sampras at the 2000 Australian Open. 35 year old Agassi taking cortisone shots for a back injury that let him barely walk at times would stand no chance.

Lastly 2001 Australian Open was definitely not prime Sampras which is what the topic was about.
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
I love how troutblabey chose to ignore the posts where his agenda was exposed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
Ahh, but an year ago you quickly dismissed Lupica's claim that Federer was the GOAT on the belief that he was one of the "moneymen" who was interested in presenting modern tennis players in the best light possible.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6787911&postcount=7

And now you have an issue with people pointing out Lupica's obvious use of sensationalism? LOL.

Nadal is the man of the hour so Lupica kisses his ***. Last year it was Federer.
Waiting for Balzacs reply.....
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Resume and overall consistency is all that really matter.

Rafa may own their H2H but its not domination if Fed has won 10 matches. Its only domination if its like Fed-Roddick head to head which is like 21-3. If your opponent has won double digit matches against you, there is no way you are dominating him. You can just be able to beat him and not to forget Fed has bageled nadal on all surfaces and nadal hasnt beaten fed indoors. Not that H2H matters but still.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
67 winning percentage is NOT owning, and most of the meeting was on Rafa's best and Roger's worst surface.

Roger is 19-2 against Davydenko(Nadal is 5-6), now that's owning.
 
67 winning percentage is NOT owning, and most of the meeting was on Rafa's best and Roger's worst surface.

Roger is 19-2 against Davydenko(Nadal is 5-6), now that's owning.
Do you purposely not listen? I guess so ?

Davydenko has only played Nadal in a best of three . Clay and grass Davy has zero chance . Best of give in hard court I guarantee Nadal wins a majority .

But what davy does is unimportant . the conpetition to te death is between the goats ......And Davy is not a goat contender.

Nadal is the only player to dominate all of the others on te big 4 whole fed has a losing record to half of them.

It's 14-4 since 2008 . Half of Feds wins ce on meaningless indoors .

I don't understand why certain Fed fans bring up Davy ? It's a losing and stupid argument .

Davy hasn't even met Nadal in a slam......yet you treat all matches as equal even though they are not equal.

You think Davy beating Nadal on some silly little two out of three in bumblefawk Illinois is equal to 8 slam wins on all surfaces?

And mind you since 2008 Nadal is undefeated in slams against fed ....that's total and utter domination . And 2x on hards and once on grass.
 
67 winning percentage is NOT owning, and most of the meeting was on Rafa's best and Roger's worst surface.
.
Your math is wrong .

You are counting all matches as equal when they are not . Wimbledon is worth more than some stupid indoor tournament in a best of three round robin or some stupid match in bumblefawk Illinois .

Since 2008 Nadal is UNDEFEATED in slams on all surfaces against FED

I think it's 5-0 ??? 3 of which were not on clay !

Now that's domination .
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
And besides Nadal 67% winning(as oppose to Fed 90% against Davydenko), Nadal only bageled Federer on clay while Fed was able to bageld Nadal on grass, clay and hard court.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Lupica has probably watched the big 4 against each other enough times to know Rafa is the obvious goat. Fed is 35-45 (44%)vs the big 4 - that is no goat material. He's a flop vs the very best. Rafa is an impressive 55-30 (65%) v the big 4.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Lupica has probably watched the big 4 against each other enough times to know Rafa is the obvious goat. Fed is 35-45 (44%)vs the big 4 - that is no goat material. He's a flop vs the very best. Rafa is an impressive 55-30 (65%) v the big 4.
There's is only room for four.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/o...st-history-respective-sport-article-1.1129218


And even if there's room to add a few more, Nadal still doesn't qualify. Sugar Ray Robinson, Gretzky or Pele probably take those spots.
 
What about Roddick-Djokovic? or Darcis and Rosol against Nadal?

you people are DELUSIONAL beyond belief if you think people will care about H2H records in about a decade. Simply put H2H doesnt matter, so basically even if Federer had a winning H2H against Nadal it really doesnt do much for him since he's already the GOAT by his resume.
Head to head doesn't matter ?!!

I think your delusional to think that people are going to forget the greatest match every played but remember Rosol or darcis ......

You guys just hang on to any Nadal hiccoughs because your man simply cannot beat Nadal.

The bottom line is of you continually beat someone on every surface in a SLAM you are better.

All that matters is slams . The rest is all just commentary

Everyone will remember wimby 2008 forever and it will stand as the symbol that Nadal is the better player forever .

You can't really argue with Lupicas logic .....it just makes sense :

Lupica said:
"How can he be the best player of all time," Lupica asked of Federer, "when he isn't even the best of his time? I mean, can you really call Roger Federer the greatest when there is a guy playing alongside him, during his exact time period, that he can't beat?"
 

Brett UK

Semi-Pro
Lupica has probably watched the big 4 against each other enough times to know Rafa is the obvious goat. Fed is 35-45 (44%)vs the big 4 - that is no goat material. He's a flop vs the very best. Rafa is an impressive 55-30 (65%) v the big 4.
Silly logic. If your logic was correct and universally agreed then Federer should have retired at end of 2007 with achievement of 12 slams and no French Open title, with much better H2H versus rivals. You must not understand tennis very well.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Lastly 2001 Australian Open was definitely not prime Sampras which is what the topic was about.
Uh it is the topic. If Sampras couldn't beat an unmotivated Safin in 2002 at the AO who had troubles with fitness and life issues, who the hell would he have beaten Safin at AO 2004, who was much, much fitter, motivated and playing a lot better?


The only round Sampras would have had a shot would have been the final at 04, where Safin would have lost to a lot of people given his draw. Sampras if making the final wouldn't be that fresh either (he wouldn't be smoking opponents all the way to the final) and is certainly not on Safin's level of fitness.
 

Fiercer

Semi-Pro
Well if he said Fed was goat the he would be Einstein of course.

His logic makes perfect sense.
Funny you should mention Einstein.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Are you really expecting anything from posting that Lupica quote over and over and over ad nauseam...?

Oh man, this thread in a nutshell.

 
Funny you should mention Einstein.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Are you really expecting anything from posting that Lupica quote over and over and over ad nauseam...?

Oh man, this thread in a nutshell.

I'm glad you brought Einstein up .

By Einsteins definition Federer is insane .

Fed keeps doing the same things against Nadal and he tries nothing new .

Pure insanity .
 

PCXL-Fan

Hall of Fame
I am not surprised you know so little about Vader's career. Do you know he was on a 20-odd-year winning streak (counting from the time of Luke's birth to his fluke win on slippery surface)?
Vader was and old man way way way past his prime and riddled with injuries. Plus Skywalker was getting sideline coaching (illegal) from Palpatine.
 

Fiercer

Semi-Pro
I'm glad you brought Einstein up .

By Einsteins definition Federer is insane .

Fed keeps doing the same things against Nadal and he tries nothing new .

Pure insanity .
Oh yeah? Must be easy for Nadal to beat this insane player that is Federer that only does the same thing over and over and never tries anything new. Like stealing candy from a child. Practically no achievement at all. But then, what does that tell us about Nadal, who have lost against this insane player? Shameful.

Its that or you are simply clueless about tennis and they are both great players constantly adapting, but Nadal usually having the edge because he is a good match-up against Federer, who is also five years older and isn't getting any younger.
 
Funny you should mention Einstein.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Mats Wilander :

"He has all the pieces of the puzzle in front of him, but he is still facing the same question: can he put all those pieces together when faced with Nadal? In Monte Carlo, Federer played the same way he did last year and the year before. And he lost the same way. The score doesn't matter, whenever Nadal plays with confidence the game follows the same course.

Okay, Federer is trying harder, but he hasn't decided to try something radically different. He should experiment with something new before the French, like chip and charge every single ball. Has he tried that before? Does he know how Nadal would react if he had to play hundreds of passing shots in a game? No. So he should try this, even if it means "wasting" a match."
 
Top