Lupica picks Nadal as GOAT

[10is]

Absolutely. I'm positive that if he had declared Federer the undisputed GOAT all this people would offer no objection to Lupica's great wisdom.

Oh really! Well Mr. Lupica did in fact proclaim Federer the GOAT -- just last year in fact:

Michael Phelps and Roger Federer join ranks of Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan as greatest in history of their sport

Mike Lupica has FORGOTTEN more about tennis than most of us will ever know.

Guess he FORGOT about calling FEDERER the GOAT as well.

 

[Forehand Visionary]

Oh really! Well Mr. Lupica did in fact proclaim Federer the GOAT -- just last year in fact:

Michael Phelps and Roger Federer join ranks of Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan as greatest in history of their sport

So Federer was the best up to 2012 but Nadal surpassed him this year in Lupica's mind. You just proved my point, as I don't remember any public outrage in the news about Lupica's obvious incompetence back then.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Oh really! Well Mr. Lupica did in fact proclaim Federer the GOAT -- just last year in fact:

Michael Phelps and Roger Federer join ranks of Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan as greatest in history of their sport

Guess he FORGOT about calling FEDERER the GOAT as well.

LOL. Now that is funny.

 

[Forehand Visionary]

LOL. Now that is funny.

It's funny as heck. Phelps huge ear nearly covers half of Jordan's face. Next time anybody does a group photo or group sculpture Phelps to the back!

 

[veroniquem]

The problem is, GOAT is determined by achievements , not head to heads. If a player beat the #1 time and again but lost to lesser players and never won a slam, he would not be the GOAT no matter what. The only way to become GOAT is to win titles. Rafa is on the right track with masters, I sure hope the slams will follow, starting with #13 in 2 weeks!

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Ahhh, but his credentials do not matter to those who blindly attack anyone not praising Federer. Further, if Lupica--with his decades of experience covering tennis--can be dismissed so easily, then it what does it say about the views of pro-Federer board members who will never see as much tennis?

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.

 

[Polaris]

The problem is, GOAT is determined by achievements , not head to heads. If a player beat the #1 time and again but lost to lesser players and never won a slam, he would not be the GOAT no matter what. The only way to become GOAT is to win titles. Rafa is on the right track with masters, I sure hope the slams will follow, starting with #13 in 2 weeks!

Well said. There is way too much rationality in this post. Did not expect it, but honestly: kudos!

 

[Forehand Visionary]

The problem is, GOAT is determined by achievements , not head to heads. If a player beat the #1 time and again but lost to lesser players and never won a slam, he would not be the GOAT no matter what. The only way to become GOAT is to win titles. Rafa is on the right track with masters, I sure hope the slams will follow, starting with #13 in 2 weeks!

It's not as much that H2H grants GOAT status to the winner automatically, but rather that it puts the GOAT status of the loser into question when the H2H is substantial and unbalanced enough.

 

[granddog29]

Exactly. Federer`s H2H vs Nadal does not make Nadal the GOAT. It simply demonstrates that Federer is not. No GOAT in any sport is so badly owned by by far their biggest rival and another of major all time great who shares top 5 all time status with them. Granted even if Federer did not have the embarsasing H2H with Nadal, Laver would have a superior record all things considered, but the embarassing record vs Nadal just ends any serious consideration entirely.

 

[tennis_hack]

How can Nadal be the GOAT when Hrbaty has a leading h2h against him?

 

[veroniquem]

A record is a record no matter who a player loses to. It would be like saying that Rafa's 26 master titles should not count because Davydenko has a leading head to head against him. That's just absurd.
Fed has the record in slams and WTF. And that record would stand even if he lost to Stakhovsky in the next 10 slams he plays.
Rafa can become the GOAT but it will not rely on how many times he beats Fed or anyone else for that matter. It will depend on how many more events he can win. (I do not believe greatness is measured by losses, it's earned through wins)

 

[10is]

The "rivalry" and H-H argument is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime and Nadal had entered his.

3) Considering a majority of those losses came against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H is therefore essentially akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another?

Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

 

[moonballs]

Exactly. Federer`s H2H vs Nadal does not make Nadal the GOAT. It simply demonstrates that Federer is not. No GOAT in any sport is so badly owned by by far their biggest rival and another of major all time great who shares top 5 all time status with them. Granted even if Federer did not have the embarsasing H2H with Nadal, Laver would have a superior record all things considered, but the embarassing record vs Nadal just ends any serious consideration entirely.

People saying the above must be too young to be a tennis fan at Federer's peak years. From 2004 to 2007 Federer was winning three slams and making the final in the one he couldn't win. This period was a big part of his GOAT accomplishment. Had he been WORSE at FO, and conversely, had Nadal been BETTER at grass and hard court slams, the h2h would have been a completely different story.

Federer did not fail to own Nadal. He owned the field better than any other players in the open era. Nadal is just one of the players in the field. Every time Fed lifted a slams trophy, he owned everyone who competed for that trophy. Last time i checked he has 17 of those, he might not be done yet.

 

[granddog29]

People saying the above must be too young to be a tennis fan at Federer's peak years.

Yeah since experts and past greats like John Mcenroe, Bud Collins, Martina Navratilova, Pam Shriver, Boris Becker, who have ALL said this at one point time are too young to have followed tennis during Federer`s peak years. Continue to delude yourself.

As for the lame clay court excuse, lets say for arguments sake they played a measley 5 times on clay (which means Federer in reality would be doing far more poorly on clay than Nadal on grass or hard courts, considering the huge number of hard court meetings, and considering Nadal was waiting for Federer in Wimbledon finals on grass all 5 years he played from 2006-2011, two which Federer as heavy favorite to reach finals failed to reach Nadal and likely the only thing protecting his narrow grass H2H lead on Nadal today, and when the grass season today is light years shorter than the clay one) and only 2 times at RG. The overall head to head would currently be 13-8 Nadal and the slam head to head 5-2 Nadal, despite a very low number of matches on clay vs hard courts and grass considering the ratio of events played on those surfaces today, and despite only 2 slam meetings (one on clay, one off) when Federer was older than 27, and 4 slam meetings when Nadal was 20 or younger. Sorry no mater how you slice it Federer is Nàdal`s slave, everyone knows it except blind Federer supporters, and no GOAT would be the slave of a fellow all time great and their biggest rival by far. Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, certainly never were, they owned everyone who came before them. Even Borg retired with a tied record vs Mcenroe.

 

[Forehand Visionary]

How can Nadal be the GOAT when Hrbaty has a leading h2h against him?

Is the H2H substantial enough? That's how.

 

[TMF]

People saying the above must be too young to be a tennis fan at Federer's peak years. From 2004 to 2007 Federer was winning three slams and making the final in the one he couldn't win. This period was a big part of his GOAT accomplishment. Had he been WORSE at FO, and conversely, had Nadal been BETTER at grass and hard court slams, the h2h would have been a completely different story.

Federer did not fail to own Nadal. He owned the field better than any other players in the open era. Nadal is just one of the players in the field. Every time Fed lifted a slams trophy, he owned everyone who competed for that trophy. Last time i checked he has 17 of those, he might not be done yet.

Solid post, especially the last paragraph. Whoever owns the field more is the winner in the end because he/she is the one who's lifting the trophy.

 

[monfed]

The "rivalry" and H-H argument is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime and Nadal had entered his.

3) Considering a majority of those losses came against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H is therefore essentially akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another?

Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

WHOA that's way too much sense for TW mang. BTW no amount of common sense is gonna deter Fed haters from bringing up the H2H to malign his GOATness so no point disecting it. Just sayin.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

The "rivalry" and H-H argument is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime and Nadal had entered his.

3) Considering a majority of those losses came against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H is therefore essentially akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another?

Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

People saying the above must be too young to be a tennis fan at Federer's peak years. From 2004 to 2007 Federer was winning three slams and making the final in the one he couldn't win. This period was a big part of his GOAT accomplishment. Had he been WORSE at FO, and conversely, had Nadal been BETTER at grass and hard court slams, the h2h would have been a completely different story.

Federer did not fail to own Nadal. He owned the field better than any other players in the open era. Nadal is just one of the players in the field. Every time Fed lifted a slams trophy, he owned everyone who competed for that trophy. Last time i checked he has 17 of those, he might not be done yet.

WHOA that's way too much sense for TW mang. BTW no amount of common sense is gonna deter Fed haters from bringing up the H2H to malign his GOATness so no point disecting it. Just sayin.

Solid and true.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Mike Lupica has FORGOTTEN more about tennis than most of us will ever know. The guy covered McEnroe and Borg when they were teenagers. His views may be polarizing. And you may not agree with them. But to dismiss 35+ years of sports journalism experience is pretty silly.

Of couse it is silly--but this is what happens when Federer fans cannot bring themselves to understand their fantasy (Federer as GOAT) has no basis in fact for anyone else.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

ownage... pure...

OMG LOL :lol:
Did ya make that pic?

i didn't, but i thought it would fit perfectly !

I was never nasty to you. If you believe what I was saying was nasty or insulting, then you really need to get out more.

What do you call these? Sweet nothings?

Or did you forget what you wrote?

I should have reported you, because when I looked at your posting history a pattern emerged of you doing this exact same thing to others.

TMF and I disagree on every level regarding tennis, but not once in all of the years that we’ve both been here have we ever insulted each other. It’s called class, whether you agree with a poster or not.
I’m not your punching bag, so I suggest you put me on ignore if you don’t like the way that I post, because I am not putting up with your garbage.

Today, 10:16 AM #129

Anaconda
Hall Of Fame



Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,119
________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth
Picking up a racket doesn't make you an expert. It just makes you think you know more than you actually do.

Disagree on this one. Especially in thread which has 'greatest of all time' in it. Feel free to post useless insults and degrade this thread, it just makes you look silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth
Your opinion is no better than anyone else's and you don't get to set the parameters for who can be a fan of tennis.

At no point, during my posts in this thread, have I actually made such a claim. I've never said 'x' people can't be a fan of tennis, however your comments at times makes me think you aren't even a fan of tennis either. You can read my posts in this debate on the previous page, then go and read yours. Come back and tell me you know better on this topic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth
You Fed Fans are such a frustrated lot. And please don't say you're not a Fed Fan, there's too many times that you come out against Nadal fans assigning Federer superiority. if you're not a Fed Fan, you should be based on your actions.


How can I even argue with someone who has the literacy skills of an 8 year old. This paragraph of yours is factually incorrect; I'm not a Federer fan and I have said (on many occasions) Nadal has a chance to become the greatest of all time. I have no problem with Nadal or Federer (as stated). I have an opinion which is Federer is the greatest which is bolstered by my facts which I have already submitted . This, in no way shape or form, indicates that I am a Nadal hater and a Federer worshiper.

You say I come out against Nadal fans. You're telling me Cesc and Veroniquem don't deserve the crap they get? I once read a post from Cesc explaining how JMDP was a total fail of a tennis player (prior to US Open 2009) and his 'digrace, an scandal, a outrage' thread is legendary to the point even Batz, a fair poster unless you harm Murray, is using it.


You might want to be correct when telling me what I am and what I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth
You weren't even in the conversation, just meddling and instigating.

Except, these crummy posts are the reason many decent posters rarely post here now. I wanted to step in to stop what was turning out to be a brawl in what was a fairly decent discussion (in terms of GOAT threads). Even TMF has kept fairly quiet.
__________________
'Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth'.

updating anaconda.txt.

 

[Rippy]

Of couse it is silly--but this is what happens when Federer fans cannot bring themselves to understand their fantasy (Federer as GOAT) has no basis in fact for anyone else.

You don't honestly believe the nonsense you post, do you?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/top.ten.tennis/content.10.html

http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx

Yeah, clearly nobody outside of a few deluded idiots on this forum thinks Federer is the best player ever.

 

[Omega_7000]

i didn't, but i thought it would fit perfectly !




updating anaconda.txt.

You are one of most objective and unbiased posters on this forum. ;-)

 

[Rippy]

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.

Lol, that is some serious ownage.

THUNDERVOLLEY says we cannot trust Lupica's opinion when he says Federer is the GOAT, but then insults those who criticise Lupica when he instead picks Nadal as the GOAT.

Can't get any more inconsistent than that.

 

[Anaconda]

updating anaconda.txt.

??? I must be the only one who think's I was not out of order in this thread. Nevermind.

 

[Omega_7000]

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.

I would like to see a reply to this too.

 

[NatF]

I would like to see a reply to this too.

I third that motion :twisted:

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

People saying the above must be too young to be a tennis fan at Federer's peak years. From 2004 to 2007 Federer was winning three slams and making the final in the one he couldn't win. This period was a big part of his GOAT accomplishment.

Illogical. You cannot use a failure to win a major--particularly in a year where the subject won the other three--and use that as a credit in the error-ridden "Federer is GOAT" argument.

That incomplete year is not a benefit to a career.

He failed to win the Grand Slam, so Roger Federer will forever be another Wilander--he was not talented enough for absolute domination of the year's majors.

Federer did not fail to own Nadal. He owned the field better than any other players in the open era. Nadal is just one of the players in the field.

Absurd. Nadal is the central, successful figure--side by side with Federer--of this tennis generation. If Federer could not turn the tables on him, it serves as a glaring example of how he was not good enough to handle the best, but won against lesser players.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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

Nadal is no "man of the hour." He's simply marching through time, and as his career is shoulder-to-shoulder with Federer, none can think Federer is any sort of GOAT. As granddog so accurately observed:

Federer`s H2H vs Nadal does not make Nadal the GOAT. It simply demonstrates that Federer is not.

Lupica has his reasons for calling Nadal a GOAT. While I do not agree with that (but understand his reason for saying it), it does not automatically make Federer GOAT either, and the horrible history against Nadal is the key reason for that--the side-by-side best player of this generation.

 

[Forehand Visionary]

The "rivalry" and H-H argument is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime and Nadal had entered his.

3) Considering a majority of those losses came against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H is therefore essentially akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another?

Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

You can attempt to justify the poor H2H any way you want it, but he fact is:
1. Age difference works both ways. Nadal started beating Fed (on HC no less) when Nadal was a very immature 17 year old, while Fed was 22 years old.

2. Federer has NEVER had the upper hand in the H2H, not even during his whole peak and prime periods, and while Nadal was still a greenhorn.

3. While it's true Nadal is arguably the best clay coarter ever and the H2H is heavily skewed towards clay, Nadal also leads in HC, and I'm convinced that if the grass tally were more substantial, he would lead there too.

4. The "one generation apart" argument is wrong, because the H2H is substantial, and because it includes both players' peak years, as well as Nadal's pre-prime and Federer post-prime years.

5. The most damaging fact, and what the H2H truly reflects, is that Federer was basically unable to respond wih his racquet to his main rival, which makes him unsuitable to receive the GOAT mantle.

Make no mistake, Federer is the most accomplished player ever at this point, just not the GOAT. A GOAT is not owned by his main rival, and certainly doesn't need excuses to justify a poor and substantial H2H.

 

[Forehand Visionary]

Solid post, especially the last paragraph. Whoever owns the field more is the winner in the end because he/she is the one who's lifting the trophy.

But Fed didn't own the field, he owned the field EXCEPT Nadal. Nadal owned him.

 

[abmk]

^^

federer was 5-2 vs nadal off clay at his peak ( 04-07 ) ..

nadal just avoided him a lot on HC at his peak - of course he's going to have a slight lead now given federer still meets him now even with a broken back ( see IW 2013 ) .

That and federer showing up consistently on clay - are the main reasons for the skewed h2h.

 

[Omega_7000]

There is no "perfect' player...All great players have holes in their resume. Federer has the least number of holes on his as compared to almost anyone in history....Whether you would consider him goat or not is then subjective and driven a lot by who you idolized growing up and the media pundits who hype the current in form player to popularize the sport.

 

[abmk]

Lupica has his reasons for calling Nadal a GOAT. While I do not agree with that (but understand his reason for saying it), it does not automatically make Federer GOAT either, and the horrible history against Nadal is the key reason for that--the side-by-side best player of this generation.

you understand Lupica's reason for saying Nadal is the GOAT. You do ?

 

[Forehand Visionary]

I would like to see a reply to this too.

Simple: Lupica was wrong and has seen the light. What sense is there in not forgiving his previous faults?

 

[PSNELKE]

There is no "perfect' player...All great players have holes in their resume. Federer has the least number of holes on his as compared to almost anyone in history....Whether you would consider him goat or not is then subjective and driven a lot by who you idolized growing up and the media pundits who hype the current in form player to popularize the sport.

Wow, a sensible post by Omega. :shock:

 

[Omega_7000]

Lupica has his reasons for calling Nadal a GOAT. While I do not agree with that (but understand his reason for saying it)

You're completely biased and I'm glad you were called out for it. You poop on Lupica when he calls Fed the goat and the put him on a pedestal when he calls Nadal the goat.

I'm pretty sure you're no Rod Laver fan either...Just a Fed hater who is trying desperately to name anyone but him as the goat. It's ok if you don't think he's the goat but why are you trying to shove your opinion down everyone's throat?

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

??? I must be the only one who think's I was not out of order in this thread. Nevermind.

you misunderstood me !
you were definitely not 'out of order', i was just making a reference to an old TTW episode (one of those legendary threads !) that you apparently missed:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5741181#189

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5744804&highlight=updating#post5744804

Do you remember a post you made bragging about how your mission on this board was to create flamewars and extinguish the Nadaltrolls on this board? You named other cohorts as well.

I couldn't believe you put it in writing, (lucky break for me) but you did. Do you remember that? (I can send it to you, or the mods), your choice.

The good thing is, your posting history backs up your statements. You've come after me so many times that I was forced to keep a file on you, and boy did you keeping adding to that folder. It's really funny if you think about it.

This is so sad...
So, she does have hobbies other than Ralph's bum...
It's chasing around Namranger and keeping files on him..
ROFLx Stalky Nadtrardol

*putting some very loud mexican music*

be careful: she also has an "aphex file"...

i was acused of having a personal vendeta... NamRanger as well... your post...

it's starting to sound like a mexican duel, Taratino\Rodriguez style...!

wowowowow... weu weuweu.... wowowoow... weu weu weu...

(...)

updating gorecki.txt
14.06.2011, unknown underground parking: trading suspicious pictures with roland-******.

updating pending_investigations.txt
14.06.2011: would gorecki be a closet nadal fan ?...

updating pending_investigations.txt
14.06.2011: naaah... not possible......

updating pending_investigations.txt
14.06.2011: ... or maybe ???

this old thread certainly deserves a look... THIS was the strong TTW era !
ah, good old times...

 

[The Dark Knight]

"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?"

The logic is sound and simply cannot be argued with .

 

[The Dark Knight]

There is no "perfect' player...All great players have holes in their resume. Federer has the least number of holes on his as compared to almost anyone in history....Whether you would consider him goat or not is then subjective and driven a lot by who you idolized growing up and the media pundits who hype the current in form player to popularize the sport.

It's the quality of the holes that matter....

Being beaten in slam finals on all surfaces ....including your best surface is the ultimate hole in the résumé .

Lupicas point it's the how can you be considered the goat is there is someone around in your time who can beat you .

You simply cannot be better than someone when you lose on all surfaces and in slam finals ....

Since 2008 the record is 14-4 , overall it's 21-10 . In slams since 2008 Nadal is undefeated .

That's not an opinion but a fact . How can Fed be considered the goat when Nadal is undefeated in slams since 2008 ....on every surface ? Can there possibly be more domination ?

 

[fednad]

The logic is sound and simply cannot be argued with .

ahem....
Now, we are talking of logic. This is a historical moment.

 

[fednad]

Simple: Lupica was wrong and has seen the light. What sense is there in not forgiving his previous faults?

Reading holy books?

 

[The_Order]

^^

federer was 5-2 vs nadal off clay at his peak ( 04-07 ) ..

nadal just avoided him a lot on HC at his peak - of course he's going to have a slight lead now given federer still meets him now even with a broken back ( see IW 2013 ) .

That and federer showing up consistently on clay - are the main reasons for the skewed h2h.

Fed has only ever gained dominance over Nadal at one tournament which uses an indoor HC. That's it, everywhere else and you can't make a case for Fed.

Grass is 2-1 in favour of Fed however 2 of the 3 encounters were both really close and could go either way. Grass is even h2h.

Outdoor HC and Fed has only ever beat Nadal twice, with one of those coming from Nadal choking more so than Federer feeling more comfortable on the HC surface. Nadal otoh, has beat Fed 7 times in these conditions. Sorry, but you don't have a case here, Nadal owns him when they play outdoor HC matches, FACT.

Clay and I don't really need to say anything.

So this whole idea of a skewed h2h is rubbish made up by federinas such as yourself to help you sleep at night :lol:

 

[tennis_hack]

But Fed didn't own the field, he owned the field EXCEPT Nadal. Nadal owned him.

Yeah, but you're not judging Federer against some mythical God who has won every tournament he's entered and never lost against any of his main rivals - you're comparing him to other greats, who, themselves are not perfect. None of them are.

Sampras was dominant over his main rivals, won a lot, yet sucked on a particular surface.

Federer won even more, yet sucked against a particular player.

Then, Nadal won more often than not against his contemporaries, yet was too inconsistent on 3/4 of surfaces to win as much as the other two (so far).

So basically, all three of them are mugs and can't be GOAT.

 

[TMF]

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.

Lupica has his reasons for calling Nadal a GOAT. While I do not agree with that (but understand his reason for saying it), it does not automatically make Federer GOAT either, and the horrible history against Nadal is the key reason for that--the side-by-side best player of this generation.

You discredit Lupica's opinion last year when he ranked Federer the greatest in history of his sport. Federer was a 17 slam champions last year but Nadal only has 12. But to you Lupica has a good reason to pick nadal a goat but picking Federer last year is media hype. ROFL !

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

You're completely biased and I'm glad you were called out for it. You poop on Lupica when he calls Fed the goat and the put him on a pedestal when he calls Nadal the goat.

Do you even read what your type before clicking submit?

If one does not agree with Lupica's "Nadal-is-GOAT" claim, there is no putting Lupica on a pedestal. How you miss that is...interesting. This is why the truly biased members--yourself included--believe that anything short of using gold-plated lips to kiss Federer's butt is seen as "bias."

Absurd.

You are so in the grip of delusion (and fail to recognize history) that posts like yours are expected.

 

[TMF]

But Fed didn't own the field, he owned the field EXCEPT Nadal. Nadal owned him.

Yes, and Davy own Nadal(6-1 on hc) and how many weeks at #1 does he have?

You can own 10 or 20 players but still that's not going to guarantee being the best player on the tour. Most successful against the tour proved you are the better player. 17 slams, 302 weeks at #1, 237 consecutive weeks.

 

[TMF]

Simple: Lupica was wrong and has seen the light. What sense is there in not forgiving his previous faults?

LOL. So he failed to see the light because Roger has 17 slams, but now he see the light because Nadal has 12.

 

[objectivity]

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)?

is Mirka palpatine? haha.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Yes, and Davy own Nadal(6-1 on hc) and how many weeks at #1 does he have?

You can own 10 or 20 players but still that's not going to guarantee being the best player on the tour. Most successful against the tour proved you are the better player. 17 slams, 302 weeks at #1, 237 consecutive weeks.

Yes Davy has a leading record of 6-5 not 14-4 since 2008 or 21-10 lifetime.

On clay Davy has never won . On grass Davy has never won . A five set match Davy has never won .

How do you even compare ???

 

[The Dark Knight]

"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?"

Poetry . Can't really say it better than that or argue against it .