Martina Navratilova convinced Nadal will be the GOAT

[flyinghippos101]

I'm not sure it's that much of a cop-out. Djokovic and Murray at the top of their games are clearly not unbeatable (Murray played as well as he possibly could in the Wimbledon 2010 semi-final, and Nadal still took him in straights), as their relative lack of Grand Slam success suggests. Murray may be able to perform great in Masters under less pressure, but in the ultimate pressure cooker of slams, it's Nadal and Federer that repeatdly perform. And Nadal has Federer's number in slams...which sort of gives him the edge.

How is it not a cop out? Simply saying just because someone is unbeatable when every aspect of their game is clicking is halfhearted when it comes to labeling a player "GOAT" Djokovic played his absolute best in AO, look what happened. Safin played his best early in his career and at the AO where he beat prime Fed that seemed invincible. But does that make them GOAT candidates? Nope. And no, Murray did not play to the best of his ability at Wimby this year, it wasn't terrbile but not by any means his best. Nadal played solid but not brilliantly while Murray had multiple chances for another set and blew it, not quite the mark of a guy playing the absolute best he could.

 

[Trillus]

He could have won a hard court slam when he wasn't decent on the surface? I don't get how people can say it takes time for Rafa's game to evolve on other surfaces, but Federer's game, one which takes much longer to develop than a baseline counterpunching one, is routinely criticized for not blossoming early.

He won 2 Masters titles on hard courts in 2005, nearly a 3rd when he was points from a 3 straight sets win over Federer in the Miami final, and beat Federer for a 2nd time in 3 meetings on hard courts just after Australia. Obviously he was more than decent on hard courts. Was he the best player on hard courts back then? Of course not, Federer was by far. However the reason he would have had a great shot to win the 2006 Australian Open was how it played out. Baghdatis his pigeon making the final, and an overall weakish draw of players making it late except for Federer and Nalbandian (who choked against Baghdatis). And Federer despite winning quite subpar, probably playing the worst tennis he played in any of the hard court slams he won or reached the final. That combined with the nemisis matchup Nadal already was for Federer. The guys who usually take Nadal out in hard court slams around then nowhere deep in the draw this year, except for someone like Nalbandian who choked badly in the semis vs someone like Baghdatis (not that Nalbandian and Nadal ever played in a slam anyway).

 

[powerangle]

I firmly believe Nadal would have won both the French Open and Wimbledon last year had he not gotten injured. That would leave him with 11 slams and Federer with 14, already alot closer. Quite possibly he could have won the 2006 Australian Open as well had he been able to play.

Highly doubtful for the 2006 AO for Rafa. A bit of wishful thinking, really. FO and Wimby last year? For sure. But no, not 2006 AO. You're right there was a weakish draw that year at the AO, but if you input Rafa into the draw, the whole draw could look very different. Every player ranked below him would have been seeded one spot lower and the whole draw for the seeded players could have been shuffled. And then who knows which players would have gone through or how the whole tournament would have played out. Maybe Rafa's nemeses would have survived due to different matchups/opponents they would have been pitted against. That's why they play the matches on the court and not on paper.

There's always a chance that Rafa could have won it all, but Rafa always had a chance at the other slams that he didn't win too.

 

[veroniquem]

For Nadal, that's how he plays (and wins). If he never got injured, it would ultimately mean that he followed a smoother, less tough on the knees gameplan. But his success depends heavily on playing like he does right now. Therefore we can't even discuss how things would have been if he had a completely different gameplan that didn't get him hurt all the time.

What I'm saying is that Nadal's success has been exceptional WITH the knee problems. Without them, Fed would not even compare. With them, it will take a bit more time but the final outcome is still gonna be impressive enough to trump Fed's achievements in a lot of categories.

 

[veroniquem]

You predicted Nadal would win double digit slams since his breakout tournament? Really now?

I predicted he would be #1 and he would beat Federer A LOT and I also sensed he would go down as the best player of open era. It was a gamble of course but that's the way I felt. Nadal has more potential than Fed. His mental is even stronger and he has more athletic abilities. I knew if anyone would do such feats as 4 slams in a row or slams on all surfaces in 1 season, it would be Rafa, not Fed. It was also easy to see Rafa would take surfaces from Fed in a way Fed would never take clay from him (after Rafa's 2005 astonishing clay season). You could tell Rafa's game was perfect to dominate Fed's game and that Rafa would own the head to head.

 

[OddJack]

Cancer is getting into her brain.

She needs chemotherapy.

 

[TACOSRULE]

And on top of that Fed has the best looking tennis game, style wise, ever...yeahhhhh

:lol:

beauty is in the eye of the beholder..

 

[AM95]

jumping on the bandwagon. wait until rafa gets injured another time, then everyone will jump off.

 

[veroniquem]

I sure won't. In his worst injury year, Nadal won 1 slam, 3 masters and 1 500.
Fed has done worse than Rafa without being injured in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

 

[veroniquem]

Cancer is getting into her brain.

She needs chemotherapy.

No joke about cancer please. That's a disease I would not wish upon my worst enemies and I have several loved ones fighting against it

 

[ThePKwon]

No joke about cancer please. That's a disease I would not wish upon my worst enemies and I have several loved ones fighting against it

Agreed, I don't know when AIDS and cancer became something to joke about. It's really not funny.

On topic, Nadal may very well have a chance to tie or break Federer's record. However, everyone has to keep in account that Federer is still fighting. No.2, that's not a career that's over yet. Either way, just respect all players.

 

[Chopin]

'You can be pretty safe in predicting Nadal will claim two Slams a year for the next five years, so that puts him on 19 Slams and I'd be confident in saying he should get to 20 at least. Having won already on all four surfaces, he will be the greatest tennis player of all time.'

Sorry, Martina, but it's not "safe" to predict that a player will two slams a year for the next five years. Gosh, that's idiocy. It's not even reasonable to predict that. It's reasonable to predict that Nadal will win more slams, and reasonable to pick him as the favorite going into next year, but according to Martina, it's a "safe" prediction that Nadal will win two slams a year until he's 29?

 

[Chopin]

I sure won't. In his worst injury year, Nadal won 1 slam, 3 masters and 1 500.
Fed has done worse than Rafa without being injured in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Federer is 29...

Let's see how Nadal is doing when he's north of 25...

 

[nadal_slam_king]

I don't think Rafa is going to have to win 2 slams per year for the next 5 years. He's going to win more than 2 slams per year for a couple of those years so reaching 19 slams won't take as long as 5 years. But I do think he'll still be winning slams when he's 29. His work ethic will allow him to hang-on longer than people think.

 

[veroniquem]

Federer is 29...

Let's see how Nadal is doing when he's north of 25...

As I said, Fed didn't even do that well once he was north of 26! And because Nadal has such a head start, he doesn't need to do as well as Fed north of 24. I don't know why simple maths are so hard to grasp for some people.
I agree that 2 slams a year is NOT a given at any age. BUT Nadal is 7 slams behind 16: I hope people's skills in maths are good enough to understand Nadal doesn't need 2 slams a year for the next 5 years to catch up...

 

[ninman]

Different people, different careers, everything is different. Despite Nadal's excellent year, he hasn't posted anything like the kind of numbers Federer posted during his prime.

 

[veroniquem]

Yet he's posted more constant numbers throughout his career. Until now advantage Nadal, let's see how different it will be in 2 years (corresponding to Fed's great 2006 and 2007).

 

[danielrios]

I sure won't. In his worst injury year, Nadal won 1 slam, 3 masters and 1 500.
Fed has done worse than Rafa without being injured in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

2003: Wimbledon? Masters cup??? 4 250 and 1 500?

2009: Wimbledon? Roland Garros?? Cincinnati? Madrid?

If you call that a bad year.........

 

[Jchurch]

He won 2 Masters titles on hard courts in 2005, nearly a 3rd when he was points from a 3 straight sets win over Federer in the Miami final, and beat Federer for a 2nd time in 3 meetings on hard courts just after Australia. Obviously he was more than decent on hard courts. Was he the best player on hard courts back then? Of course not, Federer was by far. However the reason he would have had a great shot to win the 2006 Australian Open was how it played out. Baghdatis his pigeon making the final, and an overall weakish draw of players making it late except for Federer and Nalbandian (who choked against Baghdatis). And Federer despite winning quite subpar, probably playing the worst tennis he played in any of the hard court slams he won or reached the final. That combined with the nemisis matchup Nadal already was for Federer. The guys who usually take Nadal out in hard court slams around then nowhere deep in the draw this year, except for someone like Nalbandian who choked badly in the semis vs someone like Baghdatis (not that Nalbandian and Nadal ever played in a slam anyway).

I would hardly call Nadal a nemesis matchup for Federer at that point. I see your belief that Nadal would have had a chance against Federer at the AO in 06 as wishful thinking. Frankly, I think that this could have taken the matchup in a different way. Maybe had Federer of had greater success on all surfaces against Nadal early, he might not have buried himself as deep in Federer's head as he did.

I don't feel that Nadal was a subpar hard court player in 2005. I just find it unfair that many on this board chastise Federer for taking longer than Nadal to achieve what he has, all the while people praise Nadal for being a versatile player on all surfaces who took his time to develop his game. Federer is as versatile if not more versatile than any other player in the history of the game.

 

[danielrios]

Yet he posted more constant numbers throughout his career. Until now advantage Nadal, let's see how different it will be in 2 years (corresponding to Fed's great 2006 and 2007).

You have to compare it under the light of Federer right? Stop dreaming please. Nadal is a great tennis player but has nothing to do with who Federer is as a person and everything we know besides tennis.
There's somethng I just cant buy from Nadal.

 

[veroniquem]

2003: Wimbledon? Masters cup??? 4 250 and 1 500?

2009: Wimbledon? Roland Garros?? Cincinnati? Madrid?

If you call that a bad year.........

No but I call it less good than Rafa's 2009.
2003: 1 slam and 0 master shield (couldn't care less about 250!)
2009: only 4 titles total: same number of tier 1 events but nothing on top.

 

[Messarger]

I would hardly call Nadal a nemesis matchup for Federer at that point. I see your belief that Nadal would have had a chance against Federer at the AO in 06 as wishful thinking. Frankly, I think that this could have taken the matchup in a different way. Maybe had Federer of had greater success on all surfaces against Nadal early, he might not have buried himself as deep in Federer's head as he did.

I don't feel that Nadal was a subpar hard court player in 2005. I just find it unfair that many on this board chastise Federer for taking longer than Nadal to achieve what he has, all the while people praise Nadal for being a versatile player on all surfaces who took his time to develop his game. Federer is as versatile if not more versatile than any other player in the history of the game.

Maybe you did not know this but 2005 A.N. (after Nadal), amazing rafa was still unable to harness the power of his goat forehand to the greatest effects on the hardcourts, hitting it so short that even oliver rochus had no problem hitting that forehand on the rise. and amazing rafa's beastly backhand was so full of top spin. now he can hit flat slice curve tornado and fire with it. just watch 2009 AO and 2010 USO (for his slice) how can u say he was not a subpar player? it took him many years of meditation to achieve his hard court prowess there is definitely a difference from 2005 to now.

 

[Chopin]

As I said, Fed didn't even do that well once he was north of 26! And because Nadal has such a head start, he doesn't need to do as well as Fed north of 24. I don't know why simple maths are so hard to grasp for some people.
I agree that 2 slams a year is NOT a given at any age. BUT Nadal is 7 slams behind 16: I hope people's skills in maths are good enough to understand Nadal doesn't need 2 slams a year for the next 5 years to catch up...

Yes, "simple maths" are hard for people to grasp.

Federer had won 11 slams before age 26 (and he won the US Open right after turning 26--within weeks). This is the point. Players start slipping once they get past 25 years of age or so and there's no reason to think that this won't happen to Nadal. You're also assuming that Federer won't win another few slams. Nadal will be turning 25 next year and things change quickly in tennis. If Nadal has a bad year next year, for whatever the reason, his chances of beating Federer's count could be greatly diminished--nothing is certain.

In fact, let's make a bet: if Nadal ends up with more slams than Federer, I'll retire from these Boards, never to post again, and if Nadal fails to break Federer's record (whatever that ends up being), then you shall retire, never to post again. What do you say?

 

[veroniquem]

You have to compare it under the light of Federer right? Stop dreaming please. Nadal is a great tennis player but has nothing to do with who Federer is as a person and everything we know besides tennis.

No Nadal has nothing to do with Fed as a person: he's much more down to earth and likeable. Still Fed is a great player. You can't take that away from him.
I'm comparing them at same age to clarify my post, next year is Nadal's 25th year and that corresponds to Fed's 25th year: 2006.

 

[veroniquem]

Yes, "simple maths" are hard for people to grasp.

North of 26? Federer had won 11 slams before age 26 (and he won the US Open right after turning 26--within weeks). This is the point. Players start slipping when they reach 25-26 and there's no reason to think that this won't happen to Nadal.

Poor effort.

What I'm saying is Fed accused a sharp decline at age 26 (never winning more than 4 titles a season again) in 2008 (when he was still 26 until August). I'm also saying Nadal doesn't need 2 slams a year for 5 years (that would make 19 right?) to match 16. Simple.

 

[Edberg]

Who cares what he thinks. Stick to what you know best....babes.

 

[veroniquem]

Yes, "simple maths" are hard for people to grasp.

Federer had won 11 slams before age 26 (and he won the US Open right after turning 26--within weeks). This is the point. Players start slipping once they get past 25 years of age or so and there's no reason to think that this won't happen to Nadal. You're also assuming that Federer won't win another few slams. Nadal will be turning 25 next year and things change quickly in tennis. If Nadal has a bad year next year, for whatever the reason, his chances of beating Federer's count could be greatly diminished--nothing is certain.

In fact, let's make a bet: if Nadal ends up with more slams than Federer, I'll retire from these Boards, never to post again, and if Nadal fails to break Federer's record (whatever that ends up being), then you shall retire, never to post again. What do you say?

I don't want you to retire from the board, no matter what! I hate it when people disappear...
Nadal can afford to slip around 26 because his results before 25 were better than Fed's. I'm not saying he won't slip. I'm saying the opposite. He can slip and still have an advance over Fed.

 

[Jchurch]

Maybe you did not know this but 2005 A.N. (after Nadal), amazing rafa was still unable to harness the power of his goat forehand to the greatest effects on the hardcourts, hitting it so short that even oliver rochus had no problem hitting that forehand on the rise. and amazing rafa's beastly backhand was so full of top spin. now he can hit flat slice curve tornado and fire with it. just watch 2009 AO and 2010 USO (for his slice) how can u say he was not a subpar player? it took him many years of meditation to achieve his hard court prowess there is definitely a difference from 2005 to now.

I totally agree with you, but a decent amount of people speak of 2005 Rafa as though he was some hard court chump. Now they praise his supreme versatility on all surfaces claiming it to be unmatched by anyone. None the less, Rafa was not a subpar hard court player in 2005.

 

[veroniquem]

No, not in best of 3. He still had a lot to work on for best of 5.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't think Rafa is going to have to win 2 slams per year for the next 5 years. He's going to win more than 2 slams per year for a couple of those years so reaching 19 slams won't take as long as 5 years. But I do think he'll still be winning slams when he's 29. His work ethic will allow him to hang-on longer than people think.

That's truly exciting.

So where does that take the count ? (I am poor at Math)

 

[abmk]

I sure won't. In his worst injury year, Nadal won 1 slam, 3 masters and 1 500.
Fed has done worse than Rafa without being injured in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

LOL ! wut ??? fed did worse than rafa in 2009 ??? :lol:

heck, even fed 2008 vs rafa 2009 is somewhat debatable as fed did far better in slams

 

[abmk]

I think in terms of quality of play, Nadal already is the so called "GOAT", though I realize not everyone will agree with that. But Nadal playing at his absolute top level beats everyone. So there you go. No other combination of power, angles, speed, movement and tenacity in the history of the game.

umm, no , he is not, not on any surface except clay ... federer at his best > nadal at his best on grass/hard courts, and that's just from this generation , quite a few from the previous generations are better than nadal at their respective bests on grass/hard

 

[ledwix]

LOL ! wut ??? fed did worse than rafa in 2009 ??? :lol:

heck, even fed 2008 vs rafa 2009 is somewhat debatable as fed did far better in slams

Yeah didn't you hear? Rafael Nadal was the #1 player in the world last year, right? Oh wait...

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I think in terms of quality of play, Nadal already is the so called "GOAT", though I realize not everyone will agree with that. But Nadal playing at his absolute top level beats everyone. So there you go. No other combination of power, angles, speed, movement and tenacity in the history of the game.

That's cute. You really believe that, don't you? How precious. :lol:

 

[veroniquem]

LOL ! wut ??? fed did worse than rafa in 2009 ??? :lol:

heck, even fed 2008 vs rafa 2009 is somewhat debatable as fed did far better in slams

Fed's 2008 is absolutely not debatable unless you want to tell me that 3 250 are better than 3 masters + a 500, lol. Oh no wait, you're gonna tell me finals matter more than titles. (Not!)
And in 2009, yeah funny, but with his 0 injury advantage, Fed still managed to win fewer titles than kneeless Rafa. Odd, right?

 

[abmk]

Fed's 2008 is absolutely not debatable unless you want to tell me that 3 250 are better than 3 masters + a 500, lol. Oh no wait, you're gonna tell me finals matter more than titles. (Not!)

1. explain how on hell was 2009 included in that list ? :lol:

2. I said somewhat debatable, if you consider slam results as tops . fed was W,F,F,SF in 2008 ... nadal was W,SF,4R,DNP in 2009..

anyways his slam in that year was before his injuries , he didn't win a single title for close to 11 months after rome 2009 , so that post of yours isn't even that relevant !

 

[abmk]

Fed's 2008 is absolutely not debatable unless you want to tell me that 3 250 are better than 3 masters + a 500, lol. Oh no wait, you're gonna tell me finals matter more than titles. (Not!)
And in 2009, yeah funny, but with his 0 injury advantage, Fed still managed to win fewer titles than kneeless Rafa. Odd, right?

all of rafa's titles in 2009 came before his injury . memory loss much ? :lol:

 

[TACOSRULE]

And in 2009, yeah funny, but with his 0 injury advantage, Fed still managed to win fewer titles than kneeless Rafa. Odd, right?

thats because there are too many tournaments on clay. there are not nearly enough on HC's

 

[veroniquem]

I think in terms of quality of play, Nadal already is the so called "GOAT", though I realize not everyone will agree with that. But Nadal playing at his absolute top level beats everyone. So there you go. No other combination of power, angles, speed, movement and tenacity in the history of the game.

So true, right? Fed cannot find a way vs Rafa, but Rafa can find a way vs anyone on any surface.

 

[veroniquem]

thats because there are too many tournaments on clay. there are not nearly enough on HC's

3 masters on clay vs 6 masters on hard, 1 slam on clay vs 2 on hard. You were saying?

 

[TACOSRULE]

^we havent seen vs Del Potro on HC's but I think he can do it

3 masters on clay vs 6 masters on hard, 1 slam on clay vs 2 on hard. You were saying?

I was being sarcastic.

 

[veroniquem]

1. explain how on hell was 2009 included in that list ? :lol:

2. I said somewhat debatable, if you consider slam results as tops . fed was W,F,F,SF in 2008 ... nadal was W,SF,4R,DNP in 2009..

anyways his slam in that year was before his injuries , he didn't win a single title for close to 11 months after rome 2009 , so that post of yours isn't even that relevant !

There was a specific context to that post: someone said if Rafa's 2009 season repeats itself, everyone will jump off the bandwaggon and I replied: certainly not me given than with 1 slam, 3 masters and 1 500 Nadal did better (titlewise) than Fed did in a # of seasons, better or similar, the relevance of my post is that I don't think Rafa's 2009 is a good example of a convincing reason to jump ship...

 

[nadal_slam_king]

That's truly exciting.

So where does that take the count ? (I am poor at Math)

I don't put a ceiling on the count. But let's say:

2011: win Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 12
2012: win Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 14
2013: win Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 17
2014: win Roland Garros, US Open = 19
2015: win Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 21

But it's impossible to predict, because there has never been a player like Nadal before, except for Borg but Borg retired so early we never found out his limitations.

 

[Xemi666]

I don't put a ceiling on the count. But let's say:

2011: win Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 12
2012: win Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 14
2013: win Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 17
2014: win Roland Garros, US Open = 19
2015: win Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 21

But it's impossible to predict, because there has never been a player like Nadal before, except for Borg but Borg retired so early we never found out his limitations.

And don't you think those predictions are too optimistic? When Rafa won AO and IW in 2009 he looked unstoppable, and then look what happened. A lot can change in a year, nevermind 5 years.

 

[Wozupniacki]

And Martina saying she felt her motivation wane at 26 and 27 is kind of laughable too considering she had her greatest years ever at age 26 and 27. It is probably another attempt to difuse from the reality Steffi Graf kicked her off the top while still in her prime.

"I started to notice my powers of recovery began to wane at 26 and 27".
Where do you see her talking about motivation? She's talking about the ability to recover physically.

 

[nadal_slam_king]

And don't you think those predictions are too optimistic? When Rafa won AO and IW in 2009 he looked unstoppable, and then look what happened. A lot can change in a year, nevermind 5 years.

In 2009 he had tendonitis flare-ups in his knees. But guess what happened in 2010? He had tendonitis before the clay season, and in the other knee had tendonitis during Roland Garros and couldn't get it treated until after Wimbledon (because the treatment takes 3-4 days of rest and he couldn't rest because he had to adapt to grass). So what was the difference between 2009 and 2010? He had a different doctor (the number one doctor in treatment of tendonitis) and that doctor applied a better methodology of blood-spinning. So in other words, what happened in 2009 was a medical error made by the previous doctor, and it therefore won't be repeated. Rafa just won 3 slams in a year while getting tendonitis in both knees. So there is no reason to expect the latest treatment to suddenly not work. And my predictions aren't as optimistic as some, because there are people who think Rafa will win the Calendar Year Grand Slam next year. I didn't even predict he'd win the CYGS at any stage in his career. The only constants I predicted were Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

 

[Sentinel]

"I started to notice my powers of recovery began to wane at 26 and 27".
Where do you see her talking about motivation? She's talking about the ability to recover physically.

that reminds me of what agassi said about cashing too many checks. was it about nadal ?

Nadal could have years with 3-4 slams and some with 0-1, too. I think he can get 4-5 more slams. Beyond that depends on injuries, and also someone else raising his level (Joker/Murray/Delpo).

 

[sonicare]

I don't put a ceiling on the count. But let's say:

2011: win Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 12
2012: win Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 14
2013: win Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 17
2014: win Roland Garros, US Open = 19
2015: win Roland Garros, Wimbledon = 21

But it's impossible to predict, because there has never been a player like Nadal before, except for Borg but Borg retired so early we never found out his limitations.

lol....

this is a joke right

 

[niff]

lol....

this is a joke right

Rafa will still be winning the FO when he's 40, y'know.

 

[Jchurch]

In 2009 he had tendonitis flare-ups in his knees. But guess what happened in 2010? He had tendonitis before the clay season, and in the other knee had tendonitis during Roland Garros and couldn't get it treated until after Wimbledon (because the treatment takes 3-4 days of rest and he couldn't rest because he had to adapt to grass). So what was the difference between 2009 and 2010? He had a different doctor (the number one doctor in treatment of tendonitis) and that doctor applied a better methodology of blood-spinning. So in other words, what happened in 2009 was a medical error made by the previous doctor, and it therefore won't be repeated. Rafa just won 3 slams in a year while getting tendonitis in both knees. So there is no reason to expect the latest treatment to suddenly not work. And my predictions aren't as optimistic as some, because there are people who think Rafa will win the Calendar Year Grand Slam next year. I didn't even predict he'd win the CYGS at any stage in his career. The only constants I predicted were Roland Garros and Wimbledon.

Absolutely right! I mean let's ignore the fact that Nadal is human and the more we beat our bodies the faster they break down. We must believe that Nadal is actually like wine and he only improves with age

Got news for you.... when you get older.... injuries are more frequent and usually more severe.