Mcenroe : Nadal may actually be the GOAT

[Feddy Kruegerer]

and thats davydenko's fault because...?

rofl. always an excuse for nadal

tired, sick, baby, too rested, knees, burnt out, wore out, parents divorce, pre prime, post pime, etc etc etc

never because he just lost or he wasnt good enough.

for Fed its always "but the H2H!"

for Rafa its always extenuating circumstances.

Come on, it's the opposite. Nadal's fans never divide the H2H between clay and HC and whatever. You are the ones saying that Nadal has a 6-1 H2H against Davydenco in HC (when in reality the full H2H is 6-5, and only skewed in favor of Davydenko in the last few encounters in Doha if I remember correctly). Do you realize how pathetic that is? 6-5 with no slam matches is nothing like 20-10 with a partial 6-2 slam H2H in clay, grass, and HC.

Denial is a beautiful thing I guess, as it seems to reduce the pain sometimes. It's nature's own sedative.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Davydenko beat Nadal at 2009 Shanghai, 2009 World Tour Finals and 2010 Doha (after surviving 2 Nadal CPs). As I said before, this was a period when Nadal was losing every match to top 10 players except for Tsonga. This period took Davydenko from 2-1 against Nadal on hardcourt to 5-1, and the overall head-to-head from 4-2 in Nadal's favour to 5-4 in Davydenko's favour.



Davydenko was playing some of the best tennis of his career in late 2009 and early 2010. Federer's bathroom break in Melbourne () and Davydenko's wrist injury at 2010 Rotterdam ended his run of form.



Davydenko isn't an easy opponent for Nadal, but let's not go overboard. I'd still solidly back Nadal in a major against him.



Ask yourself how old Nadal was at this time, and how Federer's career was looking at the same age. Federer hadn't won a major when he was the same age that Nadal was when players like Youzhny, Blake, Berdych and Gonzalez were beating him on hardcourts.

Pretty much, all that Mustard said.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Mustard, just answer this question...

On hard court is Davy > Nadal and Nadal > Fed

OR

is Fed > Nadal and Nadal > Davy


It's either one of the two.

Do you know the expression "put your money where your mouth is"?

All I know is that in a slam, I would bet for Nadal in both cases. Even against Davydenko in HC, starting with Nadal's form in 2008. Before that I would have just not betted, but I would also have probably kept my mouth shut. I don't expect you to follow that advice.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Feddy, Yes, they (which is organisator, Jack Kramer) changed a few things in order to stop Pancho: In the 1960 pro tour (won by Gonzalez against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo) only one service was admitted plus the server had to wait with an approach to the net till the ball touched the field on the server's side. So no serve-and-volley was possible. But the plan did not work: Pancho still won the tour clearly. Gonzalez is arguably the greatest server of all time.

Amazing! Thank you for the information, Bobby. Pancho had also quite an interesting life. I hope somebody decides to make a movie about him. Probably one of the best tennis legends to make a movie about because of all the different themes (Mexican, poor, defied the establishment, longest match ever for a long time, unbelievable talent).

 

[SLD76]

Davydenko beat Nadal at 2009 Shanghai, 2009 World Tour Finals and 2010 Doha (after surviving 2 Nadal CPs). As I said before, this was a period when Nadal was losing every match to top 10 players except for Tsonga. This period took Davydenko from 2-1 against Nadal on hardcourt to 5-1, and the overall head-to-head from 4-2 in Nadal's favour to 5-4 in Davydenko's favour.



Davydenko was playing some of the best tennis of his career in late 2009 and early 2010. Federer's bathroom break in Melbourne () and Davydenko's wrist injury at 2010 Rotterdam ended his run of form.



Davydenko isn't an easy opponent for Nadal, but let's not go overboard. I'd still solidly back Nadal in a major against him.



Ask yourself how old Nadal was at this time, and how Federer's career was looking at the same age. Federer hadn't won a major when he was the same age that Nadal was when players like Youzhny, Blake, Berdych and Gonzalez were beating him on hardcourts.

per the first bolded, dont obfuscate with unneccesary details, we know nadal lost, period.


per second bolded, nice try, except fed went to the bathroom between sets, not right before match point like a certain idol you always have minutae and excuses for.


per third bolded, and Fed didnt win a slam at 19 either. so was he grown or a baby?

he could beat fed on a HC in 2004, but its too much to expect him to beat guys like youhzny, blake, ferrer and gonzo.

roflmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


o which is it?

baby or grown?

bad matchup or what??

always an excuse.

 

[jg153040]

Come on, it's the opposite. Nadal's fans never divide the H2H between clay and HC and whatever. You are the ones saying that Nadal has a 6-1 H2H against Davydenco in HC (when in reality the full H2H is 6-5, and only skewed in favor of Davydenko in the last few encounters in Doha if I remember correctly). Do you realize how pathetic that is? 6-5 with no slam matches is nothing like 20-10 with a partial 6-2 slam H2H in clay, grass, and HC.

Denial is a beautiful thing I guess, as it seems to reduce the pain sometimes. It's nature's own sedative.

Of course they don't divide h2h. That is the whole problem. So it appears like Nadal owns everybody everywhere. And Hard is 75% of the tennis. There is a reason Nadal is called clay goat not the goat.

I mean we are calling Nadal clay goat. And people pretend like we ignore clay, while in reality they ignore hard courts.

 

[SLD76]

Come on, it's the opposite. Nadal's fans never divide the H2H between clay and HC and whatever. You are the ones saying that Nadal has a 6-1 H2H against Davydenco in HC (when in reality the full H2H is 6-5, and only skewed in favor of Davydenko in the last few encounters in Doha if I remember correctly). Do you realize how pathetic that is? 6-5 with no slam matches is nothing like 20-10 with a partial 6-2 slam H2H in clay, grass, and HC.

Denial is a beautiful thing I guess, as it seems to reduce the pain sometimes. It's nature's own sedative.

so having a losing record to a non slam winner is not as bad as having a skewed h2h with surface GOAt and top 15 all time great.


got it.

not to mention losing to a journeyman second week of a slam


got it.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

so having a losing record to a non slam winner is not as bad as having a skewed h2h with surface GOAt and top 15 all time great.


got it.

not to mention losing to a journeyman second week of a slam


got it.

Do you think losing 6-5 is the same as losing 20-10? It's like saying that hitting your thumb with a hammer is the same as getting run over by a steam locomotive. Come on now.

 

[SLD76]

Do you think losing 6-5 is the same as losing 20-10? It's like saying that hitting your thumb with a hammer is the same as getting run over by a steam locomotive. Come on now.

hmmm, so its 6-1 davy on HC

I assume the 4 other losses were on clay?

that tells me that davy and Nadal met pretty evenly on surfaces that favored each

4 on clay to 7 on HC. Nadal owns davy on clay and davy retuns the favor on HC.


not exactly even but more even than say a h2h where out of 30 meetings 15 times on clay, 3 times on grass, 4 times WTF( but no times at any other fall HC tourny and hardly any in the summer HC swing and 0 at USO vs what...5 6 times at IW/Miami combined and 2 AO?)

 

[Mustard]

But let's get back on track. Ok so if Nadal was losing to everybody, I guess I can excuse his losses to Davydenko.

What do you mean by this? I'm not excusing anything, but explaining.

Well you backing Nadal vs Davy in slams doesn't really prove anything. What are you trying to apply with the bathroom break? That Fed cheated? He made 1 break in his entire career. Why didn't he choose a better time? And why doesn't he do it consistently?

Sense of humour fail?

How can anyone even doubt Feds greatness.

I'm not.

 

[TMF]

Do you know the expression "put your money where your mouth is"?

All I know is that in a slam, I would bet for Nadal in both cases. Even against Davydenko in HC, starting with Nadal's form in 2008. Before that I would have just not betted, but I would also have probably kept my mouth shut. I don't expect you to follow that advice.

Just answer the question....

On hard court is Davy > Nadal and Nadal > Fed

OR

is Fed > Nadal and Nadal > Davy


It's either one of the two.

 

[jg153040]

What do you mean by this? I'm not excusing anything, but explaining.



Sense of humour fail?



I'm not.

Ok, then I don't see any problems.

But I still don't see what are you saying regarding the h2h. Are you saying it proves Federer is not the best of his era? I don't know, you haven't clarified yet.

 

[SLD76]

What do you mean by this? I'm not excusing anything, but explaining.



Sense of humour fail?



I'm not.

they are pretty much one in the same when it comes to you and nadal.

at least you arent like namelessone and dont have to write a thesis long diatribe of excuses and refutations.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Just answer the question....

On hard court is Davy > Nadal and Nadal > Fed

OR

is Fed > Nadal and Nadal > Davy


It's either one of the two.

What does ">" mean? Achievements? H2H? Style?

Achievements: Fed > Nadal > Davy.

H2H: Fed = Nadal

and Davy > Nadal

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

Ok, then I don't see any problems.

But I still don't see what are you saying regarding the h2h. Are you saying it proves Federer is not the best of his era? I don't know, you haven't clarified yet.

To Nadal fans the h2h proves Fed is not the best of his era, because they don't want him to be the best. It's the 'If Nadal isn't the best of his era, then nobody is' - attitude, which is why we have this endless tiring discussions;

Federer: 'I have the most slams, 17 of them.'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Federer: 'I am #1 for 302 weeks.'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Federer: 'I have lost only 4 matches in 2005'.
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Federer: 'I have won 93 Finals and Semifinals and lost only 11 between 2004-2007'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Federer: I won 6 WTF's
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Federer: 'You only won 1 set against me on all 4 indoor matches we played'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Federer: 'That's because 15 of those matches were played on clay, you don’t face me this much on your least favorite surfaces, because you’re either injured or got Rosol’d’.
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Federer: ‘You have won only 4 slams outside RG’
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Federer: ‘Your butt-hair-nose picking routine is disgusting, and now you also pick your willy during matches??? DUDE!!! I’ll never shake your hand again after the match’
Nadal: ‘Mirka looks fat since she popped out those twins, no?’

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Federer: ‘Your butt-hair-nose picking routine is disgusting, and now you also pick your willy during matches??? DUDE!!! I’ll never shake your hand again after the match’
Nadal: ‘Mirka looks fat since she popped those twins, no?’

Nothing to add.

 

[AngieB]

Yes, but Rafa missed 6 non-clay slams so we can safely add those to his tally and voila he has more non-clay slams than FOs.

Also if we're really open minded we can also count every non-clay slam Nadal won twice due to insanely tough competition he faced so 8+6=14, 14 non-clay slams, twice as much as his CC slam tally, GOAT no doubt.

As much as I enjoy hearing what John McEnroe has to say about anything tennis, in this one instance, I felt as though he was absolutely, totally incorrect.

AngieB

 

[borg number one]

With these comments, of course McEnroe is trying to garner attention. He seems to be (a) promoting the modern game as he often does. (b) preparing for Nadal to perhaps start adding some majors. If he does so, his critics will say that he did not predict Nadal's resurgence and place among the greats. He'll then say that we've been lucky to have Federer followed by Nadal, two of the greatest ever. I enjoy his take on the general state of the game and players in particular even though he can be a bit out there at times. McEnroe does have a vested interest in it and knows that it'll be Djokovic and Nadal at the top for the next few years. Tennis could see waning interest if Federer exits or declines substantially while we watch Nadal versus Djokovic and Murray. Tennis is always most interesting when you have significant contrast in styles, playing surfaces, surface speeds, and personalities. That's what made the late 70's through the 90's so good for the growth of tennis. If Nadal retakes #1 and adds more majors, we'll see a narrative emerge that perhaps Nadal is the greatest ever, especially with all the marketing interests that would benefit.