More Impressive - one slam a year for 9 consecutive years or least 2 for 4 straight

[McEnroeisanartist]

What is the more impressive achievement?

Nadal winning a slam for 9 consecutive years? or Federer winning at least 2 slams for 4 consecutive years?

Amazing that Nadal has never even won at least 2 slams in back to back years. Of course, Federer won a slam for 8 consecutive years.

 

[Golden]

Let's look at mathematics:
9x1 = 9
4x2 = 8

9>8


Kidding, of course. Each is special in its own way, and I don't really think you can compare them. Instead of comparing them, why not just celebrate that we live in the era with two of the greatest players of all time?

 

[newpball]

What is the more impressive achievement?

Nadal winning a slam for 9 consecutive years? or Federer winning at least 2 slams for 4 consecutive years?

Amazing that Nadal has never even won at least 2 slams in back to back years. Of course, Federer won a slam for 8 consecutive years.

It seems F fans are drawing more and more from history. :grin:

 

[smoledman]

Desperate Feddy fans looking for silver linings on the fact that Nadal is the GOAT.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I just can not accept that a player is GOAT when they could not even manage to win at least two slams in a year for three consecutive years or more, like the other three best players of the open era.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Desperate Feddy fans looking for silver linings on the fact that Nadal is the GOAT.

5Mac5enroe5isan5artist seem to really have an obsession with their guys. It's almost scary.

 

[smoledman]

I just can not accept that a player is GOAT when they could not even manage to win at least two slams in a year for three consecutive years or more, like the other three best players of the open era.

I will not accept a GOAT that can't win a slam for 9 consecutive years, own a winning H2H against ALL top rivals, can't win multiple French Opens, can't win FO/Wimby/USO in the same year, Olympic gold medal in singles.

 

[bullfan]

I just can not accept that a player is GOAT when they could not even manage to win at least two slams in a year for three consecutive years or more, like the other three best players of the open era.

Was that your OP post, and do you wait to be debunked before coming up with successive Fed is Goat threads? Even the post I am responding to is a sham.

It seems like you are looking for the best possible option to call Fed above Nadal.

Fact is, Fed has achieved more than anyone. Nadal owns Feds azz in a way the best should be embarrassed about.

 

[smoledman]

Was that your OP post, and do you wait to be debunked before coming up with successive Fed is Goat threads? Even the post I am responding to is a sham.

It seems like you are looking for the best possible option to call Fed above Nadal.

Fact is, Fed has achieved more than anyone. Nadal owns Feds azz in a way the best should be embarrassed about.

Nadal has nothing to be embarrassed about losing to Steve Darcis & Rosol in the early rounds of Wimbledon during his peakiest peak, but Fed has tons to be humiliated about losing to Nadal at the French Open finals 4 times.

 

[newpball]

People seem to forget, but this man has 14 Wimbledon titles:

:grin:

 

[The Anonymous Legend]

I just can not accept that a player is GOAT when they could not even manage to win at least two slams in a year for three consecutive years or more, like the other three best players of the open era.

I can see your effort to disqualify Nadal from GOAT talk but you're wasting your time doing the unnecessary job as he ain't there.

I can tell you 25 more cracks in his resume but its waste of time as there is no reason debating he don't have X achievement till he is actually jumps in GOAT debate which is highly unlikely as he's already 28 and has just 132 weeks at No 1, 0 WTF, only one dominant slam.

 

[The Anonymous Legend]

Was that your OP post, and do you wait to be debunked before coming up with successive Fed is Goat threads? Even the post I am responding to is a sham.

It seems like you are looking for the best possible option to call Fed above Nadal.

Fact is, Fed has achieved more than anyone. Nadal owns Feds azz in a way the best should be embarrassed about.

It's more embarrassing being No 2 or less for 102 weeks in peak, when lesser player completely owned him.

 

[Sentinel]

Both are impressive. A slam for 9 years is a big deal.

 

[The Anonymous Legend]

Nadal has nothing to be embarrassed about losing to Steve Darcis & Rosol in the early rounds of Wimbledon during his peakiest peak, but Fed has tons to be humiliated about losing to Nadal at the French Open finals 4 times.

Look this man roaring in this thread after cleaning public toilets.

 

[bullfan]

It's more embarrassing being No 2 or less for 102 weeks in peak, when lesser player completely owned him.

Smack! Lol!

It's only Fed fans that are threatened, and only because Nadal owns Feds azz.
P

 

[The Anonymous Legend]

Smack! Lol!

It's only Fed fans that are threatened, and only because Nadal owns Feds azz.
P

Let's hate Federer for complete night, it's Friday.

It's expected as Nadal coming short in chasing Federer achievements, what else you can do off showing butthurt?

 

[Phoenix1983]

One slam a year for 9 consecutive years is more impressive, IMHO.

Arguably Nadal's greatest feat, given that Tier 1 greats like Borg, Sampras and Federer could all 'only' manage 8.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

One slam a year for 9 consecutive years is more impressive, IMHO.

Arguably Nadal's greatest feat, given that Tier 1 greats like Borg, Sampras and Federer could all 'only' manage 8.

Odd that Tier 2 Greats like Borg and Sampras all won at least two slams a year for three consecutive years while Nadal has never been able to do it in consecutive years.

Of course, Federer doing it 4 consecutive years is insane.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Odd that Tier 2 Greats like Borg and Sampras all won at least two slams a year for three consecutive years while Nadal has never been able to do it in consecutive years.

I consider Borg and Sampras as Tier 1 greats.

Of course, Federer doing it 4 consecutive years is insane.

Yes it is a great feat, but I still consider the consistency of being able to win at least one major for 9 straight years a greater feat. Someone could have a very high peak, then completely fade away, and they'd be able to match Fed's feat. But someone would have to stay around for a long time at the top to match Nadal's feat.