Are you the spokesman for the site now? I missed the memo on that one
Murray will end up with a better record than Nadal at 3/4 slams
- Thread starter cockneyDjoker
- Start date
Which matches? Or are u referring to djokovic?Both have equally ugly games that have lost them winnable matches but for their defensive mentality when in the crunch! ;-/
Tennisanity
Legend
Exactly, he's just full of excuses. He's knees were always a problem at Wimbledon. What happened at W2012, 2013, 2014, would have happened to him at Wimbledon 09 if he played, not because he was injured, it's just his intrinsic ability on grass. It's not as good as Fed, Djoko or even Murray for that matter. Rafa is the GOAT of excuses.
If a guy gets to a SF and two finals and then wins a major I don't think its legitimate to say he was weak with mono?But who's to say even a non mono affected Fed would've still beaten Nadal that year at Wimbledon, or Djokovic at the AO?
Nadal won wimbledon twice and reached five consecutive finals!! He is 3-0 v murray and 2-1 with djokovic on grass!!! How is his ability inferior?!!!!!!
Fed was fine at AO he just got owned by the plexi cushion GOAT.
Tennisanity
Legend
They were not consecutive. He missed one. You can't just point out the pluses. He's had losses against too many nobodies in his prime 20s which negate the pluses.
You and many Nole fans just look at the scoreboard without knowing what exactly happened on court. If you actually watched Federer entire 2008 season you can see a huge dipped in form and performance from his previous dominant season. In 2008 he starts to lose to the players he use to owned...Fish, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, Simon, Blake(twice). He was called an "unforced-error machine" because he was playing so badly most of the season. You don't drastically dip in form in just a short period unless either you are injured are severely sick. After the AO, he was diagnosed with mono by his doctor in March, and Federer even said that he was surprise that he made the AO semifinal.
Fiero425
Legend
Definitely speaking of Murdal! Nole lost some early contests against Fedal by being too passive, but of late, his problem has been more with closing a match out! At each of his wins that went 4 or 5 sets, more than likely he was serving for it in the 3rd or 4th set, but pulled it out after adding an hour to the clock! OTTH I'm thinking about 2014 Wimbledon against Fed, 2012 AO & 2011 USO vs Nadal; and there are others! When it comes to Murdal, do I really have to go down the list; esp. against Nole? I can imagine Andy's still haunted by '12 final against Nole in Shanghai! Murray was serving for it in the 2nd, hit this gorgeous lob over the head of his opp. and camped out behind the baseline! In the mean time Nole styled by hitting the ball between his legs; an easy set up for Murray if he had more guts and came into the net like a normal, high ranked player! He was subsequently broken and after smashing his racket to smithereens lost the 3rd set and the match! When Murray played his most aggressive and won convincingly under the tutelage of Lendl, they won Olympic Gold, '12 USO and '13 Wimbledon over Nole, and of late beating Nadal on clay! If you remember, I was quite satisfied with Djokovic finally taking his 1st FO, so I ceded Wimbledon to Andy! I don't think Nole tried that hard not wanting to be bothered with the CYGS pressure along with Olympic hopes!
Last edited:
I think djokovic feels the FO is a bit diluted as he didn't beat nadal. That i think caused the big let down at wimbledon. He knows a lot of people have said Federer didn't get past nadal to get the FO so as satisfying as it is to get the monkey off the back, given what nadal achieved at the FO, it would be a different level of win to beat nadal, even nadal shadow.Definitely speaking of Murdal! Nole lost some early contests against Fedal by being too passive, but of late, his problem has been more with closing a match out! At each of his wins that went 4 or 5 sets, more than likely he was serving for it in the 3rd or 4th set, but pulled it out after adding an hour to the clock! OTTH I'm thinking about 2014 Wimbledon against Fed, 2012 AO & 2011 USO vs Nadal; and there are others! When it comes to Murdal, do I really have to go down the list; esp. against Nole? I can imagine Andy's still haunted by '12 final against Nole in Shanghai! Murray was serving for it in the 2nd, hit this gorgeous lob over the head of his opp. and camped out behind the baseline! In the mean time Nole styled by hitting the ball between his legs; an easy set up for Murray if he had more guts and came into the net like a normal, high ranked player! He was subsequently broken and after smashing his racket to smithereens lost the 3rd set and the match! When Murray played his most aggressive and won convincingly under the tutelage of Lendl, they won Olympic Gold, '12 USO and '13 Wimbledon over Nole, and of late beating Nadal on clay! If you remember, I was quite satisfied with Djokovic finally taking his 1st FO, so I ceded Wimbledon to Andy! I don't think Nole tried that hard not wanting to be bothered with the CYGS pressure along with Olympic hopes!
I think it's human nature. Let's say u and me were massive rivals. U were a clay court Goat and had beat me six times at the FO. Then a decade earlier Id made the statement I can beat u as u r beatable. Well for me the FO victory would mean a lot more if I beat u and then won it. Lay a few demons to rest. Djokovic still hasn't laid those ghosts.
And as for murray I agree with your analysis but when in a big match has nadal lost due to being passive? I can't remember one. The only match he lost at a major he should have won when he wasn't injured was AO 2012. That wasn't passiveness hat lost that. It was a technical deficiency on the backhand whereby he cannot hit through the ball like djokovic. Nadal hits across it, always has done . It's why so often when he tries to hit the BH down the line flat it goes wide into tramline. Djokovic has a technical weakness on the FH where he often pulls up on it which is why under pressure he often dumps it in the net.
Djokovic should have more majors but he has often been too passive the most glaring was FO 2015 against wawrinka.
Im a nadal fan. So you are putting the entire 2008 season down to mono? Well presumably then u accept he only won two majors in 2009 because nadal was injured? So using your analysis federEr wins Ao 2008!and w 2008 but accept that in 2009 fully fit nadal wins FO and wimbledon. So that keeps federer on 17 majors but boosts nadal to 15 and drops djokovic to 11.
GOATerer wins 09 Wimby regardless of Nadul being fit or not. 08 was down to lack of confidence and training and fitness thanks to mono. GOATerer is the grass GOAT and hardcourt GOAT.
Great post sir
I personally rate Sampras higher because I prefer his game and rate Wimbledon highest then US open
I think Nadal is GOAT but below Federer as Fed has a more pleasing game to watch, won most Wimbledons + hard courts. Glides around the court. GOAT legend of the sport even if he had his weakness.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
McEnroe and ****load of other ATGs are known to spew the most ridiculous things a man can say, just to earn their paycheck (or just to generally feel good about themselves).
His opinion, and that of the said people is worth exactly 0 (zero).
Tennis_Hands
Banned
DreddyTennis45
Hall of Fame
I would like to think I speak for most people on here when I tell you to go away
Tennis_Hands
Banned
That part doesn't support your position at all.
In fact, some may say that it works in favour of your opponent.
Without "injuries" Nadal may have burned out long before he started to decline.
In other words, the "injuries" explanation is not supporting your position in any way.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Nadal was blown off the court by Sjoderling.
His loss there has/had nothing to do with injury.
Him missing Wimbledon was a classical situation of his "mental toughness" going down the toilet due to the surprising loss.
Besides, Federer lost against Nadal in Wimbledon 2008 and Nadal lost against other player (not Federer) , so you cannot just hand him the titles at FO or Wimby 09.
It took monumental effort from an ATG to take down Federer in 2008, despite his "illness" and a single match from red-hot top 10 player to dispatch Nadal at FO 09.
The difference is huge.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
You are interpreting those facts in very peculiar ways.That part doesn't support your position at all.
In fact, some may say that it works in favour of your opponent.
Without "injuries" Nadal may have burned out long before he started to decline.
In other words, the "injuries" explanation is not supporting your position in any way.
Here are my rationales:
1. Because Nadal had 9 slams by the time Djokovic had only 1, it means his performance was much better far earlier than Djokovic's, which equates to more wear and tear early on.
2. Injuries not only are wear and tear themselves, but cause a tennis player to stop playing, which is hard on the body when play has to be resumed. On top of that, if a player is to get back o previous rankings fast, a lot of harder work and even more playing is required (more tournaments in order to get more matches and some points). Hence, more wear and tear. It would be the same as driving your car 20000 miles in 6 months, then not driving it at all in 6 months, and then driving it another 20000 miles in another 6 months. That usage pattern is worse for a vehicle than simply driving it 20000 miles evenly distributed throughout the year.
What are your rationales?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
That is one way to look at it.
Other way would be to look at the surface they played the most: i.e. clay vs. HC and consider which is more taxing on the body.
Also, Nadal has declared that he doesn't have problems with his knees any more (the regular "explanation") and was injury free for about 2 years without winning anything on the highest level.
Other than that, having an experience from playing (and winning) GS finals counts as a HUGE advantage, when playing against the player, who has significantly less experience of the same.
Nadal doesn't get to use this in his defence.
If anything, he is THE player, who was able to compete on the highest level from the get go after returning from long break, so neither an adaptation period nor ranking points were ever his problem.
Besides, there is no "more wear and tear" from playing exactly the same schedule that you already put together for the year. It is not like Nadal was playing extra tournaments (generally speaking) than what was already in his plan.
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
But you didn't explain your rationales to say those facts could support the opposite conclusions. You objected to my interpretations with reasons which are mostly questionable (the only point you make which I agree on is Nadal's schedule on his return).That is one way to look at it.
Other way would be to look at the surface they played the most: i.e. clay vs. HC and consider which is more taxing on the body.
Also, Nadal has declared that he doesn't have problems with his knees any more (the regular "explanation") and was injury free for about 2 years without winning anything on the highest level.
Other than that, having an experience from playing (and winning) GS finals counts as a HUGE advantage, when playing against the player, who has significantly less experience of the same.
Nadal doesn't get to use this in his defence.
If anything, he is THE player, who was able to compete on the highest level from the get go after returning from long break, so neither an adaptation period nor ranking points were ever his problem.
Besides, there is no "more wear and tear" from playing exactly the same schedule that you already put together for the year. It is not like Nadal was playing extra tournaments (generally speaking) than what was already in his plan.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
There was that sentence in the post that you quoted:
"Other than that, having an experience from playing (and winning) GS finals counts as a HUGE advantage, when playing against the player, who has significantly less experience of the same."
Also, Nadal developed earlier as a tennis player (both physically and as a technique on every surface) and was able to get the upper hand because of that.
Many matches are decided based on who had the upper hand initially (going into the match).
All this counts in Nadal's favour.
And your answer that I quoted was suggesting that Nadal has played a lot more than Djokovic by the time the two were at 9 and 1 Major, which is factually not true, not to mention the little detail about the surface distribution of the played matches that you conviniently forgot to mention.
And, my reasons are not questionable.
Nadal has been known for competing on the highest level from the get go after returning to tennis.
Do you dispute that?
So federer loses big matches because he is ill yet Nadal loses but can't be injured despite having to miss a tournament?Nadal was blown off the court by Sjoderling.
His loss there has/had nothing to do with injury.
Him missing Wimbledon was a classical situation of his "mental toughness" going down the toilet due to the surprising loss.
Besides, Federer lost against Nadal in Wimbledon 2008 and Nadal lost against other player (not Federer) , so you cannot just hand him the titles at FO or Wimby 09.
It took monumental effort from an ATG to take down Federer in 2008, despite his "illness" and a single match from red-hot top 10 player to dispatch Nadal at FO 09.
The difference is huge.
You will forgive me if I suggest you are clutching at straws!!
What you like to think is irrelevant with all due respect.
But you think yours is worth listening to? Did mention you seemed to be clutching at a few straws?McEnroe and ****load of other ATGs are known to spew the most ridiculous things a man can say, just to earn their paycheck (or just to generally feel good about themselves).
His opinion, and that of the said people is worth exactly 0 (zero).
Perfectly valid argument. You use a different measuring stick than I do but that's the beauty of grea players, certain aspects of their games elevate them in the eyes of of different people to the highest level.
No question Federer and sampras are more classical in their stroke play. As I play a a game based around a FH and speed around the court and mental toughness I naturally gravitate to the likes of Nadal and before him courier and for me what nadal has achieved in his career with by comparison to federEr and sampras a very limited game for me is GOATNess .
Although ive said I think the FO is second behind wimbledon I personally prfer the USO. I love the USO and it was bigger than FO when the Americans had their great players I think but I think has suffered in prestige in a similar manner to the standard of players they produce.
But I'll return the compliment...great post sir
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I am not getting money for talking up tennis, so, in this particular case, the answer is "yes".
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Well, Federer has a spotless reputation when it comes to credibility, so it is a distinctly different case.
I forgive you, but only if you behave.
Do u think? Not disputing grass court GOATS but for me sampras is hardcourts GOAT.
But u think federrr beats nadal 2009?
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
Nadal didn't compete at the highest level from the get go. He was losing to mugs in the South American clay in 2013. He did get up to speed relatively quickly, but for that to happen he had to train too much, causing additional wear and tear.There was that sentence in the post that you quoted:
"Other than that, having an experience from playing (and winning) GS finals counts as a HUGE advantage, when playing against the player, who has significantly less experience of the same."
Also, Nadal developed earlier as a tennis player (both physically and as a technique on every surface) and was able to get the upper hand because of that.
Many matches are decided based on who had the upper hand initially (going into the match).
All this counts in Nadal's favour.
And your answer that I quoted was suggesting that Nadal has played a lot more than Djokovic by the time the two were at 9 and 1 Major, which is factually not true, not to mention the little detail about the surface distribution of the played matches that you conviniently forgot to mention.
And, my reasons are not questionable.
Nadal has been known for competing on the highest level from the get go after returning to tennis.
Do you dispute that?
Nadal had played more tennis by the time he got to 9 slams than Djokovic had played by the time he had won 1 slam. Do you have data which contradicts that?
You can also look at it in terms of span of years winning slams. Nadal has a 10 year slam winning span. Federer has also a 10 year winning span I believe. Djokovic is doing his 9th year winning span. Will he still win slams in 2018? Quite likely.
#WeakEravic.
My point is he struggled to beat roddick who was a much inferior player to nadal and something about nadal seems to make federer struggle. Im not sure frderer was playing well enough to beat nadal in a final over five sets.
That said he did beat him in Madrid so who knows
Like at the wtf when he pulled out of the final but managed to play Davis cup a week later?!!Well, Federer has a spotless reputation when it comes to credibility, so it is a distinctly different case.
I forgive you, but only if you behave.
Perhaps they get paid money for their opinion because they know what they are talking about?I am not getting money for talking up tennis, so, in this particular case, the answer is "yes".
Tennis_Hands
Banned
He has lost 1(one) (highly-contested) match in the final of his first tournament after which he didn't look back.
That is insanely successful return and hitting the right keys from the get go.
It only confirms what I said, but what I said was not limited to this case only.
The more training argument is laughable as you have no idea who trains how much.
No, but that is not what I said and "more tennis" is not the same as what you implied with your "comparison".
I like how you completely ignored the argument about the surfaces and the impact they have on the body.
You can also look at it in terms of span of years winning slams. Nadal has a 10 year slam winning span. Federer has also a 10 year winning span I believe. Djokovic is doin his 9th year winning span. Will he still win slams in 2018? Quite likely.
#WeakEravic.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Last edited:
DreddyTennis45
Hall of Fame
Actually 2011 is arguably the biggest argument in favour of nadal being goat. To then between 2012-2014 own djokovic 4-1 in majors including hard court was a testament to the greatness of nadal as he moved the game to a whole new level. Djokovic is no better than he was in 2011 but with nadal now all but finished since 2014 it goes to show what a level nadal reached to dominate djokovic who now is so dominant.The best measure between the heavyweight Djokovic and the heavyweight Nadal was 2011.
It's too early to say if djokovic is in decline but if murray starts to dominate it will be a further sign of how temnis is returning to a human level. I really like murray but he is not as good as the three goats but he is better than everyone else so if djokovic is in decline murray could win the best three majors.
You might argue that nadal overextended himself between 2012 and 2014 and played at a level far above his ability and so couldn't maintain it whereas djokovic is playing at his maximum level so can maintain it. That maybe so but the fact remains nadal reached heights never seen before. Federer and sampras have reached technical levels never seen before but nadal moved the game on in terms of court coverage mental toughness and sheer physical raw power.
Djokovic changed the game in remorseless consistency and a belief that all tournaments are equally important. That could be his biggest legacy as he has opened the window for the status quo of the big three majors as the pinnacle of the sport to not have that status by default. The AO and indian wells are two tournaments that are growing exponentially each year by modernising year on year.
Wimbledon by contrast still has 20th century overnight queues.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic has improved since 2011. I actually stopped reading your post after that suggestion.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
By that point Nadal had the complete edge over Federer apart from WTF and grass (except for 08) but I'd hope Fed would have been able to win 09 on Wimbledon grass but we sadly won't know since sadly Nadal has failed on grass since 2012 onward and Federer has had his shockers too (2010, 2011, 2013)
Id like someone to try to give an explanation as to how Nadal from being almost a grass court expert seemingly overnight turned into a useless grass player.
What is not in dispute is Federer is grass GOAT. Slightly better than sampras I think.
Im just gutted federEr out for the season.
I don't think he has. He is slower around the court now the forehand breaks down under pressure more.
His volleys are better now as is the serve but Id say on balance he is the same standard albeit a different type of player.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
He didn't tank the final.
He pulled out, which was a direct and honest way to put the things in front of the expecting public.
He forfeits, his opponent wins by W/O and everything is clear.
You may not agree with the reasons he gave, but that is another story.
Like I said, Federer's reputation is spotless.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
WOW, the delusion is strong with this one.
A year where near-peak Nadal is trounced repeatedly by near-peak Djokovic not managing to win a single match between the two, despite riding a wave of high-confidence after his 3 Majors year is a feather in his cap in his claim to GOAThood.
Only in the *************.
Your obsessed by nadal which is the nail in your coffin. You know nadal is goat so spend your life on here trying to argue he isn't. I have to now suggest you get out more sweetheart . And calm down...tennis is just a game. Nadal is goat, its not a huge deal.WOW, the delusion is strong with this one.
A year where near-peak Nadal is trounced repeatedly by near-peak Djokovic not managing to win a single match between the two, despite riding a wave of high-confidence after his 3 Majors year is a feather in his cap in his claim to GOAThood.
Only in the *************.
14 is more than 12 no? 9 is more than 4 no? Who trounced who? Oh...sorrry for the dose of reality. That was mean ofme. Sorry sweetieWOW, the delusion is strong with this one.
A year where near-peak Nadal is trounced repeatedly by near-peak Djokovic not managing to win a single match between the two, despite riding a wave of high-confidence after his 3 Majors year is a feather in his cap in his claim to GOAThood.
Only in the *************.
Did you earlier mention delusion? I now see you were referring to yourself.He didn't tank the final.
He pulled out, which was a direct and honest way to put the things in front of the expecting public.
He forfeits, his opponent wins by W/O and everything is clear.
You may not agree with the reasons he gave, but that is another story.
Like I said, Federer's reputation is spotless.
Again reality check. Federer pulled out of wtf because he was scared **** of djokovic giving him yet another clinic. That btw was the view of the locker room. Many of whom now have federer below nadal and djokovic. Ask murray. Sorry, reality again.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Lmao it's time fedal hang em up. Far more negativity whining and belly aching on tour now with them around. The law of diminishing returns in full affect. Get em the hell out a here!I love it when Fiero has fire in his belly - his posts are almost as entertaining as @swordtennis'.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You have to find another punch line.
I have heard this before and it is not working.
A couple of years ago the numbers were a lot more convincing, so you could be even more convincing if you try.
That is an interesting theory.
I wonder, why wasn't Federer scared of Djokovic in their next meetings and resorted to W/O just to avoid humilitaion?
I guess that this particular theory had a rather short shelf life.
Sorry about that.
So you concede im right? You say the numbers were more convincing but presumably you accept Nadal still way ahead...which he is! 2 majors is more than most players get in a career i.e roddick!You have to find another punch line.
I have heard this before and it is not working.
A couple of years ago the numbers were a lot more convincing, so you could be even more convincing if you try.
That is an interesting theory.
I wonder, why wasn't Federer scared of Djokovic in their next meetings and resorted to W/O just to avoid humilitaion?
I guess that this particular theory had a rather short shelf life.
Sorry about that.
Federer bottled it that time at wtf! He didn't want to get hammered before a Davis cup final. Remember people paid a lot of money to watch that match so his behaviour was deplorable.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You should concentrate on the conversation at hand.
You said that 2011 is feather in Nadal's hat in his claim for GOAThood.
Somehitng that I am still laughing about (after so many days).
His behaviour was fair to the spectators, his opponent and everybody else.
He didn't tank the match as he could have done with ease.
But I like that you no longer insist on your little failed theory.
What theory? All ive said is fact. Nadal is goat I don't need to repeat it for you u can reread the posts!!You should concentrate on the conversation at hand.
You said that 2011 is feather in Nadal's hat in his claim for GOAThood.
Somehitng that I am still laughing about (after so many days).
His behaviour was fair to the spectators, his opponent and everybody else.
He didn't tank the match as he could have done with ease.
But I like that you no longer insist on your little failed theory.
2011 is a feather in nadal's cap as he showed by owning djokovic when it mattered for the following four years that he moved the game on from 2011nsonas a package 2011 adds to nadals greatness. Not complicated for people with a logical mind who are not clouded by jealousy.
Count to ten before you reply as u get rather angry don't you. I try not offend u as I know u r sensitive sweetheart
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
