Mayonnaise
Banned
I have clearly explained why H2H is not an achievement:
1. Each win is accounted for and rewarded. You can't count it again to suit your argument.
2. H2H is just a stat. It has no reward or trophy for it.
Nadal 3 big titles away from matching Federer
- Thread starter drm025
- Start date
I have clearly explained why H2H is not an achievement:
1. Each win is accounted for and rewarded. You can't count it again to suit your argument.
2. H2H is just a stat. It has no reward or trophy for it.
AssaultJoker
Banned
Nadal needs to win 18 Slams if he wants to officially be considered as the GOAT. 17 is not enough for him to be there because we can't overlook Fed's 6 WTFs and 302 weeks of being number1. 2 WTFs are something like 1 Slam in value, so Fed's 6 WTFs compared to Nadal's 0 is a huge advantage for him. Nadal has a record number of Masters titles, but he is lucky that there are 3 Masters on clay and none on grass, that's also a huge factor. Nadal's advantage - his longevity of winning at least one Slam per year(10 years) and tougher opposition(had to deal with prime Federer and prime Djokovic).
To summarize this from Nadal's perspective, the most optimal scenario for Rafa is winning one more AO, one more USO or Wimby and 2 more RG = total 4 Slams more.
To summarize this from Nadal's perspective, the most optimal scenario for Rafa is winning one more AO, one more USO or Wimby and 2 more RG = total 4 Slams more.
Well wait, how many of these did you win and how many did I win? I'd say I proved myself when I won it x times and even though you won it more, and I've proved myself against you when we face each other. Congrats for being more consistent, but I have nothing left to prove and at the end of the day, I can still beat you.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Even if I won it one time more, I am better. What's the primary objective for each tournament? To win the title. When I have done that more times than you have, how can you be better?
Everything that isn't number of titles is counting something twice. That includes number 1, H2H etc. If we never acknowledge anything that counts something twice, then titles are all that matter. That's fine, except there are just so many different circumstances that go on during the course of a tournament. It's hard for someone to just say player A has the most titles so he is the greatest player. That's why there are endless discussions about this on the forum. If we're all idiots for discussing it, fine, but we're all idiots together.
Because I can beat you when I play you on the tennis court...
It all depends on what we define as better. More consistent? More dominant in the H2H? More accomplished? It's all so subjective. But if I feel like I can beat you more times than not on a tennis court, I'm not gonna say that you're better than me. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Maybe I should go up to Rod Laver and challenge him for a series of 30 matches. If I beat him more often than not, I'm the greater player
Mayonnaise
Banned
So Davydenko > Nadal. Got it
Davydenko has not beaten Nadal 70% of the time over 11 years with 33 matches played.
If I beat you only one more time than you beat me, especially if you had to retire in one match, I'm not thinking I'm definitely better than you.
Maybe I should go up to Rod Laver and challenge him for a series of 30 matches. If I beat him more often than not, I'm the greater player
You know this isn't relevant.... Why say it?
Mayonnaise
Banned
Mayonnaise
Banned
Why not? Like you said, if there is a dispute on who the better player is, they should settle it on court
Hrbaty > Nadal, then
Fulfills the first criteria, but not the second or third.... Again not sure what this adds to the conversation.
Why not? Like you said, if there is a dispute on who the better player is, they should settle it on court
Your responses are predictable, I already knew you would argue over the relevance even though it's clearly not. Why not just have a serious discussion?
Yes, I know you will argue that you are being serious... Stimulating conversation.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Yes, you can't find instances which satisfy a very strict definition that only 1 rivalry in Tennis history satisfies. Perhaps I should say Nadal can't be GOAT unless he beats Davydenko in a Slam final, even if he wins 50 Slams? Luckily, you don't decide anything, and the authority in Tennis has rewarded Federer a lot more than it has Nadal. Nadal > Federer is no more true than Isner > Nadal.
Mayonnaise
Banned
I ripped each and every one of your arguments to shreds. And you've yet to explain how H2H isn't double-counting :lol:
Anyone who is trying to be serious and is not playing games, which you like to do, will admit there is a significant difference between 23-10 and 5-6 or 1-3. If you will argue with me on that, then I am done here.
Enjoy the summer hardcourt season, and I will do the same.
Mayonnaise
Banned
And anyone with an ounce of logical thinking will admit H2H is double-counting and is simply not an achievement, because Tennis is not played to nurture positive H2Hs.
Oh, and it has no trophies, for good reason
You like to bully, don't you? Even if I felt I had done the same to you, I would never say such a thing, but that's fine. Does it make you feel better about yourself?
You saying that you've ripped my arguments to shreds doesn't make it a reality. I admitted that everything in tennis besides winning titles is essentially double-counting, but you refused to acknowledge that, I guess. If number of titles were all that mattered, there would be no discussion on the subject, but there is. Let's not get caught up in technicalities about what is double-counting and what isn't. We all have different views. No need to bully.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Bullying? Earlier in the thread, you were denying that H2H is double-counting. You admit it now, because I made you realized your arguments were illogical
H2H is not an achievement in Tennis, and that's a fact.
Bullying? Earlier in the thread, you were denying that H2H is double-counting. You admit it now, because I made you realized your arguments were illogical
H2H is not an achievement in Tennis, and that's a fact.
Au Contraire..... The butt hurt over Nadals Ownage over Fed will never end.......
My main argument was that you can achieve titles and rankings without having to go through specific players, but you have to beat a specific player to have a good H2H against them. Since that is a fact, it is not illogical.Bullying? Earlier in the thread, you were denying that H2H is double-counting. You admit it now, because I made you realized your arguments were illogical
H2H is not an achievement in Tennis, and that's a fact.
You were the one worrying about whether the h2h was double-counting. While technically everything besides titles is, h2h tells us some different information. So for my definition of double-counting (meaning not telling us anything new), I dont think it is. For your technical definition, sure.
I hope that clears it up.
Mayonnaise
Banned
I think you should look up what "double-counting" means instead of giving it whatever definition you made up to suit your illogical argument :lol: If you have any questions, I can always clear them up for you
Mayonnaise
Banned
On the contrary, it's the Nadal fans that prop up non-achievements
If you think H2H is an achievement, take it up with the ATP. Don't shoot the prophet disagree, there are what 4 masters on clay? wtf might equal 2 but not 4...the original tennis surface needs a masters
D
Deleted member 720910
Guest
Mayonnaise completely won this argument.
I should point out that Fedfanboys constantly overexaggerate the age of Federer saying a 31 year old became number 1 in 2012 and in 2014 calling him a 33 year old and Murray a 26 year old ranked outside the top 10....hmmmm....they like to pretend the agep gap is much bigger than it is too. It's 4 years and 10 months with Nadal and 5 years and 9 months with Djokovc and Murray. Significant yes but not insurmountable for much of it especially since Nadal peaked earlier.
For the record a 30 year old Federer got to number 1. Later on a number 1 Federer became 31. Notice the subtle distinction.
Fed is probably about 50 now. Actually he's 32.
Mayonnaise
Banned
In August of 2012, when Federer turned 31, he was ranked #1. That's a fact.
True, but he became number 1 as a result of his performance at the age of 30, not 31. All that he has done since turning 31 was win cincy, which occurred directly after he turned 31. Its a little deceiving to talk about Fed being number one as a 31 year old. He lost the form required to be a number one as he turned 31. Evidenced by only one big title after that point (which happened just a week or so after his birthday).
You're just playing with semantics. Strictly speaking, when he became #1 that year was he closer to the age 30 or closer to the age 31? Pick one.
Mayonnaise
Banned
:lol: Clutching at straws. Federer at 31 was ranked #1. Deal with it 8)
I didnt disagree with that. But you realize that being number 1 is due to past performance, not current. Federer was also ranked number 1 after Nadal won wimbledon in 2008, though he isnt talked about as being the number 1 player at that point in time.
What federer achieved at 30 was incredible, dont get me wrong, but he didnt achieve much once he turned 31. Thats a fact.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Federer was adjudged the best player in the world at the age of 31. Why is this so hard to accept for you?
Still dont see where I havent accepted this.... Ive agreed with you twice already. Doesnt change the fact that he didnt accomplish much as a 31 year old.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Just like Nadal didn't accomplish much as a 23 year-old and a 25 year-old?
Yeah its basically the same story. Nadal was ranked #1 when he turned 23 and 25 but no one is calling him the best player in the world at those ages. So either nadal was the best in the world at 23 and 25 AND fed was the best at 31, or neither of them were the best at those ages. I go for the latter, but you can go with the former if you want.
Mayonnaise
Banned
They were the best players in the world. It's just that they dropped off at or soon after that point. Federer was the best player in the world in 2004, but he didn't drop off until 2008. Federer was also the best player in the world at 31, but he dropped off soon after the US Open.
Fair enough, we just see it different ways then. For me, I would say Fed was the best player when Nadal was 23 and Djokovic was the best player while Nadal was 25. In the same token, when Fed was 31, Djokovic and, later, Nadal were the best players in the world.
Mayonnaise
Banned
When Federer was 31, Nadal was out on an 8-month vacation fishing and playing poker.
Right, Djokovic was first at the top, making the USO final, winning Shanghai and the WTFs and then the 2013 AO. After that, Nadal took over as the best. Then, Djokovic took over again after the USO 2013 and has really been at the top since. Even though Nadal has been ranked number 1 the majority of the year it was due to his performance in 2013.
Last edited:
Mayonnaise
Banned
Nadal didn't take over as the best any sooner than Madrid. And that was, what, 9 months later? He wasn't in the picture when Federer was #1.
Either way, a 31 year-old Federer was #1 in the world, and that is a fact.
Yes it is a fact, more of a technicality, but doesn't make it untrue.
And I didn't say Nadal took over when Fed was number 1, but for the latter half of Fed being 31 years old.
Mayonnaise
Banned
The point, though, is that when Federer became #1 at close to 31 years of age, both Nadal and Djokovic had played a full 12-month season. So his ranking was completely legit.
And I didn't say it wasn't legit. This has happened a lot, you putting words in my mouth.
Federer's performance at 30 years old, with Nadal and Djokovic around got him to number 1. A tremendous accomplishment. After turning 31, he wasn't really able to duplicate that form.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Agreed Cincy was his last big title won just days after turning 31. He hasn't won jack squat since.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Why not? He won Cincinnati. Why try to discredit him? Federer was the best player in the world when he turned 31. Admit it.
Mayonnaise
Banned
So he proved he was the best, again, days after turning 31, by bageling the #2 in the final. Thanks for proving my point.
I have several times already, buddy. Though, while he was turning 31, Djokovic was winning toronto, followed by Cincy final, USO final, winning Beijing, Shanghai, WTFs, and the 2013 AO. So when Federer was 31, who was the best player in the world? Not asking who was ranked number 1, but who was the best player?
After turning 31, Fed went 20-5 for the rest of the season (4-5 against the top ten), Djokovic went 30-3 (12-2 against top ten). It's really not close.
Last edited:
