Nadal can still easily surpass/match Federer's Slam count

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
The biggest mistake is assuming things will continue to remain as they are. Change is coming folks, one way or the other. Just be happy with what you get before someone comes and takes them all.
 

BGod

Legend
Nadal has won 1 and I repeat 1 Slam outside clay in 4 years. Say we give him 1 more going forward and that means 4 French Open.

Now I tell you Nadal isn't winning 5 titles in a row or even 4/5 in his twilight years.

His chances are below 1% with Federer being done.
 

GabeT

Legend
I don't care what you think others arguments are.


I was very clear in what I stated and why


slam count +plus other ATG markers make it no contest on who is GOAT, even if Nadal wins another 10 FO.

Fed dominated the tour in ways Nadal never did, pillar to post.
If Nadal wins another 10 FOs then he would have the slam count win. So you argue that distribution of slams is more important than number of slams. Yet, and this is my point, I doubt you would say the same thing if the distribution of slam wins benefitted another player that had less slam wins than Fed.

That’s my point from the beginning. Posters here simply pick the rationale that best suits them. If Nadal somehow manages to win more slams than Fed you will focUs on slam distribution. If Nole somehow manages to win another FO and AO, beating Fed in two of the slams and having a dual CGS and NCYGS, I suspect you will focus on the slam count.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
What’s funny about it bud? Or are you just trolling because you’re a new user who would rather keep pretending that there’s absolutely no way that Nadal could potentially catch Fed?
But the way you worded it makes it sound like all of that is a guarantee. It isn't.

All we know is that I have been hearing this since the end of 2013. That Nadal still has all the time in the world to catch Roger. Fast forward over 4 years later and he is still 4 slams behind Federer.

My point is nothing is a guarantee in tennis.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
Prior to NAdal's retirement, his level looked pretty good.

he will recuperate fast, and still be the heavy heavy favorite to sweep clay.

Federer winning anything is still way"iffier" than nadal sweeping the clay season.

Federer's level is dropping while nadal's is more or less the same as last years...
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
If Nadal wins another 10 FOs then he would have the slam count win. So you argue that distribution of slams is more important than number of slams. Yet, and this is my point, I doubt you would say the same thing if the distribution of slam wins benefitted another player that had less slam wins than Fed.

That’s my point from the beginning. Posters here simply pick the rationale that best suits them. If Nadal somehow manages to win more slams than Fed you will focUs on slam distribution. If Nole somehow manages to win another FO and AO, beating Fed in two of the slams and having a dual CGS and NCYGS, I suspect you will focus on the slam count.


That's not entirely what I said


But you already know that


You accuse others of picking and choosing when you have done that with every post


You know what I said went beyond slam count and slam distribution.


But thanks for playing.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I concur since his career is woefully unbalanced highlighting his clay prowess! What made Borg greater was taking those 5 Wimbledons in a row! After winning his 2, Nadal hasn't even gotten to a SF
Actually, after winning the title in 2010, Nadal returned to the final in 2011. Since then the grass has been barren, however.
 

GabeT

Legend
That's not entirely what I said


But you already know that


You accuse others of picking and choosing when you have done that with every post


You know what I said went beyond slam count and slam distribution.


But thanks for playing.
Yes, you added other factors that just so happened to make Fed look better. Like focusing on the YEC instead of on masters won. Or mentioning YE1.

So, if Nole wins another FO and AO and another YEC will you accept he is, at least, the equivalent of Fed? Doubt it.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Yes, you added other factors that just so happened to make Fed look better. Like focusing on the YEC instead of on masters won. Or mentioning YE1.

So, if Nole wins another FO and AO and another YEC will you accept he is, at least, the equivalent of Fed? Doubt it.
they make Fed look better because he is better or he wouldn't have the stats


LMAOOOOO!!!!
 

fedfan39

Rookie
If Nadal wins another 10 FOs then he would have the slam count win. So you argue that distribution of slams is more important than number of slams. Yet, and this is my point, I doubt you would say the same thing if the distribution of slam wins benefitted another player that had less slam wins than Fed.

That’s my point from the beginning. Posters here simply pick the rationale that best suits them. If Nadal somehow manages to win more slams than Fed you will focUs on slam distribution. If Nole somehow manages to win another FO and AO, beating Fed in two of the slams and having a dual CGS and NCYGS, I suspect you will focus on the slam count.
I agree the distribution of slams is meaningless. If Nadal wins 15 FOs and has 21 slams, 21 > 20. I will give him that.

We will still have to look at their careers in totality, but given their history, I believe slam count is the true tiebreaker between Federer and Nadal. No arguments from me on that.
 

GabeT

Legend
they make Fed look better because he is better or he wouldn't have the stats


LMAOOOOO!!!!
And other stats, say masters win or H2H, make other players look better. Funny you don’t focus on that. It just so happens you focus on the stats that make your preferrred player look the best. And, I’m sure, if those same stats somehow change in the future, and other players look better than Fed, you won’t simply go and focus on some other new set of numbers, right?
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Also, how many points awarded for winning YEC vs a master's



How many players have been ranked world number one compared to how many have won a master's :D
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
And if you wanna bring up h2h


how many of the Fedal matches were from March to June vs say July to November :D
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
It’s very simple. Posters jump from “slam count is all that matters” to “ diversity of slam wins is what matters” depending on how their favorite player is doing. Happens to the best of us.
None of the two are "all that matters", there are more variables than just one number that crystallizes the whole GOAT debate (otherwise there wouldn't even be a debate). And Nadal trails Federer (or isn't even in the conversation) for most of them.
 

GabeT

Legend
None of the two are "all that matters", there are more variables than just one number that crystallizes the whole GOAT debate (otherwise there wouldn't even be a debate). And Nadal trails Federer (or isn't even in the conversation) for most of them.
I don't think anyone is arguing Nadal's achievements are better than Fed's. What I'm arguing is that if nadal improves in some of the areas he is behind today (say YE1, number of slams, or some other stat) Fed fans will simply focus on something else. Nothing to be ashamed of. We all do it.
 

Tennisanity

Legend
None of the two are "all that matters", there are more variables than just one number that crystallizes the whole GOAT debate (otherwise there wouldn't even be a debate). And Nadal trails Federer (or isn't even in the conversation) for most of them.
Exactly. When you say Slams are the most important, the morons that that to means slams are the only thing there is! :)
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
If Nadal wins another 10 FOs then he would have the slam count win. So you argue that distribution of slams is more important than number of slams. Yet, and this is my point, I doubt you would say the same thing if the distribution of slam wins benefitted another player that had less slam wins than Fed.

That’s my point from the beginning. Posters here simply pick the rationale that best suits them. If Nadal somehow manages to win more slams than Fed you will focUs on slam distribution. If Nole somehow manages to win another FO and AO, beating Fed in two of the slams and having a dual CGS and NCYGS, I suspect you will focus on the slam count.
If Nole did that he’d still be 6 slams behind. That’s too big a gap.
 

Atherton2003

Hall of Fame
I don't think Fed is gonna win anymore majors - unless they keep handing him such easy draws and the top players drop out with injuries - if that's the case, then Fed can win 30 more titles as a man in his 70's
 

thomasferrett

Hall of Fame
EVEN if we say that Nadal doesn't win any other Slam apart from the French Open ever again, do you really see anyone stopping him from winning the French Open in the next 4 years? No? Well, in 4 years, 20 Slams will be in the bag, then. In 5 years, 21 in the bag. In 6 years, 22 - and so on.

The point is that Nadal is guaranteed to win at least one Slam every year. Federer has no such guarantee, so it's a lot more difficult for him to rack up Slams.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I don't think Fed is gonna win anymore majors - unless they keep handing him such easy draws and the top players drop out with injuries - if that's the case, then Fed can win 30 more titles as a man in his 70's
Cilic isn't a top player? He's #3 in the rankings now and reached slam finals in two out of last 3 slams.

Interesting.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Cilic isn't a top player? He's #3 in the rankings now and reached slam finals in two out of last 3 slams.

Interesting.
Also, at least Federer beat said bad player--Nadal got defeated by him, so how is he going to win 4+ slams if he can't beat any top 25 player outside clay?

Credit to the OP, though--he's endlessly entertaining with his threads about how Nadal is a lock for the next 20 slams or such and such player won't win a single match more. A tad repetitive and not as funny as 90's Clay, of course, but then, who is?
 

DonDiego

Hall of Fame
In the next four years, there's a good chance Nadal misses one, or two RG because of injuries. Forget it. In fact I'll be very surprised if Nadal doesn't retire two years from now.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
4 more isn't a huge ask, especially when you auto-win at least 1 Slam (French) per year. So really, all Nadal needs to do is play another 4 years on tour (and he's only 31, let's not forget), and he'll have 4 more French Open's. Then all he needs to do is bag an additional Slam in one of those years, and he's surpassed 20 Slams.
I would agree with you, if Nadal did not have repeated health issues. I believe Nadal has had so much fortune in being able to return so many times, but that has a limit.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
plus Nadal didn't have 3 to 4 years of playing without another ATG to deal with, unlike some other player...
Isn't Agassi an ATG?

Also, since Rafa "owned" Federer (correct?), who was the other ATG that was rivaling him between 2005 and 2010?

:(
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
It looks out of reach unless he wins 2 this year. This is the same situation as last year after Fed won the AO. It looked way out of reach for Rafa to catch up unless he won 2 in 2017.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Isn't Agassi an ATG?

Also, since Rafa "owned" Federer (correct?), who was the other ATG that was rivaling him between 2004 and 2010?

:(
IMO, Agassi's barely in the top 10 with his problems, injuries, and late bloom after Sampras fell from the top! He has that CGS and that'll have to suffice his fans invoking/bestowing "greatness" upon him! Unfortunately for him Fedalovic came along and obliterated/eviscerated his record! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
But he did have a rival that is 5 years older who he hoped would just get old and retire to make it easier for him. Sorry about his luck.
age ain't nothing but a number, as your demigod is proving right now! its about health for these ATGs.

and anyway, another ATG showed up, so your theory is weak on multiple levels.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Isn't Agassi an ATG?

Also, since Rafa "owned" Federer (correct?), who was the other ATG that was rivaling him between 2005 and 2010?

:(
weak sauce man...

Agassi was pretty much a cripple post 2004, he was anything but ageless.

and Federer was still an ATG at prime near prime level from 2005 to 2010.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Slam trophies is not the only way to measure a player’s career. The problem with using slam wins as the only measuring stick is that it assumes that all losses at the majors are equal, which is clearly not true. I guarantee you that Cilic would not trade his AO final loss for a loss in the 4th round. If he did, he would lose over a million dollars and a bunch of points in the rankings.

And as a fan, I want my player to get to as many semis and finals as possible. And if he can string together 8 straight semis during his peak, then that would be amazing. How many men have made it to 8 straight slam semis? I don’t think more than 4 or 5 players have done that.

I look at weeks at #1. Year-end #1 is nice, but has an arbitrary cut off date. Using year-end #1 as a measuring stick has its major flaws. Here is an example: Player A could grab #1 in January 2019 and win the year-end race by 8000 points, then cough it up to player B on the last match of 2020 to player B so that player B wins the year-end #1 race by 10 points. In that scenario, player A and player B have the same amount of year-end points titles. But in that case, player A was clearly far better than player B.

When ranking players, I look at slam titles as one of the criteria for measuring greatness. And I don’t care how the slam count is distributed. I.e, if Nadal had 15 FO titles to help him edge Federer 21-20, then Nadal wins that battle. But I also look at how often players went deep in slam tourneys. I guarantee you that none of the players would consider a loss in the semis the same as a loss in the first week. I also look at total wins vs top 10 players and weeks at #1. And I place a pretty big weight on the year-end finals, which is a tourney where the best 8 players in the world at that time(barring injuries) compete to raise the trophy. In that case, there are no “easy” victories.

Due to the criteria above, I rank Lendl much higher than most people do. Lendl had 10 straight slam semis, which is something only 2-3 other players have ever done. He also won 5 year end tourneys and was in the final in 9 consecutive times. And Lendl played on courts that had far greater variance than the courts of today. Playing the same way on each surface back then would yield far fewer slams than it would on the more homogenized surfaces in today’s game. Also, Lendl’s 270 weeks at #1, despite the depth of the game and the variety of players that he faced is mind-blowing. This is why it is a futile effort to compare players across generations. But we all do anyway; myself included.

With all of that being said, Federer has a massive lead on the current players. Djokovic was extremely consistent and appeared to have a career that was going to mimic Fed’s until he stalled out in 2016. But right now, Fed is probably out of Djoker’s reach. Djoker would need 3 more seasons like 2015 to pass Fed.

If Nadal can win 5 World Tour finals, 5 more slams, and have another 100 weeks at #1 while racking up another 50 wins vs top-10 players, then he will squeak by Fed, provided that Fed retires today. Or Nadal could win 7 more slams, win 2 World Tours finals, add another’s 80 weeks at #1, then pass Federer.

I don’t see that happening. Fed has increased the gap.

I will say this: Nadal is the ultimate warrior. Once he gets by the first week, he is the deadliest player that I have ever seen.

As far as Nadal and Djokovic go, I would still probably rank Djokivic ahead of Nadal. But Nadal will probably regain the lead soon. Djokovic has far more weeks at #1, 14 straight slam semis(Nadal’s best was 7), 5-0 lead in World Tour Finals, and more than 20 more wins vs the top 10. If we added up all of the rankings points, I am pretty sure that Djokovic would be slightly ahead of Nadal, despite being a year younger.
 

McEnborg

Rookie
Rafa is still amazing but I highly doubt he'll make it to 20 slams. He'll be 32 at the French and doesn't have the same ease of movement or grace that Fed has. His body breaks down now. Highly unlikely. His overall body of work is a notch below Roger if you look at tournaments won, excellence on all surfaces as much as Fed, etc.

But, I absolutely think Rafa is the Second greatest player ever. Novak could catch him, but I highly doubt it. He can't stay healthy and it'll be 2 years since he won a major. He's turning 31 in May.
 

fedfan39

Rookie
So winning 21 FOs makes someone a better player than winning 5 of each?? Complete nonsense.
This is an incredibly unrealistic example.

Nadal has at the very least a career slam. His distribution is obviously skewed, but it's not as bad as 13-1-1-1. 10-3-2-1 is passable, and can be compared against 8-6-5-1.

Is 8-6-5-1 superior to 15-3-2-1? It's very subjective at that point.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Slam trophies is not the only way to measure a player’s career. The problem with using slam wins as the only measuring stick is that it assumes that all losses at the majors are equal, which is clearly not true. I guarantee you that Cilic would not trade his AO final loss for a loss in the 4th round. If he did, he would lose over a million dollars and a bunch of points in the rankings.

...

Due to the criteria above, I rank Lendl much higher than most people do. Lendl had 10 straight slam semis, which is something only 2-3 other players have ever done. He also won 5 year end tourneys and was in the final in 9 consecutive times. And Lendl played on courts that had far greater variance than the courts of today. Playing the same way on each surface back then would yield far fewer slams than it would on the more homogenized surfaces in today’s game. Also, Lendl’s 270 weeks at #1, despite the depth of the game and the variety of players that he faced is mind-blowing. This is why it is a futile effort to compare players across generations. But we all do anyway; myself included.

...

As far as Nadal and Djokovic go, I would still probably rank Djokivic ahead of Nadal. But Nadal will probably regain the lead soon. Djokovic has far more weeks at #1, 14 straight slam semis(Nadal’s best was 7), 5-0 lead in World Tour Finals, and more than 20 more wins vs the top 10. If we added up all of the rankings points, I am pretty sure that Djokovic would be slightly ahead of Nadal, despite being a year younger.
I'm the same way; highly regarding the perennial #3's of their era! Lendl was a winner and had to deal with so much noted competition from McEnroe & Connors to Edberg & Becker; and many in between! At any given Major, there could be a dozen Slam winners constantly after his top ranking from '85 on! Djokovic has been in the same predicament; not exactly the fan favorite with Fedal around, but is a big winner with 2 seasons taking 3 Slams, multiple YEC's, 30+ victories over top 10 players in '15, overtook the H2H vs his top 2 opps, and finally got his CGS with FO 2 seasons ago in '16! Most would be satisfied with his accomplishments, but I'm hoping he comes back to add to the records he holds! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
4 more isn't a huge ask, especially when you auto-win at least 1 Slam (French) per year. So really, all Nadal needs to do is play another 4 years on tour (and he's only 31, let's not forget), and he'll have 4 more French Open's. Then all he needs to do is bag an additional Slam in one of those years, and he's surpassed 20 Slams.
OP in ruins as always
 

CHillTennis

Rookie
If Nadal had been able to win a few of those Aussie Open finals, he'd be in serious contention with Roger Federer for the GOAT mantle.

However, it's tough for him to finish a year with more slams than Roger.

Where Federer can threaten at the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and US Open.

Nadal is really only a factor at the French and US Opens.

Can his body hold up long enough to reach 20? Maybe it can. But I also don't think that Federer is done winning slams.

It's going to be very difficult for him to surpass the FedExpress.
 

Federev

Hall of Fame
slam count don't matter



Nadal could win 20 more FO it still wouldn't matter


everybody knows he is Clay goat


what's his slam tally outside the FO.

6 majors



Fed's slam tally outside Wimbledon?


12




then factor in feds weeks at number one, consecutive weeks at number one, WTF won, having at least 5 titles at 6 or more different tournaments across grass and hard



It's a wrap


Fed underperformed on clay because Rafa is clay goat


Meanwhile Fed dominated the tour outside of Clay and Rafa usually wasn't a factor because he got beat before he could face Fed


It's a wrap
This is strong.

And a good day to state it.
 
Top