The-Champ
Legend
fixed that...
Nadal: "I Would Love To Have 1 More Slam Title Than Pete"
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
fixed that...
That's what I meant
. But, if you were as smart as us, you would know that this was applied and wouldn't need to correct it.In the words of that well known phrase, 'Self praise is no recommendation'
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
This doesn't make sense since Nadal has won all 4 slams (something that Sampras didn't do). IMO, Nadal is already ahead of Sampras (not tie) just because of that. 14/all 4 > 14/3 out of 4I guess we have different opinions.
I'd rather dominate the holy grail of tennis, and also the USO.
You guys want to dominate one slam.
I guess to each his own
What Nadal really needs to do now is overtake Fed but that's gonna be mighty hard. I think he would have to win 2 this year to have any chance of doing it.
Of course 15 would still be awesome. The more, the better!
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
14 slams equal 14 slams.
Sampras would have had better spread if he had one French.
Nadal would easily break Sampras record and may even Federer(provided Fed has stopped winning slams)
I wasn't praising, just stating facts.
thomasferrett
Hall of Fame
I know that people say that one day Nadal will one day stop winning the French Open, but the thing is I just can't imagine him NOT winning it.
It has become such a routine - just something that happens every year and you don't think anything of it.
Whatever people say, I think Nadal is a safe bet to win the French Open until he retires. I think he will win it another seven or so times.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Oh, stop worrying about me. We have 17-6-302.
On the other hand , I heard Rafa is considering a wildcard for the Guadeloupe challenger to get his confidence back . You should pray for him.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
At this time both Pete and Rafa are equal.
Rafa needs to win one more major to be the second best of open era
Don't tell you have never read The Dark Knight, 6-1 6-3 6-0, NADALRECORD and a host of banned Nadal fans.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
The pre open era GOAT calls Fed as the GOAT.
Why do we care about what folks who have half the accomplishment Fed has to say ?
Why do we care about what folks who have half the accomplishment Fed has to say ?
Talker
Hall of Fame
Pete's still ahead.
Out of the top five tournaments Pete leads 19-14 and then weeks at #1.
Both Nadal and Pete haven't gotten the all five.
Of the ones they got Pete has a better distribution. 2-7-5-5 vs 1-9-2-2.
Pete has 5 or more titles in three of the five, Nadal only one.
So we have to wait to see how the final numbers of Nadal come out.
Out of the top five tournaments Pete leads 19-14 and then weeks at #1.
Both Nadal and Pete haven't gotten the all five.
Of the ones they got Pete has a better distribution. 2-7-5-5 vs 1-9-2-2.
Pete has 5 or more titles in three of the five, Nadal only one.
So we have to wait to see how the final numbers of Nadal come out.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Ha ha I think Nadal winning last year (against maybe not all but at least some odds given his form prior to start of event) sent people really overboard. 7 more? You mean he will still win RG in his mid-30s? Come on, it is true Rafa is the best clay player ever but that doesn't mean he is a fantasy creature from Lord of the Rings
Movement is paramount on clay and that's something that tends to decline earlier than serving.
Wouldn't mind it of course if he won that many but such an unrealistic prediction even for someone like Rafa on clay.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
And I disagree, sorry. Because 4 slams doesn't equal 3 ou of 4. Sampras has the number, not the versatility and that's final afaic.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I am not talking overall but strictly in slams. In slams Nadal is #2, no contest and not just because Nadal has all 4 and Sampras doesn't but also because Nadal has more slam finals and a better winning % (by quite a comfy margin).
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Good points. This is why Sampras was considered GOAT even with no clay resume.
powerangle
Legend
I've read threads of this forum from back in 2006 and everyone was so sure Rafa would be inept on grass and would lose to the first decent grass court player he'd meet
It was only when they turned out to be so wrong that they ame up with their wishful thinking and speculative scenario of "oh, in 90's grass he wouldn't do a thing on grass".
Sure.
Well, technically he DID lose to the first decent (well, not even that decent) player he met on grass. He lost to Waske in the first round of Halle in 2005...that was the first player he met. :razz:
He then went on to be much better on grass of course...but technically he did lose his FIRST match. :razz:
You are wrong. The people who dislike Nadal is about his antics on court like time wasting, on court coaching and other gamesmanships. Other dislike includes are Nadal request for ATP changes that are self-serving rather than the good for the tour - 2 years ranking, more clay tournament, schedule too long, etc.. These same people(me included) actually like Nadal for his fighting spirit and his passion of the game. His tennis is NOT a problem, but his antics. There's a difference.
Last but not least, the #1 reason that fans dislike Nadal is often misunderstood because it's actually the dislike of some of his fans are intolerable.
Talker
Hall of Fame
It's always a plus to have all four, agreed.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Yeah, you are right. This is the same for me. I actually love to watch Nadal play and his game. I just don't like anyone wasting time and other stuff.
People are just looking some excuses to blame the hate on Fed fans, but reality is that Rafa does that due to his antics. Also his poor knowledge of english makes him less accessible and hard to understand and he can't convey his true personality.
All that plays a part.
Besides success is relative. For me a single mother with two jobs taking care of her family without ever getting rich and famous is successful.
Last edited:
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
You have zeo, don't live vicariously through others.
Why not? If you have 0 slams the most logical thing is to live vicariously trough others.
That is what Mirka does trough Federer.
I don't see what's wrong with that. Only a few can be on the top, the rest of the world won't make.
Without fans living trough their heroes, tennis wouldn't exist and pros wouldn't get paid.
thomasferrett
Hall of Fame
Ha ha I think Nadal winning last year (against maybe not all but at least some odds given his form prior to start of event) sent people really overboard. 7 more? You mean he will still win RG in his mid-30s? Come on, it is true Rafa is the best clay player ever but that doesn't mean he is a fantasy creature from Lord of the Rings
Movement is paramount on clay and that's something that tends to decline earlier than serving.
Wouldn't mind it of course if he won that many but such an unrealistic prediction even for someone like Rafa on clay.
Yes, why not?
Federer has shown that being in your mid 30's doesn't mean you can't easily beat the young up-and-comers. And Nadal is at least as good as Federer is - especially on clay. Nadal is an expert at managing his injuries - he will take time off as needed, ignore the minor tournaments, and come back intermittently to win the Slams with sickening ease!
We have commentators saying that the best of Nadal is yet to come. He has already won 14 Slams, so can you imagine how many more Slams Nadal is likely to win in this 2nd half of his career. By saying 'the best is yet to come', the inference is that he will win more than 14 more Slams from this point onwards! So, 7 more on clay and a total of 7 more off clay seems a good distribution.
You are Nadal fan, correct? I don't understand your negativity.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Grouping the WTF in with slams is a gigantic reach. Pete did not even make an RG final.
Edit: There is nothing wrong with being a fan but those who are too personally invested tend to be the unbearble ones.
Last edited:
That's your opinion but I know many still believe Pete is greater than Nadal for other reasons. You're argument for Nadal is the Career Slam, which I agree is huge. However argument goes to Sampras for his 286 weeks at #1, 5 WTF, and 6 year end #1(although I'm not impress with his 1998 because it was pre-calculated). Both players have holes and the debate will never end unless Nadal doesn't achieve more in the future.
Anyway, according to TTW, Nadal slight edged Sampras by 3 votes(154 to 151).
Nadal vs. Sampras: Who's The Greater Player
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
I will make an exception for Mirka but not people living vicariously through her.
Then what do you suggest us losers with 0 slams to do? Only 0,00000001% of population can win a slam.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Enjoy your own life and try to watch with a big of objectivity.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
The only thing Fed's case has shown is how extraordinarily difficult it is to win slams around 30. Fed has won only one of the last 20 slams played and that was on a fast surface (grass) where one can depend heavily on the serve.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Ok, from now on I will try to be as objective as the poster objectivity here.
mule250
Professional
I'm a fed fan but I hold no ill will to him beating federer so many times(though it would have been nice if Fed could've gotten just one win over him in all those FO finals). Nadals little antics do rub me the wrong way for whatever reason. But since I'm a fan of good tennis I could never dislike the guy, and even sometimes find myself rooting for him. So you're right there are trolls and then reasonable fans.
But Sampras has better win % in GS finals.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Who cares if he has reached fewer slam finals to begin with and has a lower winning % in slams overall?
Because of Federer immense popularity, the overwhelming number of general tennis fans are Federer fans, so it's easy for you to say it's the "Federer fans" that dislike Nadal.
Some Nole fans dislike Nadal too, and I'm sure they will say it's all about his antics.
Sampras has a better win % in Wimbledon finals than Federer. Sampras> Federer at Wimbledon?
Sampras has greater win % in weeks nr.1
You're a Nadal fans so those are your arguments. But Sampras fans will argue Wimbledon is the holy grail, which Pete has 7 to Nadal 2. Some say dominating on 2 surfaces which Pete did on grass and hard court is better than Nadal dominated only on one surface(clay).
Keep in mind I'm the middle-ground, so I don't take any side between Pete and Nadal.
Talker
Hall of Fame
Not so much a reach, look at the winners of the WTF.
It's a tough tournament, some have compared it with slams before.
I don't equate it with a slam but it shows the versatility needed to win under different conditions against the years best players.
Ok, never mind, I mistook you for the clayqueen, so I said something I shouldn't have. Just realized this and edited this post.
Last edited:
The strongest argument for Sampras is his weeks nr.1 and his WTF titles.
Also, he dominated 2 slams, Rafa only one.
Actually 6 years nr.1 is huge record for Sampras in my book. What is even more impressive is they are consecutive. That is just crazy. For me that is one of the greatest tennis records.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
double post
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Then I'm using objective arguments while Pete's fans would be using completely subjective ones. All slams give the same number of points and the format is identical too. All are widely covered by international medias (on top of which Nadal did win W more than once and no amount of sentimental preference for W would make up for not winning 1 of the 4 slams at all).
If all slams are equal, what difference does it make if Pete doesn't have the FO?
If winning any slam has the same value 14=14, so who cares if you win 14 W titles or 7W + 7 RG?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
JG, today you have asked several thought provoking questions. Carry on the good work.
When we talk of clay skew for Rafa, it is all slams are same.
Yet when it comes to Pete, lack of FO is a biggie.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
What are you talking about ? I was biased in favor of Rafa.
Realistically , Sampras has done better on 3 of the 4 majors and 2 of the 3 tennis surfaces, leave alone carpet.
In which world is being better on lesser surfaces better achievement ?
You need to be objective.
Yeah, it seems like Nadal fans have different standards for comparing him vs different players.
Suddenly year end nr.1 is important vs Djokovic, while not vs Pete.
Also vs Federer, Rafa's masters are huge deal, but Djokovic leading Rafa at masters h2h is ok.
Also, they say Davy h2h is not important cuz it's not majors, but they cite full 23-10 h2h and also count non slams vs Federer.
Then Pete's higher win % ratio in GS finals doesn't matter since Rafa has more finals, but vs Fed win % matters even when Fed has more finals and wins.
It looks like some Nadal fans are confused and can't make up their minds.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
They're equal in value but not in surfaces. It is a special achievement to win all 4.
Similar threads
