Nadal is the best ever if he wins 2 slams each next 6 years for 14!

N

nadalgirl26

Banned
If cute Nadal winas 14 slams or moreas he should be considered greater then Pete Sampras, and the best ever. Alota of you talk about hardness of competition, well Nadal would have hada harder competition then Sampras did. Sampras's harddest competition was Agassi, Nadal's would have been Federer who is better then Agassi. Plus if Nadal winas 14 slams or moree it would means he won atleast onew Wimbledon probably giving him all the salams while Sampras never won the French Open. As for Federer even if he wins more then 14 slamss Nadal is the greatest if he wins that many in the next 5-6 years scince it meana he was beating Federer most of the time in their primes, making him betater then him too.
 
oberyn said:
And if James Blake wins three consecutive calendar slams, I'll proclaim him the G.O.A.T.
Click to expand...

You eras talking about soemsthing that is unraslistic. Nadal winning 2 slams each of the next 6 yeras is realistic. He owns the great Federer head to head, cant loset to him on clay, usually beats him on hard courts, and can even beat him on grass. Nadal is a lock for the French Open until his mid 20s atleast, the favorite for the Austraslian Open for awhile, a contender at the U.S open, and even an outside chance at Wimbledon. So 2 of 4, only half, for the next 6 yeras is totally realistic for Nadal to do. If he does that vs the great Federer it makes him the best ever, even over Sampras.
 
Ok.....Federer will be number 1 for at least probs 2 years considering his points difference to Nadal. His 3rd and 4th year he will crumble i think......there have been a few signs this year of that. Well IMO anyway. I cant see anyone beating Nadal at FO for at least another few years. No one has his type of strokes and movement to match on clay. Maybe the game but Nadal wears people down so easily on clay.
 
Nadal is young and consistently injured each year he has to pull out of tourneys. From this fact, it is unrealistic to expect him to win 2 slams a year for the next 3yrs!
 
If u guys think about it Hewitt might of even won all 4 GS before Federer. If he had won the Aussie Open 2005. And Hewitt gave Nadal a tough match....maybe even tougher than in the final
 
nadalgirl26 said:
If cute Nadal winas 14 slams or moreas he should be considered greater then Pete Sampras, and the best ever. Alota of you talk about hardness of competition, well Nadal would have hada harder competition then Sampras did. Sampras's harddest competition was Agassi, Nadal's would have been Federer who is better then Agassi. Plus if Nadal winas 14 slams or moree it would means he won atleast onew Wimbledon probably giving him all the salams while Sampras never won the French Open. As for Federer even if he wins more then 14 slamss Nadal is the greatest if he wins that many in the next 5-6 years scince it meana he was beating Federer most of the time in their primes, making him betater then him too.
Click to expand...

14???!!!!I thought he was going for 47???:confused:

oh!Nadalgirl!Don't dissapoint me now!!!!!!!!:mrgreen:
 
nadalgirl26 said:
You eras talking about soemsthing that is unraslistic. Nadal winning 2 slams each of the next 6 yeras is realistic. He owns the great Federer head to head, cant loset to him on clay, usually beats him on hard courts, and can even beat him on grass. Nadal is a lock for the French Open until his mid 20s atleast, the favorite for the Austraslian Open for awhile, a contender at the U.S open, and even an outside chance at Wimbledon. So 2 of 4, only half, for the next 6 yeras is totally realistic for Nadal to do. If he does that vs the great Federer it makes him the best ever, even over Sampras.
Click to expand...
nadal has beat fed once on hard court since nadal came into the top 20....he hasnt made 1 final since wimby and has never made it past the 4th round at australia, & the quaters at new york.....he is nowhere near the top 5 hardcourt players...and he will not make a wimby final for another few years....although he is my second fav player behind a-rod...i have learned to stopp defending him just because he can own anyone of clay....i do believe nadal could win 2 slams in 1 year but not for 6 years if he is luky he will win 2 aussie opens and mybee 1 us open out side the french
 
All this talk about Nadal owning Federer is imo Bullcrap. Until Rafa improves & proves himself on surfaces other than Clay, he will always have an asterick (*) besides his name much in the same manner as Tomas Muster who became #1 but was dis'd by his fellow Players as only achieveing this by accumulating a mass amount of point on Clay and did bascially nothing on the other surfaces.

What people seemed to have forgotten was Tomas had a terrible accident where he was struck by a car and for all pratical purposes, his Tennis career was over. Obviously Clay was better for his legs and I think the Man was awesome for what he was able to do. Having said that however, Nadal although beating Federer & Agassi in Toronto last year on hard, doesn't bring the saem game as he does on dirt. To think of him in a conversation about the GOAT is really stretching it ...
 
nadalgirl26 said:
If cute Nadal winas 14 slams or moreas he should be considered greater then Pete Sampras, and the best ever. Alota of you talk about hardness of competition, well Nadal would have hada harder competition then Sampras did. Sampras's harddest competition was Agassi, Nadal's would have been Federer who is better then Agassi. Plus if Nadal winas 14 slams or moree it would means he won atleast onew Wimbledon probably giving him all the salams while Sampras never won the French Open. As for Federer even if he wins more then 14 slamss Nadal is the greatest if he wins that many in the next 5-6 years scince it meana he was beating Federer most of the time in their primes, making him betater then him too.
Click to expand...


You said you wouldn't post anymore, I would suggest you leave the forum!
 
It's funny how much the style of nadalgirl's posts resembles my occasional late night drunken e-mails to friends in college:

"Ssoo anwayas, I wass just rwiting to say IM SOO WAstted right noww. Nadals iss awesomesa, noo?Q!!!"

I think slice backhand compliment said it best: just assume every post from nadalgirl26 is a performance art piece. It's too unbelievable to be taken at face value, but that's not the point. Just look, laugh, engage and/or move on.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
If cute Nadal winas 14 slams or moreas he should be considered greater then Pete Sampras, and the best ever. Alota of you talk about hardness of competition, well Nadal would have hada harder competition then Sampras did. Sampras's harddest competition was Agassi, Nadal's would have been Federer who is better then Agassi. Plus if Nadal winas 14 slams or moree it would means he won atleast onew Wimbledon probably giving him all the salams while Sampras never won the French Open. As for Federer even if he wins more then 14 slamss Nadal is the greatest if he wins that many in the next 5-6 years scince it meana he was beating Federer most of the time in their primes, making him betater then him too.
Click to expand...
I can't help but laugh at each and every single one of your posts. You really are on crack sister.
 
Oh and I suggest using microsoft word's spelling and grammar check. Just type whatever it is you want to type and just paste it into Word and check it and make the necessary changes no?

That way you minimise the mistakes and paste it back into the reply boxes here before pressing "submit post" no?
 
Robbie_1988 said:
Oh and I suggest using microsoft word's spelling and grammar check. Just type whatever it is you want to type and just paste it into Word and check it and make the necessary changes no?
Click to expand...

If you only go with the initial suggested changes, you get this, though:

"If cute Nodal wines 14 slams or mores he should be considered greater then Pete Samaras, and the best ever. Alta of you talk about hardness of competition, well Nodal would have hade harder competition then Samaras did. Sampan’s hardest competition was Gassy; Nasal’s would have been Feeder who is better then Gassy."

Pistol Pete had to contend with gassy competition.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
If cute Nadal winas 14 slams or moreas he should be considered greater then Pete Sampras, and the best ever. Alota of you talk about hardness of competition, well Nadal would have hada harder competition then Sampras did. Sampras's harddest competition was Agassi, Nadal's would have been Federer who is better then Agassi. Plus if Nadal winas 14 slams or moree it would means he won atleast onew Wimbledon probably giving him all the salams while Sampras never won the French Open. As for Federer even if he wins more then 14 slamss Nadal is the greatest if he wins that many in the next 5-6 years scince it meana he was beating Federer most of the time in their primes, making him betater then him too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

first of all, you did say you werent goin to post again if nadal loss which he did. ;-)

harder competetion than sampras did. right...sampras only had agassi...courier...ivanevic...becker...edberg...mcenore...shall i go on. all of which are HOF's. which future HOF's does nadal have, federer, hewitt, baggy maybe, roddick is iffy. you have to be jokin right.

Federer is better than agassi!?!? how soon you forget that agassi wasn't in his prime against federer, that was at the end of his prime.

Your ending doesnt even make sense either. so many flaws in your argument and thread here. please, i dont want to be mean, but don't post here again until you got something legitmate to argue about. save yourself the embrassment. again not to be mean.
 
Federer is better than agassi!?!? how soon you forget that agassi wasn't in his prime against federer, that was at the end of his prime.
Click to expand...

Federer is better then Agassi already. He is 25 and already has more slams, and far more dominance, which negates the longevity factor. If they are close now they wont even be close in a couple years.
 
nadalgirl26 said:
If cute Nadal winas 14 slams or moreas he should be considered greater then Pete Sampras, and the best ever. Alota of you talk about hardness of competition, well Nadal would have hada harder competition then Sampras did. Sampras's harddest competition was Agassi, Nadal's would have been Federer who is better then Agassi. Plus if Nadal winas 14 slams or moree it would means he won atleast onew Wimbledon probably giving him all the salams while Sampras never won the French Open. As for Federer even if he wins more then 14 slamss Nadal is the greatest if he wins that many in the next 5-6 years scince it meana he was beating Federer most of the time in their primes, making him betater then him too.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this argument, in addition to the spelling, is that you dont know if Nadal will be able to get to 14 slams over the next 6 years. Of course if he did he would be over Pete Sampras all time, and will have won those slams with even harder competition then Pete, since he had to play Roger Federer even harder competition then Agassi, but it is far from certain he will do that. It should not be just assumed he will reach those 14 slams which is the problem with that argument.

I assumed Jen was going to win 12 slams and she never did, so you never know in this world.
 
Wow....just when i needed a great pick me up...Nadalgirl26 does it again...I so agree with her...and her mathematics is great :-)

You can't beat the logic or where she is coming from...but as long as Youzhny, Blake and Federer remain in the draw...and possibly Roddick...I can't see Nadal winning anything other than the French Open IMO...then again, I am sure I will be shot down for saying that....but I will have to ask Nadalgirl this...IF...and thats a big IF Nadal were to win 2 GS for he next 6 yrs...who will win the others? If its Federer then Nadal will have a long way to go :rolleyes:
 
hey nadalgirl i bet you have no chance with nadal whatsoever, and you are an idiot for saying that hes going to win 2 slams every year, Have you been watching tennis lately i mean when ur boy nadal was getting his a ss *****? players figured out the way to beat him on hard now pretty comfotably.
14 slams?? lmao still making me laugh, maybe i mean maybe he will win french for another 3 or 4 years but the way his game is built hes not gonna do well when he is in his mid 20's. Be realtic!!! and stop ********** off nadal he doesnt like you, you fat a s s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
If Nadal wins 14 slams, would he leapfrog over Sampras in terms of Greatness?
6 7 8
Replies
388
Views
32K
Mike Sams
Mike Sams
illkhiboy
What if Nadal won the French 7 times...
Replies
32
Views
3K
Gilgamesh
G
Prabhanjan
[FICTION SERIES 1] Sampras does not stop Nadal from winning 14 slams
Replies
26
Views
2K
Prabhanjan
Prabhanjan
M
Achievements for Federer if He Wins US Open
Replies
25
Views
3K
smoledman
smoledman
JennyS
If Federer dominated Nadal, his era would be weak and he wouldn't be GOAT!
Replies
15
Views
2K
Nadalfan89
Nadalfan89
Back
Top