Nadal is the only clear cut surface goat/boat in tennis history

JaoSousa

Semi-Pro
Historically, on HC Nadal has been relatively weak when he had to beat two top players in a row in the SF/F sequence, regardless of his many titles on the surface. Every time he had to do it he failed.

AO 2009? Or was that monoerer, or backerer, or *******, or outofformerer, or tirederer?
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
And yet Federer was also dominated in Grass/Wimbledon finals by another all-time great grass court player....which Sampras never was. Something you seem to be missing. You can make a case for either Fed or Sampras at this point. And maybe Djokovic very soon.
Sampras didn’t play Wimbledon aged 32-37....

Fed during his best years lost to peak Nadal and had a couple of upsets to big hitters. No one dominated him at his absolute best, he won 5 in a row.
 
Last edited:

octogon

Hall of Fame
AO 2009? Or was that monoerer, or backerer, or *******, or outofformerer, or tirederer?

You have to remember, Federer had the shortest peak/prime of any all-time tennis great in recorded history.

The minute he lost to Nadal in a slam off -clay, he was an old man with a bad back and mono that was just being taken advantage of.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Lol you VB members are hilarious.

Firstly you're including doubles with singles, something that is frowned upon when Fed fans do the same with the Olympic Gold.

And secondly singles five wins beating no one in the top 10 is apparently a legendary performance...just lol.
Yeah well he beat the bloke that beat Fed at the WTF.

He's definitely not got a great record on indoor HC but still capable of playing well there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
It is not "self evident" and it is not "circular". For those that understand tennis it is clear where their strongest games are and what makes them strong there and, respectively, where their weaknesses are. Federer went down to busted hip Kuerten in his best years on tour, Djokovic went down to Wawrinka, Thiem etc. It is "circular" and "self-evident" for those that don't have a clue what is what and go only by the logic that if it wasn't for Nadal they "would have had 5-6 RG titles". Plenty of that folk around.

is being a Nadal denier like a flat Earther?

do people take you seriously in real life?
 

tudwell

Legend
Had Sampras played till Fed's age, he would have probably been beaten by Federer in finals or even by the likes of Roddick earlier in the draw.Sampras retired at 31 but not before losing to Bastl and young Federer.Pete's grass legacy would have been hurt for playing at an older age and losing ? I don't think so.

If anything, playing and reaching finals so late in his career is a pro for Fed's legacy even with this year's choke.
Everything Fed’s done since his disastrous summer of ‘13 is basically icing on the cake. It’s silly that people are trying to argue that losing extra Wimbledon finals somehow diminishes the 8 titles he’s won there.
 

tudwell

Legend
As for the OP... Nadal’s record on clay is the most unbelievable thing I’ve seen in any major sport. The guy’s 33 and lost just 2 matches in best-of-five clay matches. I really can’t fathom that kind of dominance.
 

JaoSousa

Semi-Pro
Sampras didn’t play Wimbledon aged 32-37....

Fed during his best years lost to peak Nadal and had a couple of upsets to big hitters. No one dominated him at his absolute best, he won 5 in a row.
This is very true. Pretty sure if Sampras kept on playing then he would have lost to Federer repeatedly too.
 

JaoSousa

Semi-Pro
You have to remember, Federer had the shortest peak/prime of any all-time tennis great in recorded history.

The minute he lost to Nadal in a slam off -clay, he was an old man with a bad back and mono that was just being taken advantage of.
And even though there were reports of Federer's back being bad and all the mono stuff, I remember reading in Rafa's book that after the 09 semifinal, he stayed in the ice bath for two hours because he was so exhausted. It was a great match tho
 

JaoSousa

Semi-Pro
Yeah well he beat the bloke that beat Fed at the WTF.

He's definitely not got a great record on indoor HC but still capable of playing well there.
First point is meh. Tennis is like rock paper scissors.

Second point is very true. Although he has a surprising lack of titles indoors, and it is without a doubt his worst surface, I have seen him play very well there. People like Federer and other big hitters, however, can beat him because the court favors them.
 

Whisper

Rookie
Nadal has defended FO an eye watering 9 times, going for 10. Borg did it 4 times.

I think 5 was the previous slam record - Sampras at Wimbledon? Fed’s best was 4 at USO And also 4 at Wimbledon. Djoker’s best is 3 at AO.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yeah well he beat the bloke that beat Fed at the WTF.

He's definitely not got a great record on indoor HC but still capable of playing well there.
Missing the point here. I was commenting on the double standards, not Nadal's level of play which was very good.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Listen to what @MichaelNadal said. It will easily go down as one of the top 10 tournament performances of his career, including slams and everything else. The circumstances, his age etc.

Davis Cup is a unique competition and has to be judged on it's own merits, like the Ryder Cup in Golf. You play singles and doubles as Nadal did, but you only win the team title (though he was named tournament MVP for the 2019 edition). It has zero correlation with trying to pretend a doubles title in anything means the same as a singles title.
Nah, you inserted his 8-0 score like it was just his singles record. Now you're trying to defend it with some half baked comparison to Golf.

I don't see how this was a top 10 performance of his career but I suppose that's subjective. What he did was the equivalent of crushing a 500 series draw in his worst conditions in front of his home crowd. So yeah, it was a great level of play from him but legendary? Don't see it.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Missing the point here. I was commenting on the double standards, not Nadal's level of play which was very good.
The only double standards are in your head. Davis Cup is not a doubles title. If it was, I wouldn't even be talking about it. Doubles is part if the event, but singles play is just as crucial.

It's a unique, historically important tennis event that has to be evaluated on it's own merits. So apologies if no one rates an Olympic doubles Gold the same as an Olympic singles Gold, but that has nothing to do with Davis Cup.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
The only double standards are in your head. Davis Cup is not a doubles title. If it was, I wouldn't even be talking about it. Doubles is part if the event, but singles play is just as crucial.

It's a unique, historically important tennis event that has to be evaluated on it's own merits. So apologies if no one rates an Olympic doubles Gold the same as an Olympic Gold, but that has nothing to do with Davis Cup.
You said Nadal single handedly won Davis Cup for Spain going 8-0...if that's not conflating singles and doubles I don't know what is :-D

Most of the uniqueness of the event has been loss. In actual fact Nadal won 5 singles matches over at best middling ranked players but apparently it was legendary because of reasons. But titles like the YEC are just echo's? Suppose I shouldn't be surprised, for you lot Nadal picking his nose would be legendary.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Nah, you inserted his 8-0 score like it was just his singles record. Now you're trying to defend it with some half baked comparison to Golf.

I don't see how this was a top 10 performance of his career but I suppose that's subjective. What he did was the equivalent of crushing a 500 series draw in his worst conditions in front of his home crowd. So yeah, it was a great level of play from him but legendary? Don't see it.
Lots of tennis commentators remarked that it was one of the greatest sustained performances Nadal had ever given. The Tennis Podcast did a whole podcast talking in disbelief at the standard and intensity Nadal kept up and said it was as great a performance as any he's ever given in his career. The draw was strong as well. Djokovic was in it, and he would have faced Nadal if he had been strong enough to get his team to the final. Nadal was strong enough to get his team to the final. It was a brilliant, hugely competitive event.

Sorry if you don't think what Nadal did was legendary, but lots of people who know tennis do. As great as the slams were, Davis Cup for me was his most jaw-dropping performance this year. No one saw that performance coming from him, in indoor hardcourt conditions at that part of the season. For his country, he wouldn't be denied.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Lots of tennis commentators remarked that it was one of the greatest sustained performances Nadal had ever given. The Tennis Podcast did a whole podcast talking in disbelief at the standard and intensity Nadal kept up and said it was as great a performance as any he's ever given in his career. The draw was strong as well. Djokovic was in it, and he would have faced Nadal if he had been strong enough to get his team to the final. Nadal was strong enough to get his team to the final. It was a brilliant, hugely competitive event.

Sorry if you don't think what Nadal did was legendary, but lots of people who know tennis do. As great as the slams were, Davis Cup for me was his most jaw-dropping performance this year.
OK whatever you say (y)

No top 10 wins, but Djokovic was in the draw - legendary win, strong draw. Fed wins slams beating multiple top 10 players, Nadal in the draw - weak era, fraud. Sounds about right.
 
Last edited:

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
forget 2012. Nadal 2005 and 2006 were alot faster and could run for days. 2012 was overrated.
Finishing shot with the FH was weaker though. I doubt 2007/2008at RG Nadal needs nearly 5 hours with Matthieu his FH with dictate more. 2005-2006 was still a Prime Nadal though.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
OK whatever you say (y)

No top 10 wins, but Djokovic was in the draw - legendary win, strong draw. Fed wins slams beating multiple top 10 players, Nadal in the draw - weak era, fraud. Sounds about right.
I preferred your original response when you just said "Ok whatever you say" with the thumbs up. It was a good look. Mature.

You kind of ruined it with the edited additional commentary. Shame.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I preferred your original response when you just said "Ok whatever you say" with the thumbs up. It was a good look. Mature.

You kind of ruined it with the edited additional commentary. Shame.
With the way you've been polluting the boards since your return (funny how you show up when Nadal is on top) I couldn't help pointing out more of your hypocrisy.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
With the way you've been polluting the boards since your return (funny how you show up when Nadal is on top) I couldn't help pointing out more of your hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy. I've stated why it was a legendary performance and pointed out that respected figures and commentators in the tennis community said much the same. His worst conditions and typically when he's at his most exhausted in a season, and he was an unstoppable wrecking ball willing his country to victory. Epicdal. And a draw with Djokovic ranked 1 or 2 can never be called weak. Not Nadal's problem if Djokovic couldn"t deliver on his end to set up the meeting.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
There is no hypocrisy. I've stated why it was a legendary performance and pointed out that respected figures and commentators in the tennis community said much the same. His worst conditions and typically when he's at his most exhausted in a season, and he was an unstoppable wrecking ball willing his country to victory. And a draw with Djokovic ranked 1 or 2 can never be called weak. Not Nadal's problem if Djokovic couldn"t deliver on his end to set up the meeting.
OK whatever you say ;)
 
Top