Nadal most dominant athlete in the world

Hahaha this post of mine must've really rattled you if you had to refer to it TWICE. I'm lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it, I'm lovin' it like this, I'm lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it, I'm lovin' it like that! :lol:

oh yeah..I am furious and my face is all red...if thats what makes you sleep well..your guys is not winning any slams...I understand you guys need something ..lol
 
One thing. If 2003-2007 is weak, how come Rafa and Nole didn't win HC/grass majors?

see now you are rambling off again when Fed is in the picture...
stick your earlier point. Just the same way you saw clay era was weak, use the same metrics.
just See the semi finalists of all grand slams from 2002 to 2007 and also top 10 players every quarter in that period
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
see now you are rambling off again when Fed is in the picture...
stick your earlier point. Just the same way you saw clay era was weak, use the same metrics.
just See the semi finalists of all grand slams from 2002 to 2007 and also top 10 players every quarter in that period

I say Fed also had a weak clay era, not just Rafa.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Hahaha this post of mine must've really rattled you if you had to refer to it TWICE. I'm lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it, I'm lovin' it like this. I'm lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it, I'm lovin' it like that! :lol:

Never expected to see a reference to that DJ Pied Piper song in this forum. Or, indeed, anywhere.
 
^ what the hell is wrong with your English? If you even call that English.
Please try again with simple words this time so that I can understand.
 

Ramesh848

Banned
^ what the hell is wrong with your English? If you even call that English.
Please try again with simple words this time so that I can understand.

I wonder how many peoples on the earth can create account on forum with username as fan of players which he/she actually hates as they cannot be changed?

this looks strange, something fishy must be going on!
 

Ramesh848

Banned
Nadal's comeback last year was absolutely epic. His level in that 5th set was incredible and he thoroughly deserved the win. No arguments from me on that score at all.

you are wasting your time mate explaining idiot having butthurt for Djoko, though he claims to be fan!

only idiot with Rafa 800 wins can say he is dominant player if he is why you not? lol!
 
[Q UOTE=jg153040;8303624]I say Fed also had a weak clay era, not just Rafa.[/QUOTE]

Which part of the word ALL are you trying to ignore? Use same metrics for all grand slams and tell me what you see ?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
you are wasting your time mate explaining idiot having butthurt for Djoko, though he claims to be fan!

only idiot with Rafa 800 wins can say he is dominant player if he is why you not? lol!

He hates both Fed and Nole[but especially Fed] but if you think about it it's actually a huge compliment to both players. He obviously loathes Roger because he's the only active player with a better resume than Nadal[and alongside Sampras is probably the only greater player than Rafa in the Open Era] and he hates Novak because he's Nadal's only real competition and has prevented him from winning so much more these past few years. Besides he said in another thread the other day that he believes Djokovic is a better player than Federer! Comments like that show you just how much he knows about the sport. :rolleyes:
 

LazyNinja19

Banned
How many peoples on earth use the word peoples ? Lol

Apparently, some peoples do :roll:

no chance he can never beat nole and fed at their prime
u stated perfect point that his level is worser than prime fed
nadal and nole
peoples are not daring to have correct analysis of Murray's
success as he is current major champ
lf loses frequently in future in majors these peoples will
tell us not compare him with fedal or nole !!!!!!!"
but today they are suggesting he is better than nole
actually he started too late so he can't have chance of
chasing records of fedal but surprisingly nole got
chance of better chance of it but no one is pointing at
his bright future than Murray everybody is considering him
as out of competition due to his. Wimbledon loss
but surely he will retire with fed like records

he tanked Cincinnati? I think no
its very low level play by murra
peoples are bored by hearing that he got rare talent
his class is revealed now
in future delpo berdych Tsonga will beat him in slams regularly
peoples mistaken that he's talented player from Wimbledon victory but it tanking from nole
I think he he will not going to win major again
also delpo will have better career than murra from current day he will win 6 slam minimum with Murray's
2 only at retirement

are you lives in laver era ? no player in today's tennis skillful?

on Topic - Federer , Nadal , Djokovic all are skillful .
We are living in. era of three greats , Peoples will realise when all of them get retired.

I wonder how many peoples on the earth can create account on forum with username as fan of players which he/she actually hates as they cannot be changed?

this looks strange, something fishy must be going on!
 
Last edited:

Jam

Semi-Pro
again dominance = weeks at no 1.

i

agreed. Fed was dominant from 03-07.

who was he playing against? he didn't face top players in the main except Nadal on clay and then gradually Nadal on grass. Nadal hadn't matured on these surfaces. Given that he is 5 years younger this is more than understandable.

When Nadal matured off clay he had Fed's number of that there can be no doubt. Fed though is a super player and still managed to beat the vast majority of the field most of the time picking up trophies. But Nadal worked out how to play him and Fed didn't adapt. Federer isn't better than Nadal and the stats at the same age totally prove it. Whether Nadal usurps him is something we'll only know with time. That's why we have to put Fed ahead as he has more slams and accomplishments in general. But it's getting close. And 302 weeks is a function of the era in which you gather them. So forget about that as a defining criterion. Although fanboys won't...
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
"He’s better on clay than any other athlete is on anything."

Fun article, but really there is no way to objectively compare dominance across sports.

And then to further limit it to an athlete's performance in just a specific aspect of the sport (Nadal on clay) means you can't objectively compare anything.

But yeah, a fun read. No disputing Rafa's amazing credentials on clay.

I agree. How can you say he's better than Michael Phelps in the water or Usain Bolt on the track? Regardless, Nadal's clay court achievements are mind boggling and are probably the single most impressive performance by one player on one surface I've ever seen. He's played 9 French Open's and lost one match. That is insane. One would think, of course, he lost the first one he played, but no, the loss was a freak upset right in the middle at year 5.
 
Today Nadal's dominance on clay ended. Today his decline started. Today I will smile for the rest of my life!!

Too bad fed can't straighten out the h2h anymore since Nadal won't make it that far anymore in ANY tournament.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
agreed. Fed was dominant from 03-07.

who was he playing against? he didn't face top players in the main except Nadal on clay and then gradually Nadal on grass. Nadal hadn't matured on these surfaces. Given that he is 5 years younger this is more than understandable.

When Nadal matured off clay he had Fed's number of that there can be no doubt. Fed though is a super player and still managed to beat the vast majority of the field most of the time picking up trophies. But Nadal worked out how to play him and Fed didn't adapt. Federer isn't better than Nadal and the stats at the same age totally prove it. Whether Nadal usurps him is something we'll only know with time. That's why we have to put Fed ahead as he has more slams and accomplishments in general. But it's getting close. And 302 weeks is a function of the era in which you gather them. So forget about that as a defining criterion. Although fanboys won't...

This is circular reasoning and you know it.
 

Ramesh848

Banned
agreed. Fed was dominant from 03-07.

who was he playing against? he didn't face top players in the main except Nadal on clay and then gradually Nadal on grass. Nadal hadn't matured on these surfaces. Given that he is 5 years younger this is more than understandable.

When Nadal matured off clay he had Fed's number of that there can be no doubt. Fed though is a super player and still managed to beat the vast majority of the field most of the time picking up trophies. But Nadal worked out how to play him and Fed didn't adapt. Federer isn't better than Nadal and the stats at the same age totally prove it. Whether Nadal usurps him is something we'll only know with time. That's why we have to put Fed ahead as he has more slams and accomplishments in general. But it's getting close. And 302 weeks is a function of the era in which you gather them. So forget about that as a defining criterion. Although fanboys won't...

are you from school nadal has patent winning slams in strong era? actually his clay competition was rubbish.

what makes this era strong? Raonic the most promising young talent nadal has to face....lol.


imagine nadal is at 28 still any young gun yet win masters let alone slam! At 28 fed has 3 young grandslam champions.

weak era is quire weak argument even man with half brain can refute it...lol.

and who has stopped nadal winning Wimbledon, AO => Rosol, Darcis, Stan heck even Ferrer are they constitute strong era? :lol:
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
are you from school nadal has patent winning slams in strong era? actually his clay competition was rubbish.

what makes this era strong? Raonic the most promising young talent nadal has to face....lol.


imagine nadal is at 28 still any young gun yet win masters let alone slam! At 28 fed has 3 young grandslam champions.

weak era is quire weak argument even man with half brain can refute it...lol.

and who has stopped nadal winning Wimbledon, AO => Rosol, Darcis, Stan heck even Ferrer are they constitute strong era? :lol:

Yeah, people bring Nole and Murray as strong era. But Nadal isn't mostly stopped by them is he? If Nadal only lost to them, maybe there is something there, but he didn't, so it isn't.

Fed in his prime, he lost only to Djokovic, Nadal, Safin in SEMIS/FINALS. And still had match point vs Safin and 2008 W final was very close.

Rafa lost to lesser players BEFORE SEMIS/FINALS. Huge difference.

And Rafa was losing to lesser players even in Fed's era. I think he lost to Gonzo. IN straight sets. He lost to Youzhny. He lost to Blake. He lost to Ferrer too.

Ferrer, the giant, who can't win a match vs Fed and yet this "weak" era guy has more than 15 wins against Murray, Nole, Rafa.

Ferrer is the biggest proof why Fed's era wast strong and why Fed is better than the other top 3.
 

Ramesh848

Banned
Yeah, people bring Nole and Murray as strong era. But Nadal isn't mostly stopped by them is he? If Nadal only lost to them, maybe there is something there, but he didn't, so it isn't.

Fed in his prime, he lost only to Djokovic, Nadal, Safin in SEMIS/FINALS. And still had match point vs Safin and 2008 W final was very close.

Rafa lost to lesser players BEFORE SEMIS/FINALS. Huge difference.

And Rafa was losing to lesser players even in Fed's era. I think he lost to Gonzo. IN straight sets. He lost to Youzhny. He lost to Blake. He lost to Ferrer too.

Ferrer, the giant, who can't win a match vs Fed and yet this "weak" era guy has more than 15 wins against Murray, Nole, Rafa.

Ferrer is the biggest proof why Fed's era wast strong and why Fed is better than the other top 3.

I don't think nadal would've overcame image of clay court bully in weak era. it's impossible for him to win slams on fast courts against talented shot makers. Rosol shows that.....
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
agreed. Fed was dominant from 03-07.

who was he playing against? he didn't face top players in the main except Nadal on clay and then gradually Nadal on grass. Nadal hadn't matured on these surfaces. Given that he is 5 years younger this is more than understandable.

When Nadal matured off clay he had Fed's number of that there can be no doubt. Fed though is a super player and still managed to beat the vast majority of the field most of the time picking up trophies. But Nadal worked out how to play him and Fed didn't adapt. Federer isn't better than Nadal and the stats at the same age totally prove it. Whether Nadal usurps him is something we'll only know with time. That's why we have to put Fed ahead as he has more slams and accomplishments in general. But it's getting close. And 302 weeks is a function of the era in which you gather them. So forget about that as a defining criterion. Although fanboys won't...
Uh sorry weeks at no.1 is a criteria. Why was there news everywhere that Fed managed to break Sampras's 286 mark then?His weeks at no.1 is one of his best records and will remain in the record books for a very long time. It is a valuable record and you are the minority who does not agree so.

And there is also a list with the weeks at no.1 of all greats.

How can you be the best if you were never at the top for the longest? I say that is pretty logical in defining the best. Don't try to argue otherwise
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, Rafa is that on clay.

But the clay field is a bit weaker. Fed, Nole aren't natural clay courters. Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin all sucked on clay but they are all champions on grass/HC.

If the clay field is "weaker," then by that judgement, FO 2009--in yet another reason--cannot be used as a credit for Federer, who only won because Nadal was not his opponent.

Interesting.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
If the clay field is "weaker," then by that judgement, FO 2009--in yet another reason--cannot be used as a credit for Federer, who only won because Nadal was not his opponent.

Interesting.

Fed is in a MC final. I'm so happy today.

So, I will let you have this one.
 

LazyNinja19

Banned
it's not questionable 302* > 130*.

Fed may add more weeks.

You are wrong again!
I know you're just trying to stir up trouble, as you always do. But kindly learn to read properly first.

The article states that "Nadal on CLAY is the most dominant athlete on any surface"!
No.1 ranking has got nothing to do with Clay results and records.

And you didn't reply to the post #121. Obviously! :lol:
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
The article states that "Nadal on CLAY is the most dominant athlete on any surface"! ..
I guess when golf played in the UK or track-meets on Thursdays or soccer where one teams is wearing yellow become sports then tennis played on clay can be considered a thing unto itself.
 
Top