Nadal needed to play 56 slams to get #18, Federer 69 slams

#22
I am completely confident that your IQ is less than 11 and 10 put together.

If you cannot see it let me break it down for you :

Nadal needed only 56 slams for 18.
Borg did 11 with 25 so if we are going for slam rate , Borg is GOAT.
Borg lacks longevity, which is a serious hole in his legacy. Also, he never won a hard court slam. He retired early because he did not have the confidence he could compete with McEnroe, or was physically and mentally burnt out. The game was passing him by and he did not have the desire to change with the equipment, as he tried a return still using a wood racket. In his era 26 was considered a peak period for a tennis player.
 
#23
Nadal started earlier than Federer. Got his first slam a few days after turning 19. Federer won his a month before turning 22. Federer was somewhat of a 'late bloomer' in ATG terms.

Federer then proceeded to win 16 slams in the space of 6 and a half years. 6 and a half years after Nadal won his first slam, he was on 10. If you start their clock from when they actually started winning slams, Federer won them at a much faster rate.
 
#24
The thing is we are comparing the 2 players with more GS in Open era, Borg with only 11 GS is a non factor.
with nadal not having the GS all time count he is also a non factor

and yes Bjorg with his 11 GS in only 25 slams is a better player than nadal and a better clay court player too

and djokovic with his h2h is a far better player than nadal
 
#26
Nadal started earlier than Federer. Got his first slam a few days after turning 19. Federer won his a month before turning 22. Federer was somewhat of a 'late bloomer' in ATG terms.

Federer then proceeded to win 16 slams in the space of 6 and a half years. 6 and a half years after Nadal won his first slam, he was on 10. If you start their clock from when they actually started winning slams, Federer won them at a much faster rate.
Why should we, Nadal playing better at an early age is to his credit.
 
#31
Why should we, Nadal playing better at an early age is to his credit.
Very true that winning at an earlier age is to Nadal's credit. My question regarding the OP is this; what is the implication? Nadal reached #18 at a younger age than Federer and that somehow makes him greater. But why? It's not because he's been winning them at a faster rate.

Consider who had more slams at each age:

19: Nadal 1 Federer 0
20: Nadal 2 Federer 0
21: Nadal 3 Federer 1
22: Nadal 6 Federer 3
23: Nadal 6 Federer 5
24: Nadal 9 Federer 8
25: Federer 11 Nadal 10
26: Federer 12 Nadal 11
27: Federer 15 Nadal 13
28: Federer 16 Nadal 14
29: Federer 16 Nadal 14
30: Federer 17 Nadal 14
31: Federer 17 Nadal 16
32: Federer 17 Nadal 17
33: Nadal 18 Federer 17

Even though Nadal got a head start, Federer caught up and overtook Nadal in an equivalent age comparison. Nadal has only just pulled ahead again. He was an early bloomer, which is to his credit. But in their careers, Federer generally won his slams at a faster rate.

If just winning the slams at an earlier age than your rival makes you better, then Wilander is superior to McEnroe, as he won his 7th and final slam when he'd just turned 24. McEnroe won his 7th and final slam when he was 25 and a half.
 
#35
But it took Nadal several surgeries to get to number 18, and Federer it only took one. :eek: Clearly if we then adjust for number of surgeries, it took Nadal 100 years to reach 18 slams. This unfortunately means Nadal is very far behind in the GS race, seeing as Federer is as youthful as ever and still has a full head of thick hair.
 
#36
But it took Nadal several surgeries to get to number 18, and Federer it only took one. :eek: Clearly if we then adjust for number of surgeries, it took Nadal 100 years to reach 18 slams. This unfortunately means Nadal is very far behind in the GS race, seeing as Federer is as youthful as ever and still has a full head of thick hair.
 
#39
My god, aren't people tired already? This forum is all about bragging rights when none of the posters have lifted a single finger to contribute towards their favourite players' slam victories. This is getting to ridiculous proportions.
Yep. I swear to god many of them don't even enjoy the game itself, it's just an ongoing"my fave is better than yours" paranoia. It's effing ridiculous.
 
#40
Very true that winning at an earlier age is to Nadal's credit. My question regarding the OP is this; what is the implication? Nadal reached #18 at a younger age than Federer and that somehow makes him greater. But why? It's not because he's been winning them at a faster rate.

Consider who had more slams at each age:

19: Nadal 1 Federer 0
20: Nadal 2 Federer 0
21: Nadal 3 Federer 1
22: Nadal 6 Federer 3
23: Nadal 6 Federer 5
24: Nadal 9 Federer 8
25: Federer 11 Nadal 10
26: Federer 12 Nadal 11
27: Federer 15 Nadal 13
28: Federer 16 Nadal 14
29: Federer 16 Nadal 14
30: Federer 17 Nadal 14
31: Federer 17 Nadal 16
32: Federer 17 Nadal 17
33: Nadal 18 Federer 17

Even though Nadal got a head start, Federer caught up and overtook Nadal in an equivalent age comparison. Nadal has only just pulled ahead again. He was an early bloomer, which is to his credit. But in their careers, Federer generally won his slams at a faster rate.

If just winning the slams at an earlier age than your rival makes you better, then Wilander is superior to McEnroe, as he won his 7th and final slam when he'd just turned 24. McEnroe won his 7th and final slam when he was 25 and a half.
It doesn't make you better, it's just a point in your favour :)

I think the OP's point though is that Rafa has needed to compete in less slams to win 18, than Fed both because he has one more at the same age and because he's missed a few due to injury). So a better conversion rate. Hence the point brought by some about the players who have an even better conversion rate.
 
#46
only in your nightmares lmao. Nadal leads Novak in every GOAT category so deal with it...I like Nole, 2nd best ever after Rafa.
Lol Nadal leads Djokovic in literally NOTHING but the slam count. And Nadal trails the slam count to Federer so Nadal doesn't even havet the slam count. Nadal is the third wheel in his own generation. He is Djokovic's pigeon since 2011
 
#47
Lol Nadal leads Djokovic in literally NOTHING but the slam count. And Nadal trails the slam count to Federer so Nadal doesn't even havet the slam count. Nadal is the third wheel in his own generation. He is Djokovic's pigeon since 2011
Nadal 9-6 Djokovic over 5 sets.....do you know what pigeon even means lol.

Masters 1000 Nadal also leads Djokovic...did you miss Rome? It was a play off. Nadal better at USOpen even...Djokovic best surface. I could go on lol.
 
#48
Nadal 9-6 Djokovic over 5 sets.....do you know what pigeon even means lol.

Masters 1000 Nadal also leads Djokovic...did you miss Rome? It was a play off. Nadal better at USOpen even...Djokovic best surface. I could go on lol.
Novak has 0 slams in the weak era 2003-2007 where Nadal and Fed piled up slams on. Plus Novak has no Anderson, ferrer, berdych lol slams etc.

You bring up H2H? :-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D well Djokovic leads that vs nadal and fed! Also Ned has a losing 5 set h2h vs mueller and its a 3 slam sample size so not a fluke
Masters 1000 hahah Novak leads WTF and also has the complete set. Ned can have 20 more masters he still doesn't have the set so is inferior to novak.

Also Novak will lead masters shortly (he already does since he has the set)
 
#50
Novak has 0 slams in the weak era 2003-2007 where Nadal and Fed piled up slams on. Plus Novak has no Anderson, ferrer, berdych lol slams etc.

You bring up H2H? :-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D well Djokovic leads that vs nadal and fed! Also Ned has a losing 5 set h2h vs mueller and its a 3 slam sample size so not a fluke
Masters 1000 hahah Novak leads WTF and also has the complete set. Ned can have 20 more masters he still doesn't have the set so is inferior to novak.

Also Novak will lead masters shortly (he already does since he has the set)
Nadal leads the Masters 1000 table google it lol.

At the majors nadal 9-5 Djokovic.

Djokovic had his chance to be GOAT at FO...and missed the chance. Nadal bagged it as he always does when the pressure is on. That is the reality.
 
Top