Nadal needed to play 56 slams to get #18, Federer 69 slams
- Thread starter NadalGOD
- Start date
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
This scintillating news should be making world news! Now please work out how many tournaments it took Borg to reach 11 slams, Pete 14 slams, Lendl/Agassi/Connors 8 slams, etc. The fate of the GOAT debate hangs in the balance. Get to work, new user and thank you for your depth of analysis and insight!
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Borg only needed 25 to go to 11.
Alexrb
Professional
Borg had 11 slams almost 40 years agoBorg has 18 GS?
Nadal had 11 GS almost 10 years ago
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Guy must have been number one for incredible amounts of time with a stat like that. Boy, I wonder how many WTF he has? 10? He must be great on every surface too...
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Borg has 18 GS?
Nadal had 11 GS almost 10 years ago
Nadal has 20 slams?
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
So that means he was unable to play at so many slams = physically inferior
Yeah i wonder what is the H2H of that swiss against is 2 max competitors, is good for sure
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
Borg has 18 GS?
Nadal had 11 GS almost 10 years ago
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.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Trollity trollity.
The thing is we are comparing the 2 players with more GS in Open era, Borg with only 11 GS is a non factor.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
And how many did he need to play to win 11?Borg has 18 GS?
Nadal had 11 GS almost 10 years ago
Nadal has 20 GS?Borg has 18 GS?
Nadal had 11 GS almost 10 years ago
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah i wonder what is the H2H of that swiss against is 2 max competitors, is good for sure
Not as good as Rafa h2h with Djoker (only 15 slams)...
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Nadal was an earlier starter, which is not bad. But it is not when you do it, but what you do.
victorcruz
Hall of Fame
69? Nice!
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.
Towny
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
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
Crisstti
Legend
It's an argument in his favour for sure.
Crisstti
Legend
Why should we, Nadal playing better at an early age is to his credit.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Borg the winner across different eras.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Weighted for difficulty of competition and injury, at least 20.
Druss
Hall of Fame
So according to OP, Borg is by far the superior player over Nadal.
Towny
Hall of Fame
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.
OldschoolKIaus
Hall of Fame
19 > 6
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
69 slams! Fedr you dirty dog.
Enga
Hall of Fame
But it took Nadal several surgeries to get to number 18, and Federer it only took one. 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.
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.
Tennisbg
Professional
But it took Nadal several surgeries to get to number 18, and Federer it only took one.
Enga
Hall of Fame
Ahh, what a beautiful head of full length, thick non receding hair. No sign of male pattern baldness here.
Tennisbg
Professional
Yeah, clearly. Almost Djokovic like.
LordGoolbis
New User
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.
Crisstti
Legend
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.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Big Boss Man.
Nadal and Djokovic surpassed Federer 5 years ago.
Because of weak clay era for Nadal. Nadal has 12 RG by literally beating mugs on clay. I mean he literally won a RG just now vs 0 slam 0 masters 0 weeks no 1 0 anything Thiem (no not ferrerer)
And yes Borg is better as he reached 11 way quicker than nadal did
nadal is a long long way behind djokovic
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
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?
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 flukeMasters 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)
7-0 7-0 is pigeonhood
Nadal leads the Masters 1000 table google it 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?
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)
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.
Similar threads
