Tenacity
Hall of Fame
It is pretty clear what you are doing with every post here, no matter the context.Obviously you didn't read the post that I was quoting.
It is pretty clear what you are doing with every post here, no matter the context.Obviously you didn't read the post that I was quoting.
It is pretty clear what you are doing with every post here, no matter the context.
peak grassdal was epic. I’d like to see him win another Wimbledon, or at least be in the final again
Imagine Nadal winning USO this year; TTW would go nuts lol
What is ‘first person open era 3 surface champ’?
Complete insanity would be if he beats Djokovic in the finalBy beating Garin in the QF, Struff in the SF and PCB in the final. That would send TTW into complete insanity.
Obviously an exaggeration, but Rafa has nothing left to prove on clay. Whether he won 13 or 14 RG's won't make a difference to his GOAT standing. His statistical Achilles Heel is versatility, so beefing up on fast-court titles would elevate him much more. 1 AO title would give him the 2nd CGS, 1 more Wimbledon would give him the trifecta on all surfaces (standalone in history), and 1 WTF would give him the full big title set.I assume you are just trolling. 1 slam worth more than 5?
That's true, but a 10th AO would feel more special than any other Slam (except another RG, but he doesn't have great odds there now)And Djokovic can win 5 more AO and it will not do anything to his legacy compared to 1 more FO or 1 more US Open.
Yes, it would. Given that I don't see anyone beating Djokovic in AO in the next 10 years at the least, Nadal's record in his best slam is anything but safe.Obviously an exaggeration, but Rafa has nothing left to prove on clay. Whether he won 13 or 14 RG's won't make a difference to his GOAT standing. His statistical Achilles Heel is versatility, so beefing up on fast-court titles would elevate him much more. 1 AO title would give him the 2nd CGS, 1 more Wimbledon would give him the trifecta on all surfaces (standalone in history), and 1 WTF would give him the full big title set.
AO - double career slam
Wim- first person open era 3 surface champ
US - tied for open era record
I've stopped reading at Nadal non clay...
Imagine Nadal beating Djokovic at AO final next year to become the only man in the open era to achieve the dcgs. That would make people nuts! Not than I'm saying it's likely to happen, but I think it would be the biggest achievement by far.Imagine Nadal winning USO this year; TTW would go nuts lol
In 10 years??? hahaha thanks, I just finished my shift and needed that!Yes, it would. Given that I don't see anyone beating Djokovic in AO in the next 10 years at the least, Nadal's record in his best slam is anything but safe.
All of those potential wins would be his NEXT win at the respective venue. Who says it would also be the last one apart from RG then?If you could choose only 1 non clay slam to win before Nadal ends his career which would it be?
AO - double career slam
Wim- first person open era 3 surface champ
US - tied for open era record
Just hypothetical if it was his last win, I hope he can keep winning slams in general, he isn’t getting any younger..All of those potential wins would be his NEXT win at the respective venue. Who says it would also be the last one apart from RG then?
Yes Nadal gets bagged a lot for versatility I think one more non clay slam will help his cause immensely in the GOAT debate.Obviously an exaggeration, but Rafa has nothing left to prove on clay. Whether he won 13 or 14 RG's won't make a difference to his GOAT standing. His statistical Achilles Heel is versatility, so beefing up on fast-court titles would elevate him much more. 1 AO title would give him the 2nd CGS, 1 more Wimbledon would give him the trifecta on all surfaces (standalone in history), and 1 WTF would give him the full big title set.
You're wrong. The all-time record at USO belongs to Sears, Larned and Tilden, who won 7 titles. Connors, Sampras and Fed share an open era record.Because if he wins 1 more USO he will tie the all time record there. On the other hand, what big records can he beat in Wimbledon? No difference between 2 titles and 3 titles there.
I would think aussie so he would have 2 or more for all of the slamsIf you could choose only 1 non clay slam to win before Nadal ends his career which would it be?
AO - double career slam
Wim- first person open era 3 surface champ
US - tied for open era record
Reality is a 2nd AO title does nothing for him. The Double Career Slam garbage is made up novelty. It's like winning at least 1 Slam for x amount of seasons. Oh well.
A 3rd Wimbledon title on the other hand does quite a bit. It puts him on par with Becker, McEnroe and ahead of Connors/Edberg. It's like looking at his 4 USO titles and trading one of those for an AO, because what does that actually do?
Yes that’s correct we are talking about open era here! Can’t compare tilden’s days and the depth of field logistics and travel to today.You're wrong. The all-time record at USO belongs to Sears, Larned and Tilden, who won 7 titles. Connors, Sampras and Fed share an open era record.
If Deco Turf stayed at the USO, Nadal would have a great opportunity to equalize an open era record at the USO, but with Laykold I don't think he will win another USO title.
I mean at the end of the day yes it’s still a HC slam but you never know in the future if they play around with surfaces at AO or US I think no way we see a 2nd grass court slam again. I think the maintenance of having HC economically makes sense as well as the pace of play for viewership. But it would be interesting to see carpet come back or even green clay ( again wouldn’t bet on it) 20 yrs things will definitely be different in the game. I think in the short term we will see a grass masters 1000 added to the tourReality is a 2nd AO title does nothing for him. The Double Career Slam garbage is made up novelty. It's like winning at least 1 Slam for x amount of seasons. Oh well.
A 3rd Wimbledon title on the other hand does quite a bit. It puts him on par with Becker, McEnroe and ahead of Connors/Edberg. It's like looking at his 4 USO titles and trading one of those for an AO, because what does that actually do?
The Double Career Slam might be made up novelty. But I'd say it's related to no man achieving this (while winning slams individually still the biggest goal of the players), and hence becoming a great challenge.Reality is a 2nd AO title does nothing for him. The Double Career Slam garbage is made up novelty. It's like winning at least 1 Slam for x amount of seasons. Oh well.
A 3rd Wimbledon title on the other hand does quite a bit. It puts him on par with Becker, McEnroe and ahead of Connors/Edberg. It's like looking at his 4 USO titles and trading one of those for an AO, because what does that actually do?
Yes for sure!!The Double Career Slam might be made up novelty. But I'd say it's related to no man achieving this (while winning slams individually still the biggest goal of the players), and hence becoming a great challenge.
After all, if versatility is praised, and that's one of the reasons use as an argument against Nadal's career, what better achievement would there be than that? The more different slams you win, the more versatile you are. If you can repeat those wins, that versatility gets reaffirmed. And since, so far, no man has achieved it, I'd say it does add to his overall resume.
Not disputing your claims of what a 3rd Wimbledon would add; which as the only man to win slams 3x on 3 different surfaces would also be a statement about his versatility.
Any non clay slam will improve his GOAT standing immensely and add to his versatilityUSO = USO record
AO = double slam
Wimbledon = 3x surface slam
The vamos party following any of them will be epic.
Any non clay slam will improve his GOAT standing immensely and add to his versatility
Non clay slam!? What non clay slam!? The last time he had won a non clay slam outside the Berrettini Open, electricity wasn't invented yet!? You guys are living in a strong state of delusion. Lol You should stick to RG and just be happy about it!Any non clay slam will improve his GOAT standing immensely and add to his versatility
Nadal is unleashed out of the chains, mate your fav player last won a slam in 18 AO so that must be in the Stone Age according to u! Ignorant foolNon clay slam!? What non clay slam!? The last time he had won a non clay slam outside the Berrettini Open, electricity wasn't invented yet!? You guys are living in a strong state of delusion. Lol You should stick to RG and just be happy about it!
Non clay slam!? What non clay slam!? The last time he had won a non clay slam outside the Berrettini Open, electricity wasn't invented yet!? You guys are living in a strong state of delusion. Lol You should stick to RG and just be happy about it!
Yes i have always thought FO and USO is a tough call. I tend to go for the oldest event so im not sure which is oldest of the two.T
That player poll is interesting 1 Wimby and 4 AO is obvious but between FO and US is razor thin, back in the early 90s easily the US due to the American dominance - Agassi, Sampras, courier etc
Yes that’s true! The US open is an older tournament it’s pretty razor thin between them which is more prestigious possibly the US edges it out..Yes i have always thought FO and USO is a tough call. I tend to go for the oldest event so im not sure which is oldest of the two.
The decline of american tennis has hurt the USO and Miami and cincinatti i feel massively. Only IW has gained in importance.
Funny thing is, Nadal won USO more recently than Hardcourt GOATs Fedovic.
Nadal_Django doesn't like Federer either lol. Actually, I think he doesn't even like Djokovic tbh, he's probably just a troll that wants attention.Nadal is unleashed out of the chains, mate your fav player last won a slam in 18 AO so that must be in the Stone Age according to u! Ignorant fool
I want to take the dirty troll out!Nadal_Django doesn't like Federer either lol. Actually, I think he doesn't even like Djokovic tbh, he's probably just a troll that wants attention.
The Double Career Slam might be made up novelty. But I'd say it's related to no man achieving this (while winning slams individually still the biggest goal of the players), and hence becoming a great challenge.
After all, if versatility is praised, and that's one of the reasons use as an argument against Nadal's career, what better achievement would there be than that? The more different slams you win, the more versatile you are. If you can repeat those wins, that versatility gets reaffirmed. And since, so far, no man has achieved it, I'd say it does add to his overall resume.
Not disputing your claims of what a 3rd Wimbledon would add; which as the only man to win slams 3x on 3 different surfaces would also be a statement about his versatility.
Why do so many think 4 titles with defenses are better than 4 titles without. I mean, why is someone who wins 4 USOs in his career in 4 consecutive years (thus meaning he afterwards doesn't win it in 10+ consecutive years) "better" than someone who wins it 4 times in a 10-year-span with no defenses? They both have 4 titles, and the argument "the-4-consecutive dominated the tournament" could be countered with "well he didn't win it 10+years with is not very good". For me, if someone wins 4 titles, they are equally impressive with no defenses as if they were with defenses.him having 4 there is a big deal. Would only be better if there were some defenses.
It's a matter of perspective really. The eternal dominance vs longevity argument.Why do so many think 4 titles with defenses are better than 4 titles without. I mean, why is someone who wins 4 USOs in his career in 4 consecutive years (thus meaning he afterwards doesn't win it in 10+ consecutive years) "better" than someone who wins it 4 times in a 10-year-span with no defenses? They both have 4 titles, and the argument "the-4-consecutive dominated the tournament" could be countered with "well he didn't win it 10+years with is not very good". For me, if someone wins 4 titles, they are equally impressive with no defenses as if they were with defenses.
Doesn't he match Federer though?Ao- makes him only guy with 2+ everywhere
Uo- Makes him tied leader and 2 Slams where he has 5+ which matches djokovic
Wimbledon- Atleast 3 in 3 slams again matches djokovic federer (fed has 5 at 3)
Overall I feel Ao gives him completely unique record unless djokovic wins Rg, Uo also makes co leader there, wimbledon doesn't give him any of the above but that would just blow everyone mind even rafa would be happiest winning that I feel.
Overall I pick Wimbledon for the sheer Euphoria it will create among Rafa fans
He doesn't because federer is 5*3 which I mentioned beneath thatDoesn't he match Federer though?
It's a matter of perspective really. The eternal dominance vs longevity argument.
Federer is the perfect example for pro/con of this topic. He won it 5 times, but he hasn't won it in 12 years now (with only 1 final). Of course Federer is a USO legend and maybe even USO GOAT, but 5 titles in consecutive years wouldn't necessarily be better than Nadal's 5 if Rafa wins it this year.Personally, Federer winning 5 straight titles and 40 matches in a row at the USO is super impressive because it doesn't happen often. Not even Nadal at RG has done it yet and Nadal at RG is pretty much the standard for absolute dominance. And Nadal's clay reign is being lauded to this day because of his dominance, since he's won RG year after year, so dominance does have a huge significance.
Perhaps not, but what he did was still impressive because of the rarity of the achievement.This.
Federer is the perfect example for pro/con of this topic. He won it 5 times, but he hasn't won it in 12 years now (with only 1 final). Of course Federer is a USO legend and maybe even USO GOAT, but 5 titles in consecutive years wouldn't necessarily be better than Nadal's 5 if Rafa wins it this year.
Why do so many think 4 titles with defenses are better than 4 titles without. I mean, why is someone who wins 4 USOs in his career in 4 consecutive years (thus meaning he afterwards doesn't win it in 10+ consecutive years) "better" than someone who wins it 4 times in a 10-year-span with no defenses? They both have 4 titles, and the argument "the-4-consecutive dominated the tournament" could be countered with "well he didn't win it 10+years with is not very good". For me, if someone wins 4 titles, they are equally impressive with no defenses as if they were with defenses.
Federer is the perfect example for pro/con of this topic. He won it 5 times, but he hasn't won it in 12 years now (with only 1 final). Of course Federer is a USO legend and maybe even USO GOAT, but 5 titles in consecutive years wouldn't necessarily be better than Nadal's 5 if Rafa wins it this year.