"Nadal piling more RG titles only cements more and more his Clay GOAT status"

[abmk]

Deal with what? Nadal winning an event Federer was participating in (in same half as draw as well). I dealt with it very happily thank you.

USO 2017 was my 2nd favourite victory after FO 2019 due to the effect on posters such as yourself. Purely blissful.

deal with the reality that Nadal at USO is no better than Agassi there. had 3 easy draws - last one clown draw. That Federer getting injured in Montreal 2017 was a big reason for nadal winning USO 2017. Else Federer would've thrashed him just like at IW 17, Miami 17 and then a month or so after the USO -- Shanghai 17.

Players clearly better than Nadal at the USO :

Federer
Sampras
Connors
Mcenroe
Lendl
Djokovic

he's not even close to top 5 at the USO.

and very few are that bitter about FO 2019, just disappointed, but keep deluding your deluded self.

 

[Benjamin Rio]

Yes obviously a three time champion at a Major achieves it by luck lol. Djokovic in the final 4 times of course proves how clownish the draws were .

Of course whenever Federer loses he is injured, I forgot about that.

Keep this up, it is a great read really.

That's Nadal. Even sometimes he doesn't show up (IW 2019).

Last i checked Nadal wasn't to be seen on the winning side

 

[Ann]

H2h is junk until they at least have the same amount of slams. At that point it can be used, but even then some will argue WTF's and weeks at number one are more important.

Rafa would trade his h2h against Fed for just one more slam. That should give you an idea at how important h2h truly is.

Considering the age difference, they're from different generations, it would still be meaningless.

 

[BringBackSV]

deal with the reality that Nadal at USO is no better than Agassi there. had 3 easy draws - last one clown draw. That Federer getting injured in Montreal 2017 was a big reason for nadal winning USO 2017. Else Federer would've thrashed him just like at IW 17, Miami 17 and then a month or so after the USO -- Shanghai 17.

Players clearly better than Nadal at the USO :

Federer
Sampras
Connors
Mcenroe
Lendl
Djokovic

he's not even close to top 5 at the USO.

and very few are that bitter about FO 2019, just disappointed, but keep deluding your deluded self.

Stating your opinions as though they were facts is very helpful lol, also a good sign of objectivity.

 

[Pantera]

That's Nadal. Even sometimes he doesn't show up (IW 2019).

Last i checked Nadal wasn't to be seen on the winning side

Nadal was genuinely injured as opposed to being a bottle job like his seeded opponent the was due to meet in USO 2017 semi final.

 

[Pantera]

deal with the reality that Nadal at USO is no better than Agassi there. had 3 easy draws - last one clown draw. That Federer getting injured in Montreal 2017 was a big reason for nadal winning USO 2017. Else Federer would've thrashed him just like at IW 17, Miami 17 and then a month or so after the USO -- Shanghai 17.

Players clearly better than Nadal at the USO :

Federer
Sampras
Connors
Mcenroe
Lendl
Djokovic

he's not even close to top 5 at the USO.

and very few are that bitter about FO 2019, just disappointed, but keep deluding your deluded self.

Nadal 2-1 Djokovic...Nadal clearly superior

Federer 0 USO in Nadal era. Nadal clearly superior.

Lendl same USO's as Nadal, so not sure how Lendl is ahead of Nadal lmao. Please explain that one. Will amuse me.

Sampras I agree with. Connors I agree with. McEnroe probably as well. However Nadal has never played any of them so it is an opinion, not fact. I only deal in facts.

 

[abmk]

Nadal 2-1 Djokovic...Nadal clearly superior

again, utterly clueless. Djokovic has tons more finals and SFs. If nadal had met djokovic in 07/08/09/15/16/17, he'd been beaten or thrashed by djokovic. He just happened to be opportunistic and meet Djokovic only when he was at his best or close to it. (10,11,13)

Federer 0 USO in Nadal era. Nadal clearly superior.

5 USOs+2 more finals >>> 3 USOs+1 more final ... 0 USOs for Nadal when peak to peak wrt to Federer : 2005-2009.
Only won 3 USOs afterwards because of weak (2010,2013) or pathetic(2017) competition.

Lendl same USO's as Nadal, so not sure how Lendl is ahead of Nadal lmao. Please explain that one. Will amuse me.

again, like I said, utterly clueless. Lendl made 8 USO finals in a row, 82-89. Something Nadal can't even dream about.

Sampras I agree with. Connors I agree with. McEnroe probably as well. However Nadal has never played any of them so it is an opinion, not fact. I only deal in facts.

no, you only deal in la la land cluelessness and are a massive joke to most around here.

 

[Pantera]

again, utterly clueless. Djokovic has tons more finals and SFs. If nadal had met djokovic in 07/08/09/15/16/17, he'd been beaten or thrashed by djokovic. He just happened to be opportunistic and meet Djokovic only when he was at his best or close to it. (10,11,13)



5 USOs+2 more finals >>> 3 USOs+1 more final ... 0 USOs for Nadal when peak to peak wrt to Federer : 2005-2009.
Only won 3 USOs afterwards because of weak (2010,2013) or pathetic(2017) competition.



again, like I said, utterly clueless. Lendl made 8 USO finals in a row, 82-89. Something Nadal can't even dream about.



no, you only deal in la la land cluelessness and are a massive joke to most around here.

Nope, winning is what defines greatness, not falling short. Nadal 2-1 Djokovic, until that changes Nadal is better at US Open. It is fact not opinion.

Federer was in all the draws when nadal won the US Open...you claim a weak draw yet claim Federer is GOAT, as per usual my friend can you not see the contradiction in terms lol.

Lendl won 3 USO's, Nadal has 3 USO's...bottom line. Winning is what separates the men from the boys.

 

[Pantera]

again, utterly clueless. Djokovic has tons more finals and SFs. If nadal had met djokovic in 07/08/09/15/16/17, he'd been beaten or thrashed by djokovic. He just happened to be opportunistic and meet Djokovic only when he was at his best or close to it. (10,11,13)



5 USOs+2 more finals >>> 3 USOs+1 more final ... 0 USOs for Nadal when peak to peak wrt to Federer : 2005-2009.
Only won 3 USOs afterwards because of weak (2010,2013) or pathetic(2017) competition.



again, like I said, utterly clueless. Lendl made 8 USO finals in a row, 82-89. Something Nadal can't even dream about.



no, you only deal in la la land cluelessness and are a massive joke to most around here.

According to the number of likes I get, over half of my posts currently, I think the joker is not me my friend

 

[abmk]

Nope, winning is what defines greatness, not falling short. Nadal 2-1 Djokovic, until that changes Nadal is better at US Open. It is fact not opinion.

Federer was in all the draws when nadal won the US Open...you claim a weak draw yet claim Federer is GOAT, as per usual my friend can you not see the contradiction in terms lol.

Lendl won 3 USO's, Nadal has 3 USO's...bottom line. Winning is what separates the men from the boys.

Nadal was in the draws that Federer won at the USO from 2004-2009. do you not have a clue ?
consistency also matters. But then you have zero clue about tennis. so.

 

[abmk]

According to the number of likes I get, over half of my posts currently, I think the joker is not me my friend

you suck at math as well.
912 messages, 377 likes
41.33%
that's less than half.
yes, many of those likes are from fellow clueless fellows like ABCD.
some of those might also be for liking your posts which are so hilariously bad.

 

[StrongRule]

again, utterly clueless. Djokovic has tons more finals and SFs. If nadal had met djokovic in 07/08/09/15/16/17, he'd been beaten or thrashed by djokovic. He just happened to be opportunistic and meet Djokovic only when he was at his best or close to it. (10,11,13)



5 USOs+2 more finals >>> 3 USOs+1 more final ... 0 USOs for Nadal when peak to peak wrt to Federer : 2005-2009.
Only won 3 USOs afterwards because of weak (2010,2013) or pathetic(2017) competition.



again, like I said, utterly clueless. Lendl made 8 USO finals in a row, 82-89. Something Nadal can't even dream about.



no, you only deal in la la land cluelessness and are a massive joke to most around here.

Djokovic in 2010 and 2013 finals was weak competition?

 

[abmk]

Djokovic in 2010 and 2013 finals was weak competition?

I'm talking to a troll. Stop taking those posts seriously.
2010, 2013 USO djoko was moderate competition at best.
rest of the draw was very easy in both 2010 and 2013.
So overall both were easy draws. relatively easy draws if you are being generous.

 

[StrongRule]

I'm talking to a troll. Stop taking those posts seriously.
2010, 2013 USO djoko was moderate competition at best.
rest of the draw was very easy in both 2010 and 2013.
So overall both were easy draws. relatively easy draws if you are being generous.

I'm just tired of reading that every time when Nadal wins something it was because of weak competition. Many people on this forum still can't over RG 2019 and are writing some pathetic excuses for Thiem.

 

[Lleytonstation]

I'm just tired of reading that every time when Nadal wins something it was because of weak competition. Most people on this forum still can't over RG 2019 and are writing some pathetic excuses for Thiem.

Welcome to the world of a Fed fan since 2003...

 

[abmk]

I'm just tired of reading that every time when Nadal wins something it was because of weak competition. Many people on this forum still can't over RG 2019 and are writing some pathetic excuses for Thiem.

then if you were a fed fan, you'd be far, far more tired hearing 2004-2007 was a weak era, when in reality only 2006 was a weak year.

 

[StrongRule]

then if you were a fed fan, you'd be far, far more tired hearing 2004-2007 was a weak era, when in reality only 2006 was a weak year.

I don't think I will be wrong if I'll say that much more Federer fans hate Nadal than vice versa.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I don't think I will be wrong if I'll say that much more Federer fans hate Nadal than vice versa.

Discussing with an unreasonable/trolling poster does not indicate hate.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Yes, 0.4 likes pr post, thats a massive majority.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Comparing Federer not playing the FO at the age of 35-37 with Nadal missing all kinds of Slams on a regular basis in his 20s lmao.

He's only been absent from 5 slams in his entire career so you are only slightly exaggerating.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

umm, since supposedly Nadal's rise came in 2008 and Djokovic's in 2011.
So comparing the 5 years for Federer from 2008 onwards and 5 for Nadal from 2011 onwards.
Both got same # of slams, but otherwise, Federer was clearly better (more consistent). He also won at all the 4 slams, unlike Nadal who won 4 at RG and 1 at USO.
So your point about Federer "slowing" down solely due to so called better competition could easily be turned around and applied to Nadal as well --- Nadal actually did worse. In the end, your point is just utter bullsh*t because on your inadequate knowledge of tennis in 2004-07, bias and incorrect perspective in general (when you think only ATGs can provide tough competition)



yes, clearly weaker. He lost to a lot of other players not named Nadal/Djokovic in 2008-09.
Fish, Roddick, Karlovic, Simon, Stepanek, Benneteau, Wawrinka etc.

Federer 2003 - 2007: 12 slams
Federer 2008 - 2012: 5 slams

That is called slowing down no matter which way you put it and the '*******' card doesn't work in the second bracket, 27 - 31 are still great slam winning years for an ATG.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Same old story

Fed was good enough to play Nadal on clay.
Nadal couldn't overcome the likes of Gonzalez Tsonga Ferrer Berdych Verdasco Muller Rosol Brown Wc Kyrgios Darcis blake youznhi Fognini Pouille to face Fed in the last rounds of any surface than clay.

But as Novak has got a better head to head with Nadal (almost 1 way trafic since 2011) i take u think Novak is better than Nadal?

I've posted elsewhere who didn't go deep enough to meet the other at slams and it is not as one way as you may think. Fed has has his fair share of mug losses.

Djokovic leads the Djokodal H2H by 2 so it's pretty even after 54 meetings. There is no reason to cherry pick 2011 onwards other than to skew the argument. Careers are looked at as a whole. Nadal dominated the rivalry when they were younger, Djokovic when they were older. That's it.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

None of those stats are cherry-picked. All of them are career stats, so they include Fed's ghastly records before 2003. Despite that Nadal is last in 3/4 categories. Djokovic and Federer are simply more consistent and less prone to upsets than him. If I picked the period since they won their first slam, it would look even worse for Nadal.

I can't agree with this. The stats on early exits in slams show that Federer comes out worse in losses before the QF, before the 4th round, before the first round and in 1st round exits. That is looking at their entire careers. There is no reason to take parts of their careers - the numbers need to be looked at as a whole.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Agreed. No one is or can be GOAT forever, no matter what the fans believe.

Nadal ran through Federer, but the Djokovic and Federer rivalry has been a nail biter. Djokovic didn't take the lead until 2016 when Fed was already 34 years old. I think if all 3 had been within 1-2 years of each other in age, Fed would have a losing record to Rafa but a winning record vs Djokovic, with close to an even h2h overall. To each his own.

I'm not arguing against this. I'm just saying Fed is a better player than his h2h with Rafa indicates. If you look at the 24-15 overall h2h and the 10-3 slam h2h, you would think Fed is a complete pushover, but he's not. It's a testament to Rafa that he has such a dominant record, not a knock against Fed. Despite the lopsided h2h, Fed is still slightly ahead in career accomplishments, as he should be being 5 years older. Rafa might very well overtake Fed, but even then, I don't think the gap between them will be that big overall.

I think this is a pretty fair post.

 

[abmk]

Federer 2003 - 2007: 12 slams
Federer 2008 - 2012: 5 slams

That is called slowing down no matter which way you put it and the '*******' card doesn't work in the second bracket, 27 - 31 are still great slam winning years for an ATG.

Yet, that "slowed down" 27-31 Federer did better than Nadal with a prime ATG in the field. That was with Nadal being ~23.5 to ~28.5.
23.5 to 28.5 is a more productive phase than 27-31 generally.

No one is saying Federer didn't slow down. But major part of it was Federer getting off his peak(after 2007) and prime(after AO 2010).

 

[abmk]

He's only been absent from 5 slams in his entire career so you are only slightly exaggerating.

8
RG 2004
Wim 2004
AO 2006
Wim 2009
USO 2012
AO 2013
USO 2014
Wim 2016

also withdrew from RG 2016 after R2.

 

[Lleytonstation]

I can't agree with this. The stats on early exits in slams show that Federer comes out worse in losses before the QF, before the 4th round, before the first round and in 1st round exits. That is looking at their entire careers. There is no reason to take parts of their careers - the numbers need to be looked at as a whole.

Yes, but when done correctly, with percentages, it was almost dead even across the board. Fed was harmed by his career slow start and Djoker and Rafa didn't have a slow start. Now, if Rafa and Djoker have another couple of years where they don't lose early, then they will start to distance theirselves.

 

[Benjamin Rio]

I've posted elsewhere who didn't go deep enough to meet the other at slams and it is not as one way as you may think. Fed has has his fair share of mug losses.

Djokovic leads the Djokodal H2H by 2 so it's pretty even after 54 meetings. There is no reason to cherry pick 2011 onwards other than to skew the argument. Careers are looked at as a whole. Nadal dominated the rivalry when they were younger, Djokovic when they were older. That's it.

As soon Novak reached his peak prime Nadal had to rely to bad form to get a set against Novak. The match was on his terms.

Has Nadal played 10 GS finals in a row?
Has Nadal played all GS finals in a one year?
Has Nadal played 23 consecutive GS SF?
Has Nadal won a WTF?
Has Nadal defended a GS title outside FO?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Lol yall care WAY too much about stupid mess.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Sorry Borg Mcenroe now say Nadal is GOAT as does Djokovic btw and Murray.

Find me any source that has AO and USO listed as a different surface. Before 2050!!!

USO and AO are not the same.
They may be both hard courts, but different speed, different bounce, and different conditions.
Nole is close to unbeatable at night in the 2nd week of the AO.
During the day at the USO is totally different.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

I can't agree with this. The stats on early exits in slams show that Federer comes out worse in losses before the QF, before the 4th round, before the first round and in 1st round exits. That is looking at their entire careers. There is no reason to take parts of their careers - the numbers need to be looked at as a whole.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/early-slam-exits-of-the-big-3.646117/

That has both career numbers and numbers since the first slam win. Rafa is superior to Fed in many ways, but consistency isn't one of them, even if you look at their whole careers.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Lol yall care WAY too much about stupid mess.

It truly is...

 

[tennis_pro]

He's only been absent from 5 slams in his entire career so you are only slightly exaggerating.

Wasn't Darcis a W/O?

 

[Lew II]

Piling up more RG titles prevents Djokovic and Federer from winning RG and cement their all-surface GOAT status

Ever thought about that?

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Piling up more RG titles prevents Djokovic and Federer from winning RG and cement their all-surface GOAT status

Ever thought about that?

That's life with a surface goat

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Yes, but when done correctly, with percentages, it was almost dead even across the board. Fed was harmed by his career slow start and Djoker and Rafa didn't have a slow start. Now, if Rafa and Djoker have another couple of years where they don't lose early, then they will start to distance theirselves.

I think it is fair to judge from when they hit their stride/potential, say from when they entered top 10, or win their first slam. Should for instance Nadal or Djokovic end up playing too long, ruining some of their stats, it would/should not take away from their accomplishments.

 

[Pantera]

USO and AO are not the same.
They may be both hard courts, but different speed, different bounce, and different conditions.
Nole is close to unbeatable at night in the 2nd week of the AO.
During the day at the USO is totally different.

Correction...Djokovic is unbeatable at AO at night, no ifs no buts. Question is whether his best there is better than Nadals best at RG. Its a close call.

 

[Pantera]

you suck at math as well.
912 messages, 377 likes
41.33%
that's less than half.
yes, many of those likes are from fellow clueless fellows like ABCD.
some of those might also be for liking your posts which are so hilariously bad.

No offence but I only post facts, unlike yourself who posts baseless opinions that contradict every post you make. Facts trump opinions.

 

[abmk]

No offence but I only post facts, unlike yourself who posts baseless opinions that contradict every post you make. Facts trump opinions.

hey, I posted a fact. Your like to message ratio is less than 50%.
You fail.
Yes, facts trump opinions.
Also someone who cares about facts doesn't cherrypick them.
That person isn't also utterly, utterly clueless about a major part of what he is talking about.
You are a sea of failures --- failure on every front.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Pantera, you get Nadals age wrong, you get your likes wrong, when someone posts a fact about Agassi you don't like, you write "are you sure?". Facts are not your strong side.

 

[abmk]

Pantera, you get Nadals age wrong, you get your likes wrong, when someone posts a fact about Agassi you don't like, you write "are you sure?". Facts are not your strong side.

Pantera wouldn't notice a fact if it danced naked in front of him wearing one of Dobby's hats.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Yes, but when done correctly, with percentages, it was almost dead even across the board. Fed was harmed by his career slow start and Djoker and Rafa didn't have a slow start. Now, if Rafa and Djoker have another couple of years where they don't lose early, then they will start to distance theirselves.

Yes, I guess that is the point I am making - the GOAT race is wide open at this point.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Yet, that "slowed down" 27-31 Federer did better than Nadal with a prime ATG in the field. That was with Nadal being ~23.5 to ~28.5.
23.5 to 28.5 is a more productive phase than 27-31 generally.

No one is saying Federer didn't slow down. But major part of it was Federer getting off his peak(after 2007) and prime(after AO 2010).

lol - Federer slowed down because Nadal and (later) Djokovic showed up and stopped him. As Fed is showing now (still top 3 in the world) he was more than physically capable enough and young enough even in 2010. He was just stopped by better players.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

As soon Novak reached his peak prime Nadal had to rely to bad form to get a set against Novak. The match was on his terms.

Is this like USO 2013 and RG 2012, 2013 & 2014? lol

Look, I understand that Djokovic dominated the second half of the Djokodal rivalry, but Rafa dominated the first half of it - so what?

Has Nadal played 10 GS finals in a row?

No but neither did Federer once competition showed up. Rafa did however win a grand slam every year for 10 years.

Has Nadal played all GS finals in a one year?

No but neither did Federer when competition showed up. Rafa has won at least two slams on all surfaces though - the only one of the ATG3 to do so.

Has Nadal played 23 consecutive GS SF?

No but neither has Federer since competition showed up. He has been in the top 10 since 2005 - longest streak of the ATG3.

Has Nadal won a WTF?

No. After 20 years on tour how much does Federer lead in the M1000 titles count?

Has Nadal defended a GS title outside FO?

No. He is the only one of the ATG3 to win the channel slam twice, to win a single slam 12 times and has a slam record of 10 - 3 over the proclaimed GOAT including a 4 - 3 record in your favourite ''off-clay'' stat. He also won the 18th slam 2 and a half years younger than Fed and is now only two behind despite the 2003 - 2007 head-start.

 

[Benjamin Rio]

Thank you for answering my questions. There's always been competition. Tennis didn't start with Rafael Nadal.

If Nadal hasn't matches Fed's achievements the competition from the likes of Hewitt Ferrer Darcis Blake were probably too strong for him to handle.

 

[abmk]

lol - Federer slowed down because Nadal and (later) Djokovic showed up and stopped him. As Fed is showing now (still top 3 in the world) he was more than physically capable enough and young enough even in 2010. He was just stopped by better players.

I already called BS on that and showed you the evidence. Stop with the bias and look at the reality. (you are not a troll and much better than many of the bitter Nadal fans/federer haters)

"yes, clearly weaker. He lost to a lot of other players not named Nadal/Djokovic in 2008-09.
Fish, Roddick, , Karlovic, Simon, Stepanek, Benneteau, Wawrinka, Blake etc."

Like I said ...
Yet, that "slowed down" 27-31 Federer did better than Nadal with a prime ATG in the field. That was with Nadal being ~23.5 to ~28.5.
23.5 to 28.5 is a more productive phase than 27-31 generally.

Nadal and Djokovic did have some role in Fed winning lesser, but you are stuck in your delusions if you think slowdown was due to them or Federer getting lesser success was only due to them. Just as you are deluded to think that 2004, 05, 07 were weak years. They were all good years. Only 2006 was weak, just as 2010 was and just as 2015-current have been.

 

[Fedforever]

I explained my logic. There will be major achievements / records held by all three which will mean that it will be impossible for one of the three to claim GOAThood.

I agree with this. But I think, ironically, that it puts earlier players back in the frame for Goathood as well. One player getting 20+ slams is a freakish outlier and he is clearly the best. When three players (potentially) do so despite having to contend with each other then it's pretty clear there are other factors at work besides their incipient greatness.

 

[Gary Duane]

I agree with this. But I think, ironically, that it puts earlier players back in the frame for Goathood as well. One player getting 20+ slams is a freakish outlier and he is clearly the best. When three players (potentially) do so despite having to contend with each other then it's pretty clear there are other factors at work besides their incipient greatness.

That's a well framed point.

 

[beard]

My personal thoughts about topic...

If its 20 Nadal and 20 Fed on the end, and if Nadal win for example one more RG, and one more one other slam, no matter which one:
- there wont be overall goat. Fed would have better overall resume (weeks, ye1, wtf, better distribution...), but Nadal would have some cards in sleeve as h2h
- edge would be on Fed, and most tennis fans (dont tell me) and experts would make him slightly better, but there would always be shadow, because 20=20, and slam count matters most/only, and its tie
- Exception: if Nadal wins two slams on lets say AO and W, then its real tie between him and Fed

If its 21 Nadal and 20 Fed on the end, and if Nadal win two or more in RG:
- Nadal will be overall goat, slam count matters most/only, remember?
- When on tv they show slam count it will be written: Nadal 21, Federer 20. And this stands for casual tennis viewers...
- But, among hard core tennis fans, tennis analysts, in general, there would be quite big shadow because of holes in his resume (not only slam distribution, yes that is a little hole to me) we all know which are, and there are ones...

If its 22 Nadal and 20 Fed on the end:
- no doubt who is the greatest...

 

[beard]

But, all I wrote in previous post is big waste of time.

In the end Novak will have most slams, without any hole in resume and will be overall goat, easily