PMChambers
Hall of Fame
There's more time between FO & Wim now than Borg time. Also there are very few grass court players any more so it should be easier for a slow HC or clay player to win Wimbledon given the poor competition and additional time.
Nadal Says It All
- Thread starter Rabbit
- Start date
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Hasn't Rafa now stated that Laver, Federer and Borg are GOAT at one stage or another?
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Nadal was correct in predicting his relative lack of success at Wimbledon.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
It appears Nadal was smarter than I thought! He is right.
He says it all:
When asked to describe what he admires most about Federer, also a long-time off-court friend, Nadal was keen to cool the “bromance.”
“I don’t want to look like I gonna be his boyfriend, no?” said Nadal, causing a packed media conference room to burst into laughter.
http://sports.inquirer.net/263998/sports-tennis-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-bromance-us-open
When asked to describe what he admires most about Federer, also a long-time off-court friend, Nadal was keen to cool the “bromance.”
“I don’t want to look like I gonna be his boyfriend, no?” said Nadal, causing a packed media conference room to burst into laughter.
http://sports.inquirer.net/263998/sports-tennis-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-bromance-us-open
LOL Humbalito is so much more talented than Borg that this has to be an underhanded joke
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Your limitless capacity to be wrong continues to impress me.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Why was he wrong exactly?
Sport
G.O.A.T.
If Nadal has "a relative lack of success at Wimbledon", Federer has an "almost full lack of success at Roland Garros".
Sport
G.O.A.T.
The term "talent" is largelly subjective. I prefer the term "greater".
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
What was that? Oh it was credibility flying out the window---please.
Federer has 8, 5 in a row tying Borg. Nadal has 2. The poster's comment was "relative" lack of success. Relative being to the French.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
...and Nadal has had almost no success at all at the Australian Open.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
So where's your point of contention with my retort?
And, consider if you consider greater, all things must be considered IMO. I don't consider either greater as Borg has achievements Nadal won't match and vice versa and they were in completely different eras. Borg skipped the French to honor a contract (more $) for WTT. Things have changed.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Fair enough. US Open was a better hard court Grand Slam for him.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
I only consider an objective standard: number of Grand Slams.
Of course, you can claim "Borg would have won many more GS hadn't he retired at age 26". But how many more? 1? 2? 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? 9? 10?
You cannot prove the specific number of GS titles that Borg would have won if he hadn't retired.
Untestable speculaiton should not be part of serious tennis debate.
The only testable assumpion is 16 > 11.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, he's up to 3 there.....Federer is "only" sitting on 5 (in a row)
Nadal has won 2 GS titles on each surface (grass, hard and clay), showing better surface adaptabily at GS than Federer. Federer only won 1 GS on clay.
But Federer is the GOAT. 20 GS is too much for any mortal.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
I am not a fan of Nadal, his game style, and his antics and comments about hard courts and slowing the game down. That said is the best clay court player of all time. Borg was able to adapt his game to coming into the net a lot at Wimbledon. It was easier to do back then but still not easy. I also think Nadal is the most physical player of all time. Unfortunately that is catching up with him more and more. An interesting footnote is that neither Borg or McEnroe ever won a Grand Slam past the age of 25. Plus Tennis was switching away from wooden rackets and Borg had a hard time making the transistion. This contributed to him walking away from the game at an early age.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
He's won a title there, which 99.9% of all tennis pros have never and will never do. That's "no success?"
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I was replying to Sport's silly post.
Hawaiian grip
Professional
Silliness you started the moment you talked about Nadal's relative lack of success at Wimbledon. A guy with two wins there and three other finals, two of them against the best grass-courter of all time, has had a 'relative lack of success' at the tournament. I'm dumbfounded to have to read that on a tennis forum full of tennis fans, who should know how difficult it is to win even a single Grand Slam. And I find it specially preposterous coming from Federer fans, who don't seem to realize that by lessening Nadal they are also putting down their idol's feats. That guy with relative little success at Wimbledon beat prime Federer there in 2008 and pushed him to five sets the previous year. In case you don't remember, he also made the final of every Wimbledon edition he entered between 2006 and 2011. Show some friggin' respect.
Lack of success my ass.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Do you know what the word relative means?
When a man has won 10 (soon to be 11) times at Roland Garros, and twice at Wimbledon, he has had a relative lack of success at SW19.
When a man has only won twice, when Borg won 5 times (the original point in this thread), he has had a relative lack of success at the AELTC.
When a man has a mere 2 titles at Wimbledon compared to his rival, Roger Federer (the GOAT), who has a record 8, he has had a relative lack of success on the lawns of London.
Agreed upon by all objective tennis observers and people who understand the English language.
Hawaiian grip
Professional
Objective observers use the best grass courter of all time as a measuring stick for someone's success at Wimbledon. Cool story bro, now tell me one that doesn't sound like you're grasping at straws in order to put down a player you dislike.
Nadal has had great success at Wimbledon. Period. The rest is **** wars and drivel. Don't hide behind semantics to cover your bull, there is no way in hell Nadal has had a lack of success at Wimbledon, "relative" or not. Every player to have ever won at the All England Tennis and Croquet Club has had success there. Don't get me started on a guy who made five finals almost in a row and won two of them.
Seriously, "mere" two titles. "Mere".
Nadal has had great success at Wimbledon. Period. The rest is **** wars and drivel. Don't hide behind semantics to cover your bull, there is no way in hell Nadal has had a lack of success at Wimbledon, "relative" or not. Every player to have ever won at the All England Tennis and Croquet Club has had success there. Don't get me started on a guy who made five finals almost in a row and won two of them.
Seriously, "mere" two titles. "Mere".
Relative H2H shows that Nadal is far superior to Federer
Similar threads
