NADAL to cement his GOAT status by winning #19 in 2019 and #20 in 2020

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
#51
Nadal will eventually get to 22 Grand Slams. How many the other two will have when all is said and done is yet to be determined too but I think Federer isn't going to win any more Grand Slams, and Djokovic will win another 5 or 6...
So Nadal 22, Djokovic 20-21, Federer 20? Sounds exactly like a perfect scenario for you lmao
 
#54
Did You Know?
Nadal is trying to capture both the Roland Garros and Wimbledon title in the same year for the third time, which would equal Bjorn Borg’s all-time record. In 2008 and 2010, the previous years in which Nadal has triumphed at the All England Club, he also emerged victorious in Paris.
Did You Know?
Nadal has had the opportunity to win the Channel Slam 12 times in his career, only succeeding twice, having done it most recently in 2010. In 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019, the years in which he's won in Paris, he's managed to either win or lose at the All England Club.

Another fun fact: Nadal hasn't made the final of Wimbledon for 7 years in a row, after having done it 5 times consecutively.
 
#58
If he wins next 2 Wimbledons, he has:
4 grass
4 hard
12 clay

while Federer has
8 grass
11 hard
1 clay

I'd say Nadal would have a better distribution at that point. 4 and 4 vs 8 and 1.
Yep you are adding both HC events to improve Nadal's slam's distribution.

I mean you don't take into account the FO.

Fed 6 AO Wimb 5 USO 6 WTF
Amazing no?

Novak 7 AO 4 Wimb 3 USO 5 WTF

Better than

Nadal 4 grass 4 HC 12 FO
 
#59
Why would metely matching Federer make he the GOAT. He has a worse distribution for one thing.
WHICH ALSO means Federer wasnt really that dominant in a particular surface...
How he can be the king of grass, when the other big 3 players combined have won also 8 Wimbledon titles?? (4-2-2) while Nadal has 12 RG and his big competitiors have only won 2 RG.. vs whooping 12 of him.... he completely dominated this slam... Federer in comparison didnt dominate wimbledon at all...
Also Nadal has lost several slams in 5 sets... AO 2012, AO2017, Wimbledon 2006. Other than Wimbledon 2008 , federer has lost all the other slam finals fair and square.
 
#60
Yep you are adding both HC events to improve Nadal's slam's distribution.

I mean you don't take into account the FO.

Fed 6 AO Wimb 5 USO 6 WTF
Amazing no?

Novak 7 AO 4 Wimb 3 USO 5 WTF

Better than

Nadal 4 grass 4 HC 12 FO
WTF isnt a grand slam, nobody remembers the WTF won by davydenko.. if he had won a grand slam he would be rockstar status now...

zverev and dimitrov won WTF.. but still are generation useless..


Also in slam finals

at the end of the day all slams give 2000 points so they all have the same value.. hence 20>18>15

also 30>26>24 in slam finals...

but you have to consider Rafa lost several slam finals in 5 sets... which means his ELO was probably higher than most of the finals Federer lost without any chance ...


Nadal has the most dominant slams wins (less games dropped) and also the most dominant slam runner ups (better performance when he didnt win), if it is about score about slam performance Nadal easily beat Federer and Djokovic.
 
#61
Only clay goat

He has only won 6 slams outside French and far less than fed or Djoker
What about Slams outside Australian open as it has been always by far the least prestigious slam..and since late 80's the second HC slam in terms of prestige behind USO?

Wimbledon and RG represent their respective surfaces so they always remain very important....

so DJokovic has 8 slams, Federer has 14 slams and Nadal has 17 Slams

AO was always the mickey mouse slam, sampras and agassi skipped almost half of them

Most important tournament on CLay: RG MOst important tournament on HC: US Open Most important tournament on Grass ; WImbledon


The rest is just the filling...
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
#62
WTF isnt a grand slam, nobody remembers the WTF won by davydenko.
Masters 1000's aren't slams either, yet Nadal/Djokovic fans make a huge, huge deal out of them because their guys have the most. The ATP has already determined that the WTF is clearly the fifth most important tennis tournament, since they award 1500 points to an undefeated winner.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
#63
If Nadal has more slams than Fed, then Nadal > Fed. But Fed will be remembered as the most gracious player on court, the most elegant, the most skilled. However, in history books Nadal will be No.1.
See -- NO. It doesn't work that way. Just because the 12 year olds on TTW have convinced each other that GOAT is only about slam titles the real world doesn't feel the same.

TTW is just fools on the internet.
 
#64
WTF isnt a grand slam, nobody remembers the WTF won by davydenko.. if he had won a grand slam he would be rockstar status now...

zverev and dimitrov won WTF.. but still are generation useless..


Also in slam finals

at the end of the day all slams give 2000 points so they all have the same value.. hence 20>18>15

also 30>26>24 in slam finals...

but you have to consider Rafa lost several slam finals in 5 sets... which means his ELO was probably higher than most of the finals Federer lost without any chance ...


Nadal has the most dominant slams wins (less games dropped) and also the most dominant slam runner ups (better performance when he didnt win), if it is about score about slam performance Nadal easily beat Federer and Djokovic.
Nadal mainly clay.
6 finals won out of 14 outside clay.
Never defended a GS or MS1000 outside of clay.
Fed's 19 grass title= Nadal's career on HC
WTF=rubbish for Nadal fans because he can't win it.
 
#65
Masters 1000's aren't slams either, yet Nadal/Djokovic fans make a huge, huge deal out of them because their guys have the most. The ATP has already determined that the WTF is clearly the fifth most important tennis tournament, since they award 1500 points to an undefeated winner.

Ok lets compare then

Federer by the end of 2014 season: 23 m1000 + 6 wtf (lost a RR to gonzo in 2007) + 17 slams: 23.000+ ((1500 x 6) -200) + 17 x 2000 = 23k + 8.8k + 34k = 65,8k

Nadal current 2019 season (not ended yet): 34 m1000 + 18 slams + OG : 34.000+ (18 x2000) + 400 = 34k + 36k + 0,4k = 70,4 k



Nadal is almost 5K ahead of Federer in age-comparison achievements/points... and season 2019 still has to play 2 slams, 4 m1000 and WTF, where rafa can win multiple titles yet..
 
#66
Nadal mainly clay.
6 finals won out of 14 outside clay.
Never defended a GS or MS1000 outside of clay.
Fed's 19 grass title= Nadal's career on HC
WTF=rubbish for Nadal fans because he can't win it.
SLams are the different tournaments... then tell me why Davydenko, Zverev, Dimitrov and Nalbandian all won wtf but werent close at winning at least 1 slam......

if you want to make a fair comparison then make the point transformation... Rafa is fairly ahead of Federer from end 2014...(similar age of rafa) and the season 2019 hasnt ended yet...
 
#67
What about Slams outside Australian open as it has been always by far the least prestigious slam..and since late 80's the second HC slam in terms of prestige behind USO?

Wimbledon and RG represent their respective surfaces so they always remain very important....

so DJokovic has 8 slams, Federer has 14 slams and Nadal has 17 Slams

AO was always the mickey mouse slam, sampras and agassi skipped almost half of them

Most important tournament on CLay: RG MOst important tournament on HC: US Open Most important tournament on Grass ; WImbledon


The rest is just the filling...
Aussie has emerged as the Crown Jewels of tennis
 
#68
SLams are the different tournaments... then tell me why Davydenko, Zverev, Dimitrov and Nalbandian all won wtf but werent close at winning at least 1 slam......

if you want to make a fair comparison then make the point transformation... Rafa is fairly ahead of Federer from end 2014...(similar age of rafa) and the season 2019 hasnt ended yet...
Nadal once again mainly wins on clay. Clay goat nothing more nothing less.

My opinion: Nalbandian great player.
 
#69
Nadal once again mainly wins on clay. Clay goat nothing more nothing less.

My opinion: Nalbandian great player.
whatever , Nadal has 14 grand slams finals played outside of RG, Djokovic has 17 Gs finals outside of AO, and Federer 19 gs finals outside of WImbledon... the difference is that Nadal is far more dominant in his favorite surface.... Nadal dominated RG... 12 titles in a span of 15 years... (80% of times nadal won..complete domination)

Federer doesnt look that impresive... 8 titles in a span of 16 years... (only 50% of times won... the sum of 3 different players make up for his tally...)
 
#70
whatever , Nadal has 14 grand slams finals played outside of RG, Djokovic has 17 Gs finals outside of AO, and Federer 19 gs finals outside of WImbledon... the difference is that Nadal is far more dominant in his favorite surface.... Nadal dominated RG... 12 titles in a span of 15 years... (80% of times nadal won..complete domination)

Federer doesnt look that impresive... 8 titles in a span of 16 years... (only 50% of times won... the sum of 3 different players make up for his tally...)
We agree. Nadal dominates FO but nothing else.
Hasn't defended a GS MS1000 outside of clay.
Lack of achievements: 0 WTF
 
#71
We agree. Nadal dominates FO but nothing else.
Hasn't defended a GS MS1000 outside of clay.
Lack of achievements: 0 WTF
Federer more balanced but dominates nowhere... allowing another player winning 4 times wimbledon and couple of other players winning twice at your home slam? I dont call it domination... most succesful in wimbledon ? yes.. but not dominant... also in point to achievement comparison has achieved less than nadal at the same respective age


Most of the aventage of Federer is that he has won so much at the AO, mickey mouse AO where only a bunch of serbs and greeks go to scream like loons, dont get me started with boogans.. not the most intellectual crowd anyways..
 
#72
Federer more balanced but dominates nowhere... allowing another player winning 4 times wimbledon and couple of other players winning twice at your home slam? I dont call it domination... most succesful in wimbledon ? yes.. but not dominant... also in point to achievement comparison has achieved less than nadal at the same respective age


Most of the aventage of Federer is that he has won so much at the AO, mickey mouse AO where only a bunch of serbs and greeks go to scream like loons, dont get me started with boogans.. not the most intellectual crowd anyways..
Fed far better player than Nadal.

Nadal has never won 40 consecutives matches in a GS. That's domination. Never been able to defend a GS MS1000 outside clay. Fed's 19 grass court= Nadal's career on HC.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fed...rome..69i57.4992j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
2005 2006: 173 matches won for 9 losses....That's absolute domination.
 
#73
Fed far better player than Nadal.

Nadal has never won 40 consecutives matches in a GS. That's domination. Never been able to defend a GS MS1000 outside clay. Fed's 19 grass court= Nadal's career on HC.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fed...rome..69i57.4992j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
2005 2006: 173 matches won for 9 losses....That's absolute domination.

Well, his domination hasnt translated into that much

1 Roger Federer 20 6 28 0 Yes (2009) 54 75,800
2 Rafael Nadal 18 0 34 1 Yes (2010) 53 70,750
3 Djokovic 15 5 33 0 Yes (2016) 53 70,100


Roger federer almost 5 years older than Nadal and Almost 6 years older than DJ and soon will be passed by both in the total point ranking... sorry my friend... you see his weeks at 1 are inflated..
 
#74
Well, his domination hasnt translated into that much

1 Roger Federer 20 6 28 0 Yes (2009) 54 75,800
2 Rafael Nadal 18 0 34 1 Yes (2010) 53 70,750
3 Djokovic 15 5 33 0 Yes (2016) 53 70,100


Roger federer almost 5 years older than Nadal and Almost 6 years older than DJ and soon will be passed by both in the total point ranking... sorry my friend... you see his weeks at 1 are inflated..
Nadal's career is inflated by his performance on clay.
12 FO 11 MC 11 Barcelona 9 Roma 4 Madrid 1 hamburg.

On the other surfaces:
Federer's 19 grass court titles = Nadal's HC career.
 
#75
Ok lets compare then

Federer by the end of 2014 season: 23 m1000 + 6 wtf (lost a RR to gonzo in 2007) + 17 slams: 23.000+ ((1500 x 6) -200) + 17 x 2000 = 23k + 8.8k + 34k = 65,8k

Nadal current 2019 season (not ended yet): 34 m1000 + 18 slams + OG : 34.000+ (18 x2000) + 400 = 34k + 36k + 0,4k = 70,4 k



Nadal is almost 5K ahead of Federer in age-comparison achievements/points... and season 2019 still has to play 2 slams, 4 m1000 and WTF, where rafa can win multiple titles yet..
Not the right way to argue Nadal is ahead achievement-wise by age. If you wanted to do that, you simply had to argue based on slams. If you factor in WTF, Nadal is behind. It's very much against him that he hasn't been able to win a single one, whereas Djokovic and Federer have won 5+ each.

Sure, if you go by specifically 1000+ wins in terms of points, Nadal is ahead - but if you factor in 500s and 250s, Roger comes out ahead with 3 more 500s and over 16 more 250s. 65.8 + 5.5 = 71.3

However, if only wins above 500 level count because of the mandatory status of 1000s, then we shouldn't factor in Monte Carlo as a 1000, given it isn't mandatory. Nadal loses 7 MC titles and drops below Federer. 65.8 > 63.4

If Monte Carlo matters because it's still a 1000, even if not mandatory, then you have to imagine finals at 1000+ events also matter. 32 lost finals for Roger, 26 for Rafa, meaning 3600 extra points for Roger. 4 finals at WTF level (let's just say 800 points for simplicity), Rafa has 2. Extra 1600 for Roger. They have the same number of lost finals at the time. That's 5.2k for Federer, putting him at 71k.

Sure, we can play mental gymnastics all day with numbers. Go with the simple solution - at the same age, Nadal has more slams than Federer did. Let's see if that remains true.

*You also have to remember that when you make point conversions like this, you relegate slams to only being worth 2 Masters. I know that every player with a slam would never trade it for 2 Masters. Likewise, every player with 2 Masters would easily trade them for a slam. Tsonga? Easy. Zverev? Of course. Murray? He'd do it 7 times. Nalbandian and Davydenko? A slam win in the Federer era would mean the world to them.
 
Last edited:
#76
Masters 1000's aren't slams either, yet Nadal/Djokovic fans make a huge, huge deal out of them because their guys have the most. The ATP has already determined that the WTF is clearly the fifth most important tennis tournament, since they award 1500 points to an undefeated winner.
WTF are next important after Slams, but enough M1000s can make up a WTF title. Clearly a WTF is worth more than 1 Masters, but less than 5. I'd say somewhere in the ballpark of 3 Masters.

I make a big deal of them because unlike total titles, Masters generally have the strongest competition, given as they are mandatory. A 500 can be blown through relatively easily, and the same can be said of M1000s, but generally the M1000 will be a level or two harder than the 500. Think what you want want either way - I'm not here to convert you, just to speak my own opinion while you speak yours.
 
#78
Yes, other than it being one slam closer to the record. The double career grand slam is a great achievement but it is a minor stat compared to number of slams won.
So if the DCGS is such a "minor achievement" 'these days' then don't bother regurgitating 2 slams on 3 surfaces as it's even more useless.

DCGS = 8 slams + 100% perfect distribution

2 slams on 3 surfaces = 6 slams with 75% distribution.

So if it's the # of slams that matters than DCGS trumps 2 slams on 3 surfaces 8 >>>6.

Which is it? stick by the 2 on 3 surfaces argument? Or # of slams? which then has DCGS trump 2 on 3? Take your pick , but you cannot have both.

Clay GOAT, nothing more, nothing less that happens to be the only one of the three to have won multiple slams on all three surfaces
Edit , your buddy Nad's can trump DCGS & move his fantastic record to 3 on 3 this Sunday which would = 9 . But he hasn't done it yet!
 
#80
12/18 GS = FO
25/34 MS 1000 = clay

Federer's 19 grass court = Nadal's total on HC

0 WTF
0 GS title on rebound ace. He only won GS titles on HC in slow conditions.
0 defending a GS title outside of clay
0 defending a MS1000 title outside of clay
Most weeks as number 2 behind Fed and Novak.
Lack of consistency in GS many early round losses to random player.

Can never be GOAT.
Fed since competition showed up at all slams:

AO: 3
RG: 1
Wim: 3
USO: 1

less than 100 weeks at # 1
defended 1 grand slam: AO 2018
14 M1000 - 1 on clay
losing H2H v Djokovic & Nadal

Wow! Lucky for that head-start, at least it made his numbers look respectible.
 
#81
If nadal wins this Wimbledon, it’s absolute huge for his legacy and the GOAT debate. He’d have at least 3 slams on clay, hard and grass. He’d be on 19 slams and will be almost certain he will overtake fed and he’d extend the gap with Djokovic too!

It’s a huge slam for all the big 3, if djokobwins he’d have 16 and back to within 2 of nadal and 4 behind fed, that would be closest he been to fed! Fed needs to win to fend off djoko and Rafa!

It’s between the 3 of them and these next 3 l-6 slams are gonna be so crucial
 
#82
So if the DCGS is such a "minor achievement" 'these days' then don't bother regurgitating 2 slams on 3 surfaces as it's even more useless.
I'll stop regurgitating it when I stop reading threads about how distribution is such an important factor.... only on Nadal's resume of course.

DCGS = 8 slams + 100% perfect distribution

2 slams on 3 surfaces = 6 slams with 75% distribution.

So if it's the # of slams that matters than DCGS trumps 2 slams on 3 surfaces 8 >>>6.

Which is it? stick by the 2 on 3 surfaces argument? Or # of slams? which then has DCGS trump 2 on 3? Take your pick , but you cannot have both.
Number of slams are more important clearly, that has been my consistent position. That has been everyone's position until they needed to weaken Nadal's resume somehow. Sampras was GOAT for a period without the French even though Laver had won all four (three on grass mind you).

Edit , your buddy Nad's can trump DCGS & move his fantastic record to 3 on 3 this Sunday which would = 9 . But he hasn't done it yet!
He may not do it and it doesn't matter if he never wins a Wimbledon title again - he's already won it twice and made the final another three times, more than enough to show his grass court quality.
 
#83
I'll stop regurgitating it when I stop reading threads about how distribution is such an important factor.... only on Nadal's resume of course.
& that's where your argument falls to pieces. Because distribution is based on slams , not surfaces & there are 4 slams per year not 3. Whenever Nadal's slam totals are presented irrespective whatever his final tally will be. Everyone will break down his slam count by the 4 slam events. Because there are 4 slams per year & distribution is tied to the number of slams , not the number of surfaces said slams would represent.

& lumping 2 slams played on the opposite side of the world under different conditions on different types of Hard Courts to cover for the fact that Nadal has a big fat 1 next to the AO is such a weak defence.

& you VB'ers should be thankful that the 4th surface is now defunct. Imagine if there was 1 of AO or USO on carpet? Fat chance Nadal even wins 1 AO or USO on carpet. Be thankful that there are only 3 surfaces represented throughout the 4 slams , because if there was a fourth surface represented within the 4 slam events it would've only exposed Nadal's lack of versatility even further.

12 French Opens out of 18 slams is not variety , it's an extreme skew to 1 of the 4 slams & everyone apart from deluded VB'ers know it.
 
#85
I'll stop regurgitating it when I stop reading threads about how distribution is such an important factor.... only on Nadal's resume of course.



Number of slams are more important clearly, that has been my consistent position. That has been everyone's position until they needed to weaken Nadal's resume somehow. Sampras was GOAT for a period without the French even though Laver had won all four (three on grass mind you).



He may not do it and it doesn't matter if he never wins a Wimbledon title again - he's already won it twice and made the final another three times, more than enough to show his grass court quality.
Nop

Distribution is not used to weaken Nadal's resume. The guy has never dominated the tour the way Novak and Fed have. So it's kind of odd to find him in the GOAT discussion...He's spent most of his time world number 2. ..

He's got so many slams because he wins the FO most years since 2005. This impressive achievement can't hide his lack of consistency on the other slams with terrible defeats.
 
#86
& that's where your argument falls to pieces. Because distribution is based on slams , not surfaces & there are 4 slams per year not 3. Whenever Nadal's slam totals are presented irrespective whatever his final tally will be. Everyone will break down his slam count by the 4 slam events. Because there are 4 slams per year & distribution is tied to the number of slams , not the number of surfaces said slams would represent.

& lumping 2 slams played on the opposite side of the world under different conditions on different types of Hard Courts to cover for the fact that Nadal has a big fat 1 next to the AO is such a weak defence.

& you VB'ers should be thankful that the 4th surface is now defunct. Imagine if there was 1 of AO or USO on carpet? Fat chance Nadal even wins 1 AO or USO on carpet. Be thankful that there are only 3 surfaces represented throughout the 4 slams , because if there was a fourth surface represented within the 4 slam events it would've only exposed Nadal's lack of versatility even further.

12 French Opens out of 18 slams is not variety , it's an extreme skew to 1 of the 4 slams & everyone apart from deluded VB'ers know it.
The surfaces would not have been homogenized Nadal would have 12 GS.
 
#87
What's with the personal insult?

Having the three greatest of all time at the top of the game at the same time.... I call that competition. What do you call it?
Don't agree. They are not the 3 GOAT. They hsve benefited from the confitions of play.

Surfaces would not have been homogenized Nadal would have only won 12 on clay and the other 2 would not have been so consistent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.es...goat-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic?platform=amp
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#88
This Wimbledon is crucial. Federer needs to get to 21 in one of his last chances.

If he does it by beating both Nadal and Djokovic kudos to him. Would be by far the greatest slam of his career.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#90
Masters 1000's aren't slams either, yet Nadal/Djokovic fans make a huge, huge deal out of them because their guys have the most. The ATP has already determined that the WTF is clearly the fifth most important tennis tournament, since they award 1500 points to an undefeated winner.
YEC is much closer to Masters than to Slams, prestige wise.

Slams >>> YEC > Masters >>> everything else.

Olympics are hard to judge. Each player gives it a different meaning.
 
#92
YEC is much closer to Masters than to Slams, prestige wise.

Slams >>> YEC > Masters >>> everything else.

Olympics are hard to judge. Each player gives it a different meaning.
Nadal fan all along the way. Putting down an event where he's underachieved. Fed Sampras Novak Borg Becker Mcenroe Lendl Edberg Agassi. It is an amazing tournament.

Olympics is important. No discussion Fed and Novak woud have loved to win a gold medal. Fed has in doubles so i think he's fine. Especially he won it with his buddy Wawrinka. Novak would love to win for Serbia.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#93
Nadal fan all along the way. Putting down an event where he's underachieved. Fed Sampras Novak Borg Becker Mcenroe Lendl Edberg Agassi. It is an amazing tournament.

Olympics is important. No discussion Fed and Novak woud have loved to win a gold medal. Fed has in doubles so i think he's fine. Especially he won it with his buddy Wawrinka. Novak would love to win for Serbia.
I root for Djokovic.
 
#95
YEC is much closer to Masters than to Slams, prestige wise.

Slams >>> YEC > Masters >>> everything else.

Olympics are hard to judge. Each player gives it a different meaning.
Keep telling yourself that. Look @ the history of the YEC's & see how many ATG's have won the tournament since the OE.

I'm sure you'll find a way to dig up some statistics that wouid add more weight to the YEC's "prestige" if Djoker ties or overtakes Fed's record there.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#96
Keep telling yourself that. Look @ the history of the YEC's & see how many ATG's have won the tournament since the OE.

I'm sure you'll add more weight to YEC's if Djoker ties or overtakes Fed's record there.
YEC has only 8 participants. Of course winners will be more prestigious.

Abu Dhabi exho has the most prestigious winners ever LOL: Djokovic x4, Nadal x4, Murray x2, Anderson.
 
#97
YEC has only 8 participants. Of course winners will be more prestigious.

Abu Dhabi exho has the most prestigious winners ever LOL: Djokovic x4, Nadal x4, Murray x2, Anderson.
Agree which is not the case of FO with Gaudio Fererro Costa Moya Bruguera Gomez Chang Noah Muster Kafelnikov.
 
#98
YEC has only 8 participants. Of course winners will be more prestigious.

Abu Dhabi exho has the most prestigious winners ever LOL: Djokovic x4, Nadal x4, Murray x2, Anderson.
#1 , Abu Dhabi is an Exho , so said players aren't playing to 100% & that doesn't even count.
#2 Fed 6
Djoker 5
Sampras-5
Lendl 5
Becker 3

Need i go on?
 
Top