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

Sport

Legend
The definitive reply to typical objections from Fed fans:

Then’s the matter of 6 WTF’s
Then's the matter of 0 Olympic Gold in singles

Of course it is in Nadal's case. He's only dominated on clay. He's never been able to defend a GS outside of clay.
Awesome double standard. Neither Federer nor Djokovic have ever defended a GS on clay.

*a title outside of clay
Nadal succesfully defended the Masters 1000 of Canada, winnig it back to back in 2017 and 2018.

GOAT needs to have an era, like Sampras' 90-ies, Federer's 2000-s or Djokovic's 2010-s
Nadal is the GOAT of the 2005-2015 era. No other tennis player has won as many Slams as Nadal between 2005 and 2015. Nadal has won 14 Slams between 2005 and 2015, more than anyone.

Only clay goat

He has only won 6 slams outside French and far less than fed or Djoker
You don't need to be the GOAT of all surfaces to be the overall GOAT. Federer is "only" the grass GOAT, and Djokovic is "only" the hard GOAT. Nadal can be the overall GOAT.

Federer and Djokovic only have won 1 Grand Slam on clay. Nadal doesn't have any surface with 1 Grand Slam. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface. Nadal has the better distribution by surface in Slams, and therefore can be the overall GOAT.

Sampras is also better than Nadal both on hard and grass, but Nadal has clearly surpassed him, meaning Nadal does not need to better on 2 of the 3 surfaces. It's all about the number of Grand Slams. If Nadal takes the Grand Slam record, he is the GOAT. No excuses are valid, espeically when 75% of Grand Slams are outside clay.
 
Last edited:

Sport

Legend
What a lack of objectivity from (some) Fed fans. For many years, they said Federer is the GOAT because he has more Majors than anyone. They always repeated 17 > 14.

Now that Federer can be surpassed, they reformulate the GOAT criteria, and talk about distribution, when Nadal has the best distribution by surface in Slams, as Nadal is the only member of the Big 3 with at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay).
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
And Federer and Djokovic only have won 1 Grand Slam on clay. Nadal doesn't have any surface with 1 Grand Slam.

2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

Nadal has the better distribution by surface in Slams, and therefore can be the overall GOAT.

Sampras is also better than Nadal both on hard and grass, but Nadal has clrarly surpassed him.

It's all about the number of Grand Slams. If Nadal takes the Grand Slam record, he is the GOAT. No excuses are valid, espeically when 75%of Grand Slams are outside clay.
Your point of view.

Mine: The guy that's been number 2 most of his life and wins mostly on 1 surface and has big holes in his resume can never be goat.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
What a lack of objectivity from (some) Fed fans. For many years, they said Federer is the GOAT because he has more Majors than anyone. They always repeated 17 > 14.

Now that Federer can be surpassed, they reformulate the GOAT criteria, and talk about distribution, when Nadal has the best distribution by surface in Slams, as Nadal is the only member of the Big 3 with at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay).
Nop is Goat because in his best years he was almost invicible and has won everything.
 

DjokoLand

Rookie
Nadal would be a least favorite of the big 3 by a distance but a GS is a GS and if he gets to 21 he will be most likely put ahead of Federer(I wouldn’t). Though it be a serious discussion if they are 3 more FO’s as it will be very lopsided.

See if Djokovic gets to 20 he will take Feds weeks at #1, most YE #1, likely join or pass Feds 6 WTF’s and have distribution of all slams.

This is why I feel why most Fed fans are more worried about Djokovic than Nadal. As Djokovic is favorite for 3 slams a year.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I'm sure Djoker & Rafa would have loved to have a nice 12 slam head-start before the other two fully matured. It certainly makes a difference to the perception of Goathood.
So Federer had a small window in 2004-2007... that’s 4 years. Still, he had Nadal on grass from 2006, Djokovic on HC from 2007, Agassi on HC in 2004-2005 and guys like Hewitt and Roddick.

I think he would have preferred to have Nole’s competition since 2014 (age 27) which is 6 years and counting... with Murray, Old Fed as main competition. Nadal showing up at 2 slams? One of which he doesn’t even register as tough (2019 AO final)
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
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.
Nadal strong slams:

1 AO
1 RG (2013)
1 Wimbledon (2008)

Wow doesn’t look good. I discounted all his other RG where none of his main rivals (Federer, Djokovic, Thiem) put up any sort of meaningful fight. Same for his USO titles, all won with a cakewalk draw, facing 2 lacklustre versions of Djokovic.

3 strong slams out of 18 LOL. Weak era champ.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
What a lack of objectivity from (some) Fed fans. For many years, they said Federer is the GOAT because he has more Majors than anyone. They always repeated 17 > 14.

Now that Federer can be surpassed, they reformulate the GOAT criteria, and talk about distribution, when Nadal has the best distribution by surface in Slams, as Nadal is the only member of the Big 3 with at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay).
Gosh you are so easy to shut down.

When Fed was on 17 slams mmhmmm ...



Henceforth we didn't need to talk about distribution because the distribution wasn't ...

AO-2
FO-1
WB-11
USO-3




Apples to oranges comparison.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
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.
A question:

How do you take into account the lack of consistency? 1st round AO 2016 3rd round FO 2016 1st round Wimbledon 2013 2nd round USO 2016 and many RR
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Nadal strong slams:

1 AO
1 RG (2013)
1 Wimbledon (2008)

Wow doesn’t look good. I discounted all his other RG where none of his main rivals (Federer, Djokovic, Thiem) put up any sort of meaningful fight. Same for his USO titles, all won with a cakewalk draw, facing 2 lacklustre versions of Djokovic.

3 strong slams out of 18 LOL. Weak era champ.
Nice try - he's beaten Federer and / or Djokovic for or on the way to the majority of his slams. What are you insinuating about those two players?
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
So Federer had a small window in 2004-2007... that’s 4 years. Still, he had Nadal on grass from 2006, Djokovic on HC from 2007, Agassi on HC in 2004-2005 and guys like Hewitt and Roddick.

I think he would have preferred to have Nole’s competition since 2014 (age 27) which is 6 years and counting... with Murray, Old Fed as main competition. Nadal showing up at 2 slams? One of which he doesn’t even register as tough (2019 AO final)
Let's be fair and give Federer 2003 and 2004 (Rafa started winning slams in 2005). That is four slams ''headstart''. The gap is two meaning that Rafa has won more and at a much more consistent rate. Djokovic and Nadal have had each other and Federer their entire careers... that is the other two best of all time to contend with their entire careers - that is the stiffest competition in the history of the sport.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Let's be fair and give Federer 2003 and 2004 (Rafa started winning slams in 2005). That is four slams ''headstart''. The gap is two meaning that Rafa has won more and at a much more consistent rate. Djokovic and Nadal have had each other and Federer their entire careers... that is the other two best of all time to contend with their entire careers - that is the stiffest competition in the history of the sport.
"Let's be fair" not something applied by Nadal his trainers his uncle and his fans...
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
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.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/25973071/tennis-roger-federer-goat-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic?platform=amp
Soooooo....

20 slams
18 slams
15 slams

plus all of the other insane records they hold and they are not the best three of all time? lol
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
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.
Yeah, he's also the only one of the three to have never left the top 10 since 2005, he's also the only won of the three two win a slam every year for a decade, he's also won 18 slams at a younger age than Fed. And for all the so called ''dominance'' advantage that Fed has over Rafa the situation is:

YE # 1
Fed 5
Rafa 4

Not really, that much different.

I'll wait til the other two win more than one slam on each surface like Rafa already has. If (a big if) he wins Wimby this week you can make that three slams on each surface...
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Soooooo....

20 slams
18 slams
15 slams

plus all of the other insane records they hold and they are not the best three of all time? lol
Of course if all courts play similar it gives you a massive edge compared to other eras.

Nadal only started performing at the AO when there was a change of surface. That's how he was able to get everything back against Fed in 2009 2012 2014 and that's how we got a final of 6 hours with Novak in 2012 with both players playing a clay court game.
FO: Nadal is the beast.
Wimbledon: The grass has changed. Since 2002 Hewitt Nadal Murray Djokovic. Back in the day they would not have won that event.
USO: Not a quick hard court. Similar to AO.

So sorry no i don't think they are the greatest ever. They are the greatest of that era.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
When did competition started? Please don't tell me 2008....
Yep, that is when Djoker won his first slam so when both had arrived at slam winning level. I'll be kind and look at things since 2005 (since baby Nadal consistently started beating up on prime Fed - lol):

Slams since 2005:
Rafa: 18
Fed 16
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
& 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.
Err no, the whole argument about distribution is based on surface. It would be even more irrelevant than it already is if all four slams were played on identical hard courts.

Oh and sorry to tell you, Rafa has beaten up Fed at the AO 3 - 1, RG 6 - 0 (lol) and has also snagged a win against the grass GOAT in Fed's own backyard at Wimby. Let's hope for Fed's sake that Rafa doesn't make that two tomorrow.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Yeah, he's also the only one of the three to have never left the top 10 since 2005, he's also the only won of the three two win a slam every year for a decade, he's also won 18 slams at a younger age than Fed. And for all the so called ''dominance'' advantage that Fed has over Rafa the situation is:

YE # 1
Fed 5
Rafa 4

Not really, that much different.

I'll wait til the other two win more than one slam on each surface like Rafa already has. If (a big if) he wins Wimby this week you can make that three slams on each surface...
That's impressive winning 12 GS at the FO almost every year. I have always acknowledge that. That helps to stay in the Top 10 being world number 1 etc etc.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Yep, that is when Djoker won his first slam so when both had arrived at slam winning level. I'll be kind and look at things since 2005 (since baby Nadal consistently started beating up on prime Fed - lol):

Slams since 2005:
Rafa: 18
Fed 16
Ok so according to you tennis didn't exist before 2005 2008? I kind of disagree. Agassi Sampras Becker Edberg Lendl Mc enroe Borg Laver etc etc
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Err no, the whole argument about distribution is based on surface. It would be even more irrelevant than it already is if all four slams were played on identical hard courts.

Oh and sorry to tell you, Rafa has beaten up Fed at the AO 3 - 1, RG 6 - 0 (lol) and has also snagged a win against the grass GOAT in Fed's own backyard at Wimby. Let's hope for Fed's sake that Rafa doesn't make that two tomorrow.
Double standard again.

Novak has beaten Nadal everywhere on every court that matters. MS1000 WTF GS. So Novak better than Nadal? Or lack of education.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Wimbledon: The grass has changed. Since 2002 Hewitt Nadal Murray Djokovic. Back in the day they would not have won that event.
Confirmed, Fed only started winning Wimbledon when they slowed the courts down.

FO: Nadal is the beast.
Agreed

Nadal only started performing at the AO when there was a change of surface. That's how he was able to get everything back against Fed in 2009 2012 2014 and that's how we got a final of 6 hours with Novak in 2012 with both players playing a clay court game.

So sorry no i don't think they are the greatest ever. They are the greatest of that era.
So who are the players that are greater than these three in your view?
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Double standard again.

Novak has beaten Nadal everywhere on every court that matters. MS1000 WTF GS. So Novak better than Nadal? Or lack of education.
No, we've discussed this before. Rafa dominated the first half of their rivalry and Djokovic the second, so what...

Rafa has more slams and more M1000
Djoker has more weeks, YE # 1 and WTF

Djoker passed Rafa years ago in the H2H but there is still only two the difference - he hasn't run away with it. It is pretty even between the two guys.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
No, we've discussed this before. Rafa dominated the first half of their rivalry and Djokovic the second, so what...

Rafa has more slams and more M1000
Djoker has more weeks, YE # 1 and WTF

Djoker passed Rafa years ago in the H2H but there is still only two the difference - he hasn't run away with it. It is pretty even between the two guys.
I am using your own arguments.

When Fed hit his peak he run away with the H2H.
Rafa has got 1 more MS1000 but he's mainly won them on clay. 25/34. On the other hand Novak has won every MS1000.
Novak has got 5 WTF Nadal 0
He's dominated the game a way Nadal has never done. Season 2011 and 2015.
Much more consistency in Novak's achievements.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Err no, the whole argument about distribution is based on surface. It would be even more irrelevant than it already is if all four slams were played on identical hard courts.

Oh and sorry to tell you, Rafa has beaten up Fed at the AO 3 - 1, RG 6 - 0 (lol) and has also snagged a win against the grass GOAT in Fed's own backyard at Wimby. Let's hope for Fed's sake that Rafa doesn't make that two tomorrow.
How convenient. There are 4 slams , distribution is tied to slams. How the hell is slam distribution tied to anything else other than the amount of different slams won?

Start a new case on "Slam surface distribution" , because "Slam Distribution" is just that , how the slams are distributed in terms of wins. You are arguing the wrong case & we all know why. Because again , it's that 12 @ 1 slam & 6 @ all the remaining 3 & diluting slam distribution down to surfaces covers that skew.

If you have a problem with surfaces & don't mind lumping AO with USO then you must disagree with Nadal's stance on blue clay . Yeah the slippery blue clay of Madrid that he threatened never to return to if the traditional red clay wasn't returned the following year.

If Rebound Ace , Plexicushion & DecoTurf is all the same because they're all Hard Court surfaces , then blue clay is red clay & all clay is exactly the same & you're in direct conflict on your stance with surfaces where your guy Rafa is concerned.

& that last sentence has absolutely nothing to do with our disagreement here , your argument has no leg to stand on hence VB'ers typical H2H response

So either admit it's "Slam Surface Distribution" & move on. Because "Slam Distribution" is just that , distribution amongst the slams , & in case you need a reminder ... There are 4 slams throughout the year.

If you're going with "Slam Surface Distribution" i'll go one step further & open my case for "Slam Sub-Surface Distribution" .

Fed has

3 x AO on Rebound Ace
3 x AO on Plexicushion
1 x French Open on Clay
8 x Wimbledon on grass
5 x USO on DecoTurf (1 x full green , 4 x green/blue)

See who is the authority on distribution? Once we open the can of worms of going past the simple distribution of 4 slams & how they are indeed "distributed" amongst ATG's , then who is to stop anyone else coming along

& saying slam surface distribution? (that's a joke becuase it's rammed down all our throats by VB'ers)
& saying slam sub-surface distribution
& saying indoor slam sub-surface distribution
Windy/Cold/Hot indoor slam sub-surface distribution


It becomes trivial @ a certain point ...

p.s , i find this portion of your post to be quite ironic ...

It would be even more irrelevant than it already is if all four slams were played on identical hard courts.

Slam surface distribution does indeed treat AO & USO as one in the same. By your analysis , they are both hard court & thus winning one of them means winning both because they're both hard court so as to treat them both as "identical" under the microscope of slam surface distribution.
 
Last edited:

mightyrick

Legend
Watch out Mr. GOAT Status when Djoks hit #19 by 2020. The new owner has something to say.
I don't particularly like the guy that much, but Djokovic is the Open Era GOAT, IMHO. Presuming he finishes as the world's best player at the end of the year again (for the 7th time), I think it becomes a non-argument. There never has been a guy in the Open Era who has been better at the end of the year/season for so many years. He's entering Tilden/Laver territory at that point. That's a totally different level.
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
I don't particularly like the guy that much, but Djokovic is the Open Era GOAT, IMHO. Presuming he finishes as the world's best player at the end of the year again (for the 7th time), I think it becomes a non-argument. There never has been a guy in the Open Era who has been better at the end of the year/season for so many years. He's entering Tilden/Laver territory at that point. That's a totally different level.
Djokovic has 5 YE1, if he finished this year in 1rst position it would be his 6th YE1, not 7th...

At the moment Nadal is leader in the live atp RACE, he is the player with higher chances to end #1 specially if he wins Wimbledon..it becomes more obvious...
 

mightyrick

Legend
Djokovic has 5 YE1, if he finished this year in 1rst position it would be his 6th YE1, not 7th...

At the moment Nadal is leader in the live atp RACE, he is the player with higher chances to end #1 specially if he wins Wimbledon..it becomes more obvious...
It would be 6 years being number one in both the ATP and ITF. In 2013, Djokovic was the ITF world #1, whereas Nadal was the ATP #1.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
And Nadal has Many slams in RG as Federer in AO, RG and USO combined, you can always find ways to minimize the achievements of the rival.
That proves Nadal=clay goat. I think we all agree on that. (hopefully) Nadal's achievements on clay are amazing and will never be matched if his titles are not taken away

As you know Fed usually play 2 events on grass. Nadal plays 6-7 events on HC.

Fed's career on grass= Nadal's career on HC is unbelievable. It proves how good Fed is and specialized Nadal is on clay.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
And Nadal has Many slams in RG as Federer in AO, RG and USO combined, you can always find ways to minimize the achievements of the rival.
Incorrect , because all this proves is Nadal's massive skew towards clay. So it actually reinforces the notion that Nadal is indeed a clay specialist + An ATG tier 2 average amongst the other 3 slams.

Don't forget Fed's grass is second to his Hard Court dominance .

If Fed's Wimbledon slam wins where his only dominance , you'd have a point. But he has the all-time record of combined AO & USO's with 11 behind his all-time WB record.

Nadal is nowhere near this.

To put it simply , Nadal is god-like @ 1 slam then his distribution takes a steep nosedive thereafter.

Behind Fed's all-time greatness @ WB (not god-like) he has ...

#2 in OE @ AO

Tied for #1 in OE @ USO with Sampras . (JC had a mixture of Grass/HC USO's)

Fed is #2,#1,tied @ #1 @ 75% of the slams.

Nadal is #1 @ 1 slam then perhaps top 5-ish everywhere else?

It almost works against Nadal , as if you think about it. Would we think any less of Nadal's dominance @ RG if he won 10 instead of 13? Sure 13 is better , but it becomes increasingly blurry @ a certain point.

So Nadal doesn't have as much bite even though 1 slam is still 1 slam. Fed still has a way to go @ WB seeing as Sampras is sitting @ #2 with 7 Wimbly's . Fed can reach the same once he gets to 9-10 or so & he'll be hitting the same conundrum as Nadal (HC slam dominance notwithstanding)
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
How convenient. There are 4 slams , distribution is tied to slams. How the hell is slam distribution tied to anything else other than the amount of different slams won?

Start a new case on "Slam surface distribution" , because "Slam Distribution" is just that , how the slams are distributed in terms of wins. You are arguing the wrong case & we all know why. Because again , it's that 12 @ 1 slam & 6 @ all the remaining 3 & diluting slam distribution down to surfaces covers that skew.

If you have a problem with surfaces & don't mind lumping AO with USO then you must disagree with Nadal's stance on blue clay . Yeah the slippery blue clay of Madrid that he threatened never to return to if the traditional red clay wasn't returned the following year.

If Rebound Ace , Plexicushion & DecoTurf is all the same because they're all Hard Court surfaces , then blue clay is red clay & all clay is exactly the same & you're in direct conflict on your stance with surfaces where your guy Rafa is concerned.

& that last sentence has absolutely nothing to do with our disagreement here , your argument has no leg to stand on hence VB'ers typical H2H response

So either admit it's "Slam Surface Distribution" & move on. Because "Slam Distribution" is just that , distribution amongst the slams , & in case you need a reminder ... There are 4 slams throughout the year.

If you're going with "Slam Surface Distribution" i'll go one step further & open my case for "Slam Sub-Surface Distribution" .

Fed has

3 x AO on Rebound Ace
3 x AO on Plexicushion
1 x French Open on Clay
8 x Wimbledon on grass
5 x USO on DecoTurf (1 x full green , 4 x green/blue)

See who is the authority on distribution? Once we open the can of worms of going past the simple distribution of 4 slams & how they are indeed "distributed" amongst ATG's , then who is to stop anyone else coming along

& saying slam surface distribution? (that's a joke becuase it's rammed down all our throats by VB'ers)
& saying slam sub-surface distribution
& saying indoor slam sub-surface distribution
Windy/Cold/Hot indoor slam sub-surface distribution


It becomes trivial @ a certain point ...

p.s , i find this portion of your post to be quite ironic ...

It would be even more irrelevant than it already is if all four slams were played on identical hard courts.

Slam surface distribution does indeed treat AO & USO as one in the same. By your analysis , they are both hard court & thus winning one of them means winning both because they're both hard court so as to treat them both as "identical" under the microscope of slam surface distribution.
Couldn't be bothered reading most of that but I'll say this. If all slams were played on identical courts of any surface, distribution wouldn't be brought up at all because then it would be just like any other sport (i.e. same game, same surface just winning in a different city). Distribution has never been a thing in tennis until Nadal's inconvenient creeping slam count needed to be discredited somehow.

Secondly, Nadal has won less in Madrid than other clay tournament, not because of the type of clay, but because of the altitude.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
I am using your own arguments.

When Fed hit his peak he run away with the H2H.
Rafa has got 1 more MS1000 but he's mainly won them on clay. 25/34. On the other hand Novak has won every MS1000.
Novak has got 5 WTF Nadal 0
He's dominated the game a way Nadal has never done. Season 2011 and 2015.
Much more consistency in Novak's achievements.
Fed has never run away with the H2H - lol
Djoker has mainly won his M1000 on hard and congratulations to him for that - so what?
  • Rafa 9 of 34 on hard
  • Djoker 9 of 33 on clay
WTF is the obvious weakness in Rafa's resume
Dominated so much that at the end of last season the weeks at # 1 difference was 20 odd weeks and the YE # 1 difference was 1. Wow! That is so much more dominance that it blows my mind!
Consistency... really? Like....
  • winning M1000 and slams in your teens, 20's & 30's?
  • Being the only one of the three to remain in the top 10 since 2005
  • Winning at least one slam a year for 10 years
You are right, Rafa is so inconsistent - he should retire.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Couldn't be bothered reading most of that but I'll say this. If all slams were played on identical courts of any surface, distribution wouldn't be brought up at all because then it would be just like any other sport (i.e. same game, same surface just winning in a different city). Distribution has never been a thing in tennis until Nadal's inconvenient creeping slam count needed to be discredited somehow.

Secondly, Nadal has won less in Madrid than other clay tournament, not because of the type of clay, but because of the altitude.
That is beside the point . Rafa specifically stated that he wouldn't be back if Ion Tiriac wouldn't revert the clay back to the usual. So my point is , that it has been proven that not all clay can be lumped together. Same with things like .

Djoker 7 AOs vs 3 USOs. Delpos 1 USO + Final , then maybe a QF or 2 @ AO. Sampras 2 AO vs 5 USO. They're different slams that play differently despite them being both HardCourt surfaces , the results even show this.

Be honest , if RG was changed to the 2012 blue clay , do you honestly think Nadal would have won 12 of those also?

& You conveniently say that 'distribution' never was mentioned. That is b.s , the channel slam? for example , winning on clay then grass back to back was never talked about? hmmm ..

I'm an honest Fed fan , if i could take my pick of Fed's next slam it would be the french without question .It's not hard to be unbiased . Well for me anyway.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
That is beside the point . Rafa specifically stated that he wouldn't be back if Ion Tiriac wouldn't revert the clay back to the usual. So my point is , that it has been proven that not all clay can be lumped together. Same with things like .

Djoker 7 AOs vs 3 USOs. Delpos 1 USO + Final , then maybe a QF or 2 @ AO. Sampras 2 AO vs 5 USO. They're different slams that play differently despite them being both HardCourt surfaces , the results even show this.

Be honest , if RG was changed to the 2012 blue clay , do you honestly think Nadal would have won 12 of those also?

& You conveniently say that 'distribution' never was mentioned. That is b.s , the channel slam? for example , winning on clay then grass back to back was never talked about? hmmm ..

I'm an honest Fed fan , if i could take my pick of Fed's next slam it would be the french without question .It's not hard to be unbiased . Well for me anyway.
Another US open would be great.
6 AO 8 Wimb 6 USO 6 WTF...that would be great.

And he may be given back 1 AO 4 FO 1 Wimb after his career has ended.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Fed has never run away with the H2H - lol
Djoker has mainly won his M1000 on hard and congratulations to him for that - so what?
  • Rafa 9 of 34 on hard
  • Djoker 9 of 33 on clay
WTF is the obvious weakness in Rafa's resume
Dominated so much that at the end of last season the weeks at # 1 difference was 20 odd weeks and the YE # 1 difference was 1. Wow! That is so much more dominance that it blows my mind!
Consistency... really? Like....
  • winning M1000 and slams in your teens, 20's & 30's?
  • Being the only one of the three to remain in the top 10 since 2005
  • Winning at least one slam a year for 10 years
You are right, Rafa is so inconsistent - he should retire.
Maybe banned instead of retiring in that case.

Nadal has always been a number 2 and a clay court specialist compared to Novak and Fed.

He has never dominated the tour the way Novak and Fed have with shocking losses to random players.

1st round AO 2016
3rd round FO 2016
1st round Wimb 2013
2nd round Us open 2015
WTF RR

He's never dominated the way Novak and Fed have (2006 season 2015 season) never defended a GS or MS1000 outside of clay etc etc
 

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
Nadal is definitely going down in history as the 3rd place guy. As bad as this Wimbledon hurt Fed's legacy, it certainly meant curtains for Nadals
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Nadal is definitely going down in history as the 3rd place guy. As bad as this Wimbledon hurt Fed's legacy, it certainly meant curtains for Nadals
How can losing a final to another ATG @ the age of 38 hurt Feds legacy? He owns the outright record all-time . Adding another classic 5-set final to the then 4-time Wimbly champ hurts his legacy in what way?

Next year when Fed turns 39 , he better make sure that he loses to a journeyman instead to help salvage what's left .

It's funny , whenever Fedalovic lose to no names , it's acceptable. But losing to another Big-3 member in a slam SF/F , it's so damaging to their legacy. What a joke.
 
Top