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

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
How can either Federer or Djokovic have an argument for being the GOAT when neither had any answers for stopping one of their biggest rivals in Nadal at the French over the past 14 or so years? Federer's 0-6 and Djokovic is 1-6. And since Djokovic won it in 2016, he hasn't even sniffed a final there over the past 3 years, losing twice to a guy that Nadal bludgeons time and time again with relative ease in Thiem. And Nadal was thrashing both Federer and Djokovic at the peak of their powers at the French. So how can either of them be considered GOAT if they both only have 1 French Open title to Nadal's 12?
It's probably easier to say "Djokovic is the GOAT in Australia, Federer is the GOAT at Wimbledon, Nadal is the GOAT in Paris and Federer and Sampras are both the GOAT in New York. LOL
Because tennis isnt about just winning the French and beating one guy.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
While I prefer Fed to Nadal. I remember years ago all Fed fans saying you can’t be GOAT till you have the slam record. Now that Djokodal are catching up Fed fans are changing their tone and saying they can’t be GOAT because of this and that
Of course. It was the worst of Federer's fans who--when feeling comfortable with Federer's majors count building--made the hard "rule" that majors count determined GOAT status, however, as predicted, when Nadal and Djokovic moved up the majors chart, in comes the 50,000 threads moving the goal posts so far they might as well be on another planet.

The new/really new/special edition new criteria certain teary-eyed, obsessed Federer fans use to keep the eternally false, tin crown on his head is not working. So we will see yet another 50,000 threads attacking Djokovic and Nadal, or creating another fantasy criteria for being a GOAT player.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
LOL! Nobody cares, man. It's a nothing event.
LOL. Keep saying that and we will still be watching Nadal trying to win it.

A couple of outliers in the last 50 yrs does not change the fact that the past greats have tried and have won this event.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
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.
Yep--that was their criteria, and if he won the Wimbledon title two weekends ago, the worst of his fans (many on this board) would flood thread after thread crowing about it (as if its their victory...)

They always repeated 17 > 14.
So many threads were soiled by that.

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).
They skip over that. surface only matters when its about downgrading Nadal for his French Open record (and the fact Federer could only win one when not facing Nadal in the finals). ...and yes, they move the goal posts the second they fear Federer will be surpassed.
 

daddy

Legend
If he could somehow retroactively cement the RG courts he would not be considered a one trick pony.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Sorry mate you can't be Goat when you've been number 2 most your life to either Novak and Fed...and lost many times to random players.
I'm not claiming that Rafa is GOAT right now. He has more to achieve to claim that. I am claiming that Federer will most likely not end up as the GOAT. I've seen it coming for a while and it is becoming increasingly obvious to others.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Pre 2003/04 Fed is easy to fall back on to try and make a point. Fortunately, most seasoned posters don't fall for this tactic ;)
I don't know why careers should not be looked at as a whole. 19 year old Rafa should be compared to 19 year old Federer just as certainly 35 & 36 year old Federer will be compared to 35 and 36 year old Nadal.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
I don't know why careers should not be looked at as a whole. 19 year old Rafa should be compared to 19 year old Federer just as certainly 35 & 36 year old Federer will be compared to 35 and 36 year old Nadal.
The matches count. They all count. In relation to what the subject was is what I meant. Federer was a late bloomer and Rafa was a phenom. Just saying it's kind of deceiving to use that against him as if he goes out of tournaments early all the time because he doesnt. Simple as that. Nadal is more prone to go out early in reality.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Well to be fair , during the last 10 years we've had the top 3 all-time slam leaders in history playing . & They've all hit the career slam which is important , they've achieved the career slam . Djoker has his ncygs & then from there we have distribution of slams , because these 3 have such big slam numbers & all have the career slam in the bag , they all own they're own slam (Djoker OE AO , Nad's FO all-time , Fed WB all-time g.o.a.t-hood) so it's only natural for everyone to then see the numbers @ all 4 slams .

I know as a Nadal fan you may be personally against slam distribution , but it is there & it is important . Statisticians , reporters & former pro's will all be talking about the big-3's slam counts & where they did their most damage throughout their careers. It may not be that important to you , but however recent slam distribution has become mainly because as dominant as Sampras was , his distribution had a terrible imbalance as he had 14 slams yet 12 of his 14 were WB & USO. Furthermore , Agassi was too far behind in the slam count for it to matter.

With the Big-3 this all changed as they've won everywhere & won so much hence distribution of slams comes into play.

It's like me saying Fed is more dominant @ Wimbly & Djoker is more dominant @ AO than Nadal is @ The French . It's simply not true .

Nadal is far more dominant @ his slam & is far weaker @ his next 2 slams than his rivals & that's just the way it is. It took the grass-court g.o.a.t & the top 2 HC g.o.a.ts to prevent him from having a better distribution , that's how versatile Nadal is . It took the 2 most versatile tennis players (slam distribution #s) to stop Nadal from having more dominance on the next 3 slams for him.

It's like me crying wolf that Fed only has 1 French Open , well it took the best ever to stop him there too.

Fed & Djoker 'only' have 1 FO each & Nadal 'only' has 6 combined slams @ the other 3 . All 3 have their weaknesses , Nad's is distribution & with Fed & Djoker it's their lack of dominance one 1 'surfrace' in comparison . Pros & cons on both sides of the fence.
You know what people will be talking about in the future when looking at these three much more than suface diversity (lol). It will be the number of slams each won and how the big matchups that they played against each other went (i.e. slam finals) like Wimby 2008, AO 2009, USO 2010 (semis & final) USO 2011 (semis & final), AO 2017, WIM 2019 (semis & final).

No one cares about obscure stats that were never relevant in tennis history.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
The matches count. They all count. In relation to what the subject was is what I meant. Federer was a late bloomer and Rafa was a phenom. Just saying it's kind of deceiving to use that against him as if he goes out of tournaments early all the time because he doesnt. Simple as that. Nadal is more prone to go out early in reality.
I didn't say he goes out early all the time. Either does Rafa. The numbers are the numbers, they don't lie.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
You know what people will be talking about in the future when looking at these three much more than suface diversity (lol). It will be the number of slams each won and how the big matchups that they played against each other went (i.e. slam finals) like Wimby 2008, AO 2009, USO 2010 (semis & final) USO 2011 (semis & final), AO 2017, WIM 2019 (semis & final).

No one cares about obscure stats that were never relevant in tennis history.

We'll see when they put the charts up with their respective slam numbers after they retired. Guess what will be beneath the slam totals?

Each slam on the side & alongside it the numbers (they've already done it before) & the commentators mention their stronger slams too. aka distribution lol. Career Slam/Calender Grand Slam & Non-Calender Grand Slams are directly tied to distribution so it does matter. Otherwise there wouldn't be any names for it.

So saying distribution is an obscure stat is an absolute fallacy . Things like b/p conversion rates , first serve percentages etc are 'obscure stats'. Slam breakdown? Not a chance.

UEFA even has a saying for winning the UEFA Champions League/National league/National Cup all in the same year as 'The Treble' & the other two aren't even on equal footing with the UCL , whereas slams are all equally important.

Slam Finals & Semis will be mentioned of course . I'm not here saying that those H2Hs are 'obscure . Again all those slam finals etc are mixed inside distribution anyway , as they all form part of the slam totals.
Slam total/Slam distribution/Slam finals/Semis H2H's. They're all important.
 
Last edited:

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
We'll see when they put the charts up with their respective slam numbers after they retired. Guess what will be beneath the slam totals?

Each slam on the side & alongside it the numbers (they've already done it before) & the commentators mention their stronger slams too. aka distribution lol. Career Slam/Calender Grand Slam & Non-Calender Grand Slams are directly tied to distribution so it does matter. Otherwise there wouldn't be any names for it.

So saying distribution is an obscure stat is an absolute fallacy . Things like b/p conversion rates , first serve percentages etc are 'obscure stats'. Slam breakdown? Not a chance.

UEFA even has a saying for winning the UEFA Champions League/National league/National Cup all in the same year as 'The Treble' & the other two aren't even on equal footing with the UCL , whereas slams are all equally important.

Slam Finals & Semis will be mentioned of course . I'm not here saying that those H2Hs are 'obscure . Again all those slam finals etc are mixed inside distribution anyway , as they all form part of the slam totals.
Slam total/Slam distribution/Slam finals/Semis H2H's. They're all important.
Of course distribution is a thing - but just like H2H it is not a major stat. Pete was GOAT without it, Laver was GOAT in his time although three of the four slams in his time were played on grass. That's the thing with distribution it has changed throughout tennis history and will change again. That's why no one cares.
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Of course distribution is a thing - but just like H2H it is not a major stat. Pete was GOAT without it, Laver was GOAT in his time although three of the four slams in his time were played on grass. That's the thing with distribution it has changed throughout tennis history and will change again. That's why no one cares.
We'll see how much everyone cares after the Big-3 retire. There never has been anything quite like this type of concentrated dominance from a group of players throughout tennis history.
 
Last edited:
If he gets his trademark cakewalk draws you never know,but without that he's not sniffing another off-clay slam again.

He's already vultured 6 undeserved ones, hopefully no more from now.
 

Pantera

Banned
This site is confirmation Nadal is GOAT..look at the haters flooding this page.

If you had said Murray will cement his GOAT status there would be no replies.

As a Nadal fan i love the endorsement of Nadals GOATNESS he gets off his haters on here. Or perhaps they pretend to hate him but really love him?
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
That is pretty shameless; look only at a huge positive and totally skip "ANY" negative like they don't exist! It's more than a little pathetic! :sneaky:
Would you prefer to look at stats from a whole career? Or pick a certain points of a career that serves your argument. If we are doing that, then I'll just decide to cut 2012 - 2017 Wimby out of Rafa's record when making arguments from now on.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Would you prefer to look at stats from a whole career? Or pick a certain points of a career that serves your argument. If we are doing that, then I'll just decide to cut 2012 - 2017 Wimby out of Rafa's record when making arguments from now on.
Going from where they won their first slam seems fairest way to do it.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Zactly. That's why PETE is GOAT. King of a historically strong era riddled with ATGs and surface specialists, most of whom he turned his butlers.
Both is impossible. They are rather ATGs (which can only be proven by numbers) or Pete’s “butlers”.

I agree that Sampras started when many former ATGs were still in the game (all apart from Agassi already on the downfall though). And then Agassi had his downs in the middle of his career.

Also you need 2-3 of those 80s and 90s ATGs to get the numbers of anyone from the Big 3. The Big 3 alone are easily bigger competition for each other than anyone who played against Sampras.

Sampras had his chances to become the GOAT. At an age of 26-30 he didn’t play in a strong era and still "only" won Wimbledon. He missed 10 hardcourt Slam wins in a row and of course all French Opens as well. THIS was the opportunity to grab over 20 Slams, but he missed it. A consistantly dominant player like Federer or Djokovic would have feasted on such an era.

By the way, I don't think you are totally serious though. Sometimes I believe you are trying to imitate 90s Clay.
;)
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Both is impossible. They are rather ATGs (which can only be proven by numbers) or Pete’s “butlers”.
Nah, both are possible. Case in point: RF's domestic duties for the Nadal household until circa 2017, which he has now taken up at the Djokovic home.
 
Top