Nadal won most of his Slams against Weak Competition

[Eragon]

Just like Federer beat the Weak Era Clowns from 2003-2007 to rack up most of his Slams, Nadal beat Weaker Era Clowns from 2005-2013 to rack up most of his Slams. As we know, 8 of Nadal's 12 Slams (an overwhelming 66.67% of Nadal's Slams) have come at Roland Garros, which make up a majority. If we examine his competition at Roland Garros over the years, we see that he dominated a bunch of total Clowns on Clay, making his Slams mean nothing, just like Federer's Slams from 2003-2007. After all, Quality > Quantity. So 8 of Nadal's Slams mean nothing, just like all of Federer's Slams from 2003-2007. For those who insist Nadal played against great competition at the French Open, let's have a look, shall we?



Rafael Nadal
2005 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Lars Burgsmuller (6-1, 7-6, 6-1)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Xavier Malisse (6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Richard Gasquet (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-4, 3-6, 6-0, 6-3)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. David Ferrer (7-5, 6-2, 6-0)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Mariano Puerta (6-7, 6-3, 6-1, 7-5)

2006 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (6-2, 7-5, 6-1)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Kevin Kim (6-2, 6-1, 6-4)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Paul-Henri Mathieu (5-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-2, 5-7, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 6-4 ret.)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Ivan Ljubicic (6-4, 6-2, 7-6)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6)

2007 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Juan Martin del Potro (7-5, 6-3, 6-2)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Flavio Cipolla (6-2, 6-1, 6-4)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Albert Montanes (6-1, 6-3, 6-2)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-1, 7-6)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Carlos Moya (6-4, 6-3, 6-0)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (7-5, 6-4, 6-2)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)

2008 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Thomaz Bellucci (7-5, 6-3, 6-1)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Devilder (6-4, 6-0, 6-1)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Jarkko Nieminen (6-1, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Fernando Verdasco (6-1, 6-0, 6-2)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Almagro (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 6-2, 7-6)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)

2009 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Marcos Daniel (7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Teymuraz Gabashvili (6-1, 6-4, 6-2)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-1, 6-3, 6-1)
R16: Robin Soderling def. Rafael Nadal (6-2, 6-7, 6-4, 7-6)

2010 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Gianni Mina (6-2, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Horacio Zeballos (6-2, 6-2, 6-3)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-4, 6-3)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Thomaz Bellucci (6-2, 7-5, 6-4)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Almagro (7-6, 7-6, 6-4)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Jurgen Melzer (6-2, 6-3, 7-6)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)

2011 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. John Isner (6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-4)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Pablo Andujar (7-5, 6-3, 7-6)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Antonio Veic (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Ivan Ljubicic (7-5, 6-3, 6-3)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Robin Soderling (6-4, 6-1, 7-6)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Andy Murray (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1)

2012 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Simone Bolelli (6-2, 6-2, 6-1)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Denis Istomin (6-2, 6-2, 6-0)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Eduardo Schwank (6-1, 6-3, 6-4)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Juan Monaco (6-2, 6-0, 6-0)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Nicolas Almagro (7-6, 6-2, 6-3)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. David Ferrer (6-2, 6-2, 6-1)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5)

2013 French Open
R128: Rafael Nadal def. Daniel Brands (4-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-3)
R64: Rafael Nadal def. Martin Klizan (4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-3)
R32: Rafael Nadal def. Fabio Fognini (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
R16: Rafael Nadal def. Kei Nishikori (6-4, 6-1, 6-3)
QF: Rafael Nadal def. Stanislas Wawrinka (6-2, 6-3, 6-1)
SF: Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic (6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 6-7, 9-7)
FR: Rafael Nadal def. David Ferrer (6-3, 6-2, 6-3)



As you can see, he has only ever faced 2 French Open Champions in all his campaigns there: Federer and Moya. Of them, he faced Moya only once, and that was when Moya was almost 31, a full 9 years after he won at Roland Garros. So that win means nothing, he merely beat a Grannie. His biggest competition has been Federer, who is merely a 1-time French Open Champion. Not to mention, Clay happens to be his weakest surface. So Nadal's main competition at the French Open has been a guy whose weakest surface is Clay. LOL! Talk about a WEAK ERA! :lol: Nadal had to beat just one French Open Champion, and that guy's weakest surface is Clay, haha. And don't even get me started on how bad of a match-up Nadal is for Federer, particularly on Clay. Even Federer, in his domination of the 2003-2007 Weak Era, had to beat Agassi, Safin and Djokovic at the Australian Open, Hewitt, Nadal at Wimbledon, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick at the US Open. In other words, Federer had to beat multiple former Champions at each of the Slams he dominated, even in his Weak Era. Nadal had to beat just one. How much more weaker is that? LOL! So Nadal is a WEAKEST ERA CHAMPION :lol:


PS - Fellow Federer fans,

 

[martini1]

Nice formatting. oh, and nice try.

 

[monfed]

EXACTLY! This is what I was talking about in an earlier thread. Ralph's clay competition has been nothing short of pathetic. He has thrived like crazy on it. Good on ya buddy, I could'n't have explained it better myself! Did he face a player of the caliber of Kuerten in any of those winning campaigns? A big fat no! Heck even Fed had to suffer the ignominy of facing Guga in 04 RG and we know what happened there didnt we? Guys like Coria too had were all but finished by RG 04. So when 05 rolled around all the quality claycourters who would've given Ralph stiff competition fell off the map!

 

[Eragon]

EXACTLY! This is what I was talking about in an earlier thread. Ralph's clay competition has been nothing short of pathetic. He has thrived like crazy on it. Good on ya buddy, I could'n't have explained it better myself! Did he face a player of the caliber of Kuerten in any of those winning campaigns? A big fat no! Heck even Fed had to suffer the ignominy of facing Guga in 04 RG and we know what happened there didnt we? Guys like Coria too had were all but finished by RG 04. So when 05 rolled around all the quality claycourters who would've given Ralph stiff competition fell off the map!

For the record, I honestly don't think one can declare any era weaker (but the pre-70s was definitely weak, mainly because of split fields) than any other. It's circular reasoning and impossible to prove. This thread is my attempt to parody posters like The Dork Knight and The_Odor

 

[Eragon]

Nice formatting. oh, and nice try.

Thanks!

 

[abmk]

 

[NatF]

Federer is a great claycourter, but he's certainly no match for Nadal on the surface. What amuses me is when The_Order talks about Federer being Nadal's b**** and says Federer can't beat him etc...but apparently Federer was great competition for those 5 FO's they faced off at?

 

[serengetisunset]

Moreover, he benefited from other top players being good enough on clay to meet him in the semi finals and finals on that surface. He has inflated H2H records thanks to the surface advantage and with the confidence gained from repeat wins on clay, he won a few slams on other surfaces. His inability to defend even one title outside of clay invalidates his claims to GOAThood IMO.

 

[Eragon]

Federer is a great claycourter, but he's certainly no match for Nadal on the surface. What amuses me is when The_Order talks about Federer being Nadal's b**** and says Federer can't beat him etc...but apparently Federer was great competition for those 5 FO's they faced off at?

The hypocrisy is always on full display with the Federer-detracting Sampras and Nadal fans :lol:

 

[90's Clay]

The clay field has been pretty weak (2005-present) if you compare it to eras past. No doubt about that. But overall, Nadal won his slams vs. great competition.

Generally he went through Nole/Fed/Murray to win the MAJORITY of his slams.

While the majority of Fed's slam wins came against Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Old Agassi.

When Fed was amassing the majority of his slams was against INFERIOR competition to most of the guys Nadal beat for the MAJORITY of his slams

 

[Eragon]

The clay field has been pretty weak (2005-present) if you compare it to eras past. No doubt about that. But overall, Nadal won his slams vs. great competition.

Generally he went through Nole/Fed/Murray to win the MAJORITY of his slams.

While the majority of Fed's slam wins came against Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Old Agassi.

When Fed was amassing the majority of his slams was against INFERIOR competition to most of the guys Nadal beat for the MAJORITY of his slams

Did you even read the OP? Nadal only had to go through one French Open Champion (31 year-old Moya doesn't count). Federer had to go through multiple Slam Champions at each Slam event. Nadal's competition has been weaker.

 

[90's Clay]

Did you even read the OP? Nadal only had to go through one French Open Champion (31 year-old Moya doesn't count). Federer had to go through multiple Slam Champions at each Slam event. Nadal's competition has been weaker.

Murray (at least he will be)/Nole/Federer are multiple time slam champs now. And Nadal had to go through them in just about EVERY won of his title wins.


Roddick is a one hit wonder, Agassi was a multiple time slam champ (but was also ailing physically after 2003 and you know it too), etc.


So I fail to capture the idea that most of Nadal's slam wins were against "weak" competition when he had to go through Prime-Peak Federer, Prime Nole and Murray to win them.

Which is better than Prime Roddick/Close to past prime Hewitt/ and wayyy past prime Agassi

 

[Eragon]

Murray (at least he will be)/Nole/Federer are multiple time slam champs now. And Nadal had to go through them in just about EVERY won of his title wins.


Roddick is a one hit wonder, Agassi was a multiple time slam champ (but was also ailing physically after 2003 and you know it too), etc.

Eh? Is Roddick great competition on Clay because he is a Slam Champion? Is Sampras great competition on Clay because he is a 14-time Slam Champion? Just because Federer, Djokovic and Murray are multiple-Slam Champions doesn't mean they were great competition on Clay. I just showed you that Federer faced multiple US Open Champions at the US Open, multiple Australian Open Champions at the Australian Open, and multiple Wimbledon Champions at Wimbledon. Nadal had to face one French Open Champion. That's it. Nadal had weaker competition for 8 of his Slams. Admit it.

 

[monfed]

I'd also like to add that even in his 2011 campaign, he avoided Novak who would've all but beaten him in 3/4 sets in the final. So that's another escape right there.

 

[90's Clay]

Eh? Is Roddick great competition on Clay because he is a Slam Champion? Is Sampras great competition on Clay because he is a 14-time Slam Champion? Just because Federer, Djokovic and Murray are multiple-Slam Champions doesn't mean they were great competition on Clay. I just showed you that Federer faced multiple US Open Champions at the US Open, multiple Australian Open Champions at the Australian Open, and multiple Wimbledon Champions at Wimbledon. Nadal had to face one French Open Champion. That's it. Nadal had weaker competition for 8 of his Slams. Admit it.

Nole and Fed on clay in their primes>>>>Roddick and Hewitt on grass.


Also the title of the thread is misleading, again ALL surfaces need to be taken into account here.

Like I said, Nadal had to go through Fed/Murray/Djoker for probably 90-95 percent of his slams (at least one or two of those guys), while Federer when he amassed his most was going up against Roddick/Hewitt (who have only THREE slams between them) and old brokeback Agassi on his last leg

 

[NatF]

Sorry but Roddick of Wimbledon 04/09 and Hewitt of 04/05 are certainly better than Djokovic on clay, atleast in his FO showings versus Nadal. I'd say they're better than atleast a couple of Federer's showings on clay versus Nadal as well.

 

[RNadal]

Hahaha very good thread...

But no. Just no

 

[monfed]

Djokovic really became a force on clay since 2011 and even in his peak year, Ralph escaped thanks to Fed. Before 2011, Novak didn't do much damage.

 

[Antonio Puente]

How can a draw which includes, supposedly, the greatest player of all time be considered a weak draw? This may be the most unintentionally comical and astonishing thing you see from Fed fans, and it speaks volumes about Fed. No one, and I mean no one, would ever refer to a draw which included Borg, Laver, etc., as weak. If you beat the greatest player ever en route to winning a slam, that should be enough, right? If he's truly the greatest player ever, that is.

 

[Eragon]

Hahaha very good thread...

But no. Just no

Hey, I'm just using the logic of Nadal fans and Sampras fans against Nadal

 

[Crisstti]

Federer is a great claycourter, but he's certainly no match for Nadal on the surface. What amuses me is when The_Order talks about Federer being Nadal's b**** and says Federer can't beat him etc...but apparently Federer was great competition for those 5 FO's they faced off at?

Much better than Roddick, Hewitt, and certainly Baghdatis and González were. Anywhere.

 

[90's Clay]

Sorry but Roddick of Wimbledon 04/09 and Hewitt of 04/05 are certainly better than Djokovic on clay, atleast in his FO showings versus Nadal. I'd say they're better than atleast a couple of Federer's showings on clay versus Nadal as well.

Nada on clay>>>Fed on grass without question .

So the fact that Nole took the most dominant force on one surface in the history of the game to the edge and back.. Speaks volumes IMO. More than Roddick's performance at Wimbeldon 04 and 09

 

[OKUSA]

So, it's agreed Federer is the 2nd best on clay and the best on everything else during his time. Surely he must be the best

 

[monfed]

How can a draw which includes, supposedly, the greatest player of all time be considered a weak draw? This may be the most unintentionally comical and astonishing thing you see from Fed fans, and it speaks volumes about Fed. No one, and I mean no one, would ever refer to a draw which including Borg, Laver, etc., as weak. If you beat the greatest player ever en route to winning a slam, that should be enough, right? If he's truly the greatest player ever, that is.

Dude quite frankly please shut up. Clay is Fed's weakest surface no matter how you slice it and he had never won RG in all the finals Ralph faced cept 2011(but Fed was past his prime). Gamewise, Fed is very easy for Ralph, just hit to BH. Done deal.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Dude quite frankly please shut up. Clay is Fed's weakest surface no matter how you slice it and he had never won RG in all the finals Ralph faced cept 2011. Gamewise, Fed is very easy for Ralph, just hit to BH. Done deal.

Brilliance from Monfed, as expected.

 

[monfed]

Brilliance from Monfed, as expected.

Can you really make that claim when you said H2H cancels out 2 slams? Please let us also know how many other factors H2H cancels out, need some laughs right now. :lol:

 

[90's Clay]

What is all this nonsense.

Roddick couldn't win even ONE damn measly Wimbledon title despite a million tries. (Nole is going to win a few french open titles you can bet on that. And Federer won at the French. ). Roddick never won anything. ROFLMAO

Hewitt's only wimbledon title came during the 2002 crap draw where a 10 year old Nalbandian made the finals.

These two were the main rivals during Fed's "title amassing period".

 

[Eragon]

Nada on clay>>>Fed on grass without question .

So the fact that Nole took the most dominant force on one surface in the history of the game to the edge and back.. Speaks volumes IMO. More than Roddick's performance at Wimbeldon 04 and 09

Oh, shut it. Nadal had to beat 1 single-time French Open Champion. That is it. Djokovic is a 0-time French Open Champion, with just 1 final there.


Federer had to face, from 2003-2007:

Australian Open
Safin - One-time Champion
Djokovic - Four-time Champion
Agassi - Four-time Champion

Wimbledon
Nadal - Two-time Champion
Hewitt - One-time Champion

US Open
Agassi - Two-time Champion
Djokovic - One-time Champion
Roddick - One-time Champion
Hewitt - One-time Champion



Nadal had to face, from 2005-2013:

French Open
Federer - One-time Champion
Moya - One-time Champion (he was 31 and 9 years away from his last Slam Final. Agassi made his last in 2005, so he was far more competitive than Grannie Moya)


It's obvious Nadal had weaker competition :lol:

 

[NatF]

Nada on clay>>>Fed on grass without question .

So the fact that Nole took the most dominant force on one surface in the history of the game to the edge and back.. Speaks volumes IMO. More than Roddick's performance at Wimbeldon 04 and 09

He took him to the edge in 2013 in a very undominant year on clay for Nadal, in a match that Nadal should have won in straights and almost choked away. Federer of Wimbledon 04/09 > Nadal FO 13 all day.

Much better than Roddick, Hewitt, and certainly Baghdatis and González were. Anywhere.

Gonzalez at the AO 07 was in frightening form, what he did before or after is irrelevent. Likewise Baghdatis played very well to get there. He played a better match than Murray during various slam meetings with Nadal.

And sorry but Hewitt and Roddick on grass and hards in 04/05 were much better than 2012 Djokovic on clay.

 

[TMF]

Meaningless in arguing over who's has weak/stronger competition since both Fed and Nadal turned pro in 1998 and 2001 respectively. They face against the same field til this day.

However they both have superior competition than Sampras in the 90s. Agassi who played both in the 90s and in 2000s said it best...

"Every sport that you can measure accomplishments, whether it's how much weight you can lift or how fast you can run or how high you can jump, we've seen athletes get stronger, get better," Agassi said. "I watch these guys play from my living room, and I thank God I don't play anymore."

 

[Towser83]

Murray (at least he will be)/Nole/Federer are multiple time slam champs now. And Nadal had to go through them in just about EVERY won of his title wins.


Roddick is a one hit wonder, Agassi was a multiple time slam champ (but was also ailing physically after 2003 and you know it too), etc.


So I fail to capture the idea that most of Nadal's slam wins were against "weak" competition when he had to go through Prime-Peak Federer, Prime Nole and Murray to win them.

Which is better than Prime Roddick/Close to past prime Hewitt/ and wayyy past prime Agassi

the thing is... Djokovic had to go through either fed or nadal in EVERY single one of his slam wins (at the uso, both) and in addition, Murray 3 times... but you say he only did it when fed and Nadal were past it... but no mention how fed was past it for some of Nadal's wins.

you often say federer beat djokovic when Novak was a baby, but no mention how a lot of Rafa's wins came when Djokovic was a baby too. He's only beaten prime Novak twice at slams, both at RG his best slam, well old Federer has 2 wins over prime novak at 2 different slams and was a point away from doing it at the USO as well. Federer has had to play Novak MORE times in slams overall as well. Also, Fed has beaten Murray 3 times in slams and until recently never lost to him unlike Nadal who lost to Muzza in 2008 the same event when Fed beat him. Fed's one loss was a 5 set match, Nadal got beat in 4 and straights and got taken 5 by baby Murray as well. So Nadal gets credit for beating Murray, but Federer doesn't?

so really you just change it to always put Nadal in the best possible light

 

[Eragon]

Meaningless in arguing over who's has weak/stronger competition since both Fed and Nadal turned pro in 1998 and 2001 respectively. They face against the same field til this day.

However they both have superior competition than Sampras in the 90s. Agassi who played both in the 90s and in 2000s said it best...

Yeah, Sampras played in the weakest era. Imagine playing a qualifier in the semifinals of a Slam? Imagine a Clay-mug like Sampras beating multiple French Open Champions like Bruguera and Courier? What a joke of an era! And to add to that, Sampras's main "competition" (LOL!) was away half the time doing meth :lol:

 

[Eragon]

the thing is... Djokovic had to go through either fed or nadal in EVERY single one of his slam wins (at the uso, both) and in addition, Murray 3 times... but you say he only did it when fed and Nadal were past it... but no mention how fed was past it for some of Nadal's wins.

you often say federer beat djokovic when Novak was a baby, but no mention how a lot of Rafa's wins came when Djokovic was a baby too. He's only beaten prime Novak twice at slams, both at RG his best slam, well old Federer has 2 wins over prime novak at 2 different slams and was a point away from doing it at the USO as well. Federer has had to play Novak MORE times in slams overall as well. Also, Fed has beaten Murray 3 times in slams and until recently never lost to him unlike Nadal who lost to Muzza in 2008 the same event when Fed beat him. Fed's one loss was a 5 set match, Nadal got beat in 4 and straights and got taken 5 by baby Murray as well. So Nadal gets credit for beating Murray, but Federer doesn't?

so really you just change it to always put Nadal in the best possible light

Not for long Wait till Nadal gets to 14.

 

[90's Clay]

Oh, shut it. Nadal had to beat 1 single-time French Open Champion. That is it. Djokovic is a 0-time French Open Champion, with just 1 final there.


Federer had to face, from 2003-2007:

Australian Open
Safin - One-time Champion
Djokovic - Four-time Champion
Agassi - Four-time Champion

Wimbledon
Nadal - Two-time Champion
Hewitt - One-time Champion

US Open
Agassi - Two-time Champion
Djokovic - One-time Champion
Roddick - One-time Champion
Hewitt - One-time Champion



Nadal had to face, from 2005-2013:

French Open
Federer - One-time Champion
Moya - One-time Champion (he was 31 and 9 years away from his last Slam Final. Agassi made his last in 2005, so he was far more competitive than Grannie Moya)


It's obvious Nadal had weaker competition :lol:

BWAHAHAHAHHAHA..

B]Federer had to face, from 2003-2007:

Australian Open
Safin - One-time Champion (Im sorry what did Safin do between 2000 and 2005???
Djokovic - Four-time Champion (What was he 14 years old?)
Agassi - Four-time Champion (34 years old way past his prime)

Wimbledon
Nadal - Two-time Champion (Prime didn't come until 2008)
Hewitt - One-time Champion (Yea and his main wimbledon title came in 2002 via a complete **** draw)

US Open
Agassi - Two-time Champion (And he almost lost to a mid 30s Agassi who was already taking cortisone shots)
Djokovic - One-time Champion ( Before Nole hit his prime)
Roddick - One-time Champion (Good grass player but where is his wimbledon titles?)
Hewitt - One-time Champion (Solid for sure)
[/B]


Nadal had to face, from 2005-2013:

French Open
Federer - One-time Champion (Multi-time finalist and won it once)
Moya - One-time Champion (he was 31 and 9 years away from his last Slam Final. Agassi made his last in 2005, so he was far more competitive than Grannie Moya)


Again.. Why just the French Open are we using for Nadal since you are using ALL surfaces for Fed.

Prime Murray/Nole/Federer to win just about ALL of his slams. Did Federer have to go through Prime Nadal/Murray/Nole to win the majority of his? Nope..

 

[Antonio Puente]

Can you really make that claim when you said H2H cancels out 2 slams?

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, Monfed, but I'll take a stab at it. If Nadal is sitting at 15 slams, owning Fed in the process, Fed will still be considered the undisputed GOAT in your mind only. If you're happy living that particular fantasy, great. More power to you.

 

[monfed]

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, Monfed, but I'll take a stab at it. If Nadal is sitting at 15 slams, owning Fed in the process, Fed will still be considered the undisputed GOAT in your mind only. If you're happy living that particular fantasy, great. More power to you.

Only in your fantasy world does H2H cancel out 2 slams so yea keep fuelling your dumb wet dreams. :lol:

 

[TMF]

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, Monfed, but I'll take a stab at it. If Nadal is sitting at 15 slams, owning Fed in the process, Fed will still be considered the undisputed GOAT in your mind only. If you're happy living that particular fantasy, great. More power to you.

No, I think most people still believe Roger is goat. Saying Nadal gets 15 moves ahead of Roger is like saying Randy Moss moves ahead of Jerry Rice, who owned most of the receiving records(just like Roger owns most of tennis records).

And that is like saying Serena moves ahead of Graf when Graf owns a ton of records.

 

[NatF]

H2h doesn't cancel out slams, weeks at #1 and WTF's.

 

[Eragon]

No, I think most people still believe Roger is goat. Saying Nadal gets 15 moves ahead of Roger is like saying Randy Moss moves ahead of Jerry Rice, who owned most of the receiving records(just like Roger owns most of tennis records).

And that is like saying Serena moves ahead of Graf when Graf owns a ton of records.

H2h doesn't cancel out slams, weeks at #1 and WTF's.

Guys, please don't let the Nadal fans derail the thread. I want their opinions about Nadal's weak competition. It looks like they're trying to digress

 

[Towser83]

Eh? Is Roddick great competition on Clay because he is a Slam Champion? Is Sampras great competition on Clay because he is a 14-time Slam Champion? Just because Federer, Djokovic and Murray are multiple-Slam Champions doesn't mean they were great competition on Clay. I just showed you that Federer faced multiple US Open Champions at the US Open, multiple Australian Open Champions at the Australian Open, and multiple Wimbledon Champions at Wimbledon. Nadal had to face one French Open Champion. That's it. Nadal had weaker competition for 8 of his Slams. Admit it.

To be fair, and this is where you can draw a paralell between Fed and Nadal, there weren't exactly a load of RG champs for Nadal to beat, and being so dominant himself he prevented new RG champs that he could then beat.

Now Nadal fans will be nodding to this, but the nodding willstop the moment you say "well hang on,isn't this a bit like Federer in general? He didn't have a whole load of previous slam champs to take down -unlike Sampras who took advantage of several prior ear players who were past it. He had Safin and Hewitt who he did take down, and he beat Sapras the only time he played and he beat Agassi a few times who is written off because he was old. But Rafter retired before Fed won his first slam, Courier was also retired, Goran the one slam champ also retired... and Federer prevented several players from becoming multiple slam champs themselves"

But on one hand there will be agreement and on the other matter no chance.

How can a draw which includes, supposedly, the greatest player of all time be considered a weak draw? This may be the most unintentionally comical and astonishing thing you see from Fed fans, and it speaks volumes about Fed. No one, and I mean no one, would ever refer to a draw which including Borg, Laver, etc., as weak. If you beat the greatest player ever en route to winning a slam, that should be enough, right? If he's truly the greatest player ever, that is.

Well sounds to me like you want to disregard Fed as the GOAT but not in as many words so you can still use him as such to bolster Nadal's place.Maybe Fed fans have finally said "you're right, Fed is terrible. So what does that say for Nadal?" You can't have it both ways. If Fed is as hopeless vs Nadal as many of his fans say, then you can't say he was tough competition on clay.And really just because he is one of the best of all time it doesn't mean he is a great clay player. In my opinion he's good, but not that much better than someone like Roddick on grass. Really ability wise there's not much in it, just Federer is a more consistant player overall on any surface. A bit like how Nadal is not an amazing HC player but he's so good he can win on anything through his will and consistancy.

 

[Eragon]

To be fair, and this is where you can draw a paralell between Fed and Nadal, there weren't exactly a load of RG champs for Nadal to beat, and being so dominant himself he prevented new RG champs that he could then beat.

That is exactly my point. I don't believe there are any "Weak Eras". I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Nadal and Sampras fans. Nadal didn't face many Roland Garros Champions because he was winning them all. Federer didn't face many Slam Champions because he was winning them all. The hypocrites know that, but won't admit it.

 

[Towser83]

Not for long Wait till Nadal gets to 14.

Oh but 90s caly will still argue the era is weak compared to the 90s, so any praise for Nadal is with that in mind. Nadal can be the GOAT, but still not quite as good as pete who lived in the toughest era ever, facing old Becker, Pioline etc

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, Monfed, but I'll take a stab at it. If Nadal is sitting at 15 slams, owning Fed in the process, Fed will still be considered the undisputed GOAT in your mind only. If you're happy living that particular fantasy, great. More power to you.

Erm no.If that happens, it will be debateable and many people willfallon both sides of the debate. If you think EVERYONE is going to award Nadal the GOAThood if he wins 15 slams, YOU are living in a fantasy.I'm not saying there won't be many people who agree with you, but even if Federer won 20 slams there would still be many who wouldn't consider him the GOATso the same applies for Nadal on 15.

I don't very often agree with Monfed, but there is no official amount of slams Nadal can trail Fed by and still be considered greater, because we are dealing with OPINIONS not facts. A fact is 17 is greater than 15, whether the H2H ownage can make upfor slams and how many is an OPINION. You can't work out a value and prove it. In fact you can't even prove any player is the GOAT, ecause there really isn't a GOAT anyway..

BTW Is Nadal considered by everyone better than Sampras now with 2 slams less?

 

[Towser83]

That is exactly my point. I don't believe there are any "Weak Eras". I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Nadal and Sampras fans. Nadal didn't face many Roland Garros Champions because he was winning them all. Federer didn't face many Slam Champions because he was winning them all. The hypocrites know that, but won't admit it.

yeah. With Nadal it's "oh but he would have won them anyway" but it's never like that with Federer is it?

 

[90's Clay]

That is exactly my point. I don't believe there are any "Weak Eras". I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Nadal and Sampras fans. Nadal didn't face many Roland Garros Champions because he was winning them all. Federer didn't face many Slam Champions because he was winning them all. The hypocrites know that, but won't admit it.

So if you don't believe in "weak eras" I guess the era where Johansson and Gaudio were winning slams is just as strong any other one?


There was "weak"eras and there are "stronger" eras. Nothing is constant. No all eras are the same. Some eras produce more talent than others.

 

[Eragon]

So if you don't believe in "weak eras" I guess the era where Johansson and Gaudio were winning slams is just as strong any other one?


There was "weak"eras and there are "stronger" eras. Nothing is constant. No all eras are the same. Some eras produce more talent than others.

I don't believe in weak eras because it's impossible to prove one era is weaker than the other. It's circular reasoning. And for your information, the "Weak Era Clowns" Hewitt, Roddick and Safin all have winning head-to-heads against "Strong Era God" Sampras :lol:

 

[TMF]

So if you don't believe in "weak eras" I guess the era where Johansson and Gaudio were winning slams is just as strong any other one?


There was "weak"eras and there are "stronger" eras. Nothing is constant. No all eras are the same. Some eras produce more talent than others.

I don't believe in weak eras because it's impossible to prove one era is weaker than the other. It's circular reasoning. And for your information, the "Weak Era Clowns" Hewitt, Roddick and Safin all have winning head-to-heads against "Strong Era God" Sampras :lol:

Yes, it's true that we can't prove which generation was stronger because none of us play on the pro tour. However, players like Bjorkman, Santoro, Henman and especially Agassi who played against prime Sampras and Federer knows what the level of competition was like. Since they have experience of the 90s and the 2000s playing field, their opinions are backup.

 

[90's Clay]

Right. So we can't prove an era consisting of Agassi/Sampras/Courier/Goran or Fed/Nadal/Murray/Nole is better than during transitional eras of Hewitt/Gaudio/Johansson etc.

ROFLMAO



Certain eras you are going to get better players than other.

They don't call the 80s for instance the "golden era" of tennis for nothing. Mostly because there was more talent on tour at that time then ANY other time in the history of the game

 

[Steffi-forever]

Yes, it's true that we can't prove which generation was stronger because none of us play on the pro tour. However, players like Bjorkman, Santoro, Henman and especially Agassi who played against prime Sampras and Federer knows what the level of competition was like. Since they have experience of the 90s and the 2000s playing field, their opinions are backup.

I think it was in 2008 in Australia that Santoro said after Fed thrashed him that he was the only player who can do that to him.

 

[Eragon]

Right. So we can't prove an era consisting of Agassi/Sampras/Courier/Goran or Fed/Nadal/Murray/Nole is better than during transitional eras of Hewitt/Gaudio/Johansson etc.

ROFLMAO

Prove it, then. Let's see what you got.

 

[Clarky21]

I think it was in 2008 in Australia that Santoro said after Fed thrashed him that he was the only player who can do that to him.

But I thought Fed was on life support he was so ill with mono that year. Lol.