Nadal won most of his Slams against Weak Competition

90's Clay

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

Prove it??

So you want to compare Gaudio/ Johnasson's career to Nole/Murray/Nadals for instance?? Or do you want to compare talent level?

Or do you want to compare Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalbandian's career achievements and/or time on top to Murray/Nole/Nadal??

I think the proof is in the pudding


What barometer would you like to use?
 

Eragon

Banned
Prove it??

So you want to compare Gaudio/ Johnasson's career to Nole/Murray/Nadals for instance?? Or do you want to compare talent level?

I think the proof is in the pudding

Prove it whichever way you like. If you're gonna use results to "prove" it, I can prove Federer > Sampras on every surface except Carpets. If you're gonna use head-to-heads to "prove" it, I can prove Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Federer > Sampras. You lose, either way :lol:
 

90's Clay

Banned
Prove it whichever way you like. If you're gonna use results to "prove" it, I can prove Federer > Sampras on every surface except Carpets. If you're gonna use head-to-heads to "prove" it, I can prove Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Federer > Sampras. You lose, either way :lol:

No you can prove prime Hewitt, Roddick, Safin with h2h over OLD Past prime Sampras at the end of his career. You sure as hell can't prove anything other than not as far as h2h is concerned

I can also prove Sampras whipped on Roddick/Safin, and Hewitt at the USO as well.
 

Eragon

Banned
No you can prove prime Hewitt, Roddick, Safin with h2h over OLD Past prime Sampras at the end of his career. You sure as hell can't prove anything other than not as far as h2h is concerned

I can also prove Sampras whipped on Roddick/Safin, and Hewitt at the USO as well.

Fact is, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Federer all have positive head-to-heads against Sampras. But that comes later, let's hear your "proof" for 2003-2007 being weaker than Sampras's era. Go on :lol:
 

90's Clay

Banned
Fact is, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Federer all have positive head-to-heads against Sampras. But that comes later, let's hear your "proof" for 2003-2007 being weaker than Sampras's era. Go on :lol:

Federer at the end of his career is suffering the same fate vs. younger guys (except these guys aren't 10 years YOUNGER than Fed like Hewitt/Roddick/Safin were to Sampras) they are only 5 years younger

Fact is, the older guard gets old and starts suffering losses to younger guys.. Thats the natural order of things in tennis.

I'm arguing with a clueless goofball here.
 

Eragon

Banned
Federer at the end of his career is suffering the same fate vs. younger guys (except these guys aren't 10 years YOUNGER than Fed like Hewitt/Roddick/Safin were to Sampras) they are only 5 years younger

We digress. First, let's hear your "proof" :)
 

Eragon

Banned
What "proof" would you like to show that Johansson or Gaudio (who won slams during the early 00's) aren't up to par with the top guys now or the top guys before??

Will you stop beating around the bush? You said you could "prove" it. Do it. Any way you like, go on.
 

Steffi-forever

Hall of Fame
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.

The only way to find your place in the history book is with your records, not head-to-head or peak play.
 

Eragon

Banned
Nope you were right. I was taking the **** out of certain Fed fans here(monfed, abmk) who think Fed was near death that year with mono, and never fail to bring it up if at all possible.

Just like how you think Nadal was walking on chicken legs at RG 2009?
 

Eragon

Banned
If he has a "second best" on his checklist, then he's not the best.

Laver never won WCT, the 4th biggest tournament of his time. He's not even 2nd best, he's much worse :lol: Not to mention, Laver has just 14 Majors. 9 of which were won in a draw of 10/12. LOL!
 

Steffi-forever

Hall of Fame
Nope you were right. I was taking the **** out of certain Fed fans here(monfed, abmk) who think Fed was near death that year with mono, and never fail to bring it up if at all possible.

Well I don't do that for anyone. If you play, you're supposed to be fine.

The downfall of Fed in 2008 was normal to me. It's simply not possible to win little slam and 10+ titles every year in your prime. Actually, no one in history of tennis has won more 2 consecutive little slam.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If he has a "second best" on his checklist, then he's not the best.

There's 3 surfaces and since Roger is the greatest on grass and hardcourt, but belongs in the top 10 greatest clay courter of all time, that's more than you can ask.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Laver never won WCT, the 4th biggest tournament of his time. He's not even 2nd best, he's much worse :lol: Not to mention, Laver has just 14 Majors. 9 of which were won in a draw of 10/12. LOL!

Laver is not even consider the goat on anyone of the 3 surfaces. But Roger is the goat on hard court and arguably the goat on grass.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
There's 3 surfaces and since Roger is the greatest on grass and hardcourt, but belongs in the top 10 greatest clay courter of all time, that's more than you can ask.

The person I responded to referred to him as the best. Logically, being 2nd best anywhere prevents the former from being true.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
some facts say they were not mugs. read my previous post for one of them. and actually they are better than today's berdych and tsonga and to some extent del potro
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
It's easy with 90's Clay :lol:

it is because he provides it all himself, you can just quote 2 posts of his and make him look a fool. That;s because he only operates on making his statements fit a scenario where sampras is the greatest player ever. He doesn't have any integrity in what he posts, it's all concieved to fit a bigger purpose
 

Eragon

Banned
it is because he provides it all himself, you can just quote 2 posts of his and make him look a fool. That;s because he only operates on making his statements fit a scenario where sampras is the greatest player ever. He doesn't have any integrity in what he posts, it's all concieved to fit a bigger purpose

Here's another logic loop he always jumps through.

Ivanisevic is greater than Roddick on Grass, because he has a Wimbledon title, he says.
But when I say Federer has 6 WTF titles to Sampras's 5, I am a "close (sic) minded idiot" because stats don't tell the whole story :lol:
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
This topic :lol:

weak competition
Well, I could agree, since he beat Federer 5 times in the FO :lol:

Federer = weak competition :lol:

Well done Eragon !
 

Eragon

Banned
This topic :lol:

weak competition
Well, I could agree, since he beat Federer 5 times in the FO

Federer = weak competition

Well done Eragon !

Yeah, Nadal's biggest competition was from Federer, a 1-time Champion whose worst surface happens to be Clay :lol: What a weak era of Clay Nadal won Slams in :)
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, Nadal's biggest competition was from Federer, a 1-time Champion whose worst surface happens to be Clay :lol: What a weak era of Clay Nadal won Slams in :)

Federer is still the GOAT
bananes036.gif
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Nadal's clay competition has won barely any French Opens because Nadal has won them all himself.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
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.

like many insecure Fed-fans, you intentionally misconstrue context.

No, there are no weak eras or time spans in a global, open sport where champions have the chance to earn great wealth and fame. However, there are most certainly weaker eras or time spans as compared to one another. to deny that is out-right foolishness!

as, i believe, the first poster to point this out about some of Federer's era (mainly 2004-07); I will be happy to further explain it to you if needed...
 

Eragon

Banned
Federer is still the GOAT
bananes036.gif

Not on Clay. According to our learned Scholars from the Sampras-Nadal fans Association, Federer is a mug on Clay, who doesn't have a backhand, is a mental wreck, and a joke of a competitor who got to the French finals by beating college-level players along the way.
 

Eragon

Banned
like many insecure Fed-fans, you intentionally misconstrue context.

No, there are no weak eras or time spans in a global, open sport where champions have the chance to earn great wealth and fame. However, there are most certainly weaker eras or time spans as compared to one another. to deny that is out-right foolishness!

as, i believe, the first poster to point this out about some of Federer's era (mainly 2004-07); I will be happy to further explain it to you if needed...

Prove 2003-2007 was weaker than the 90s. Or now. Prove it, or admit you are the fool.
 
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
Get on your knees and pray to your tennis gods, defend them and create hate filled threads in order to stir up the infidels
 
S

SuperHead

Guest
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, ;)

Well done, Eragon, my boy. Couldn't agree more. :)
 

90's Clay

Banned
Prove 2003-2007 was weaker than the 90s. Or now. Prove it, or admit you are the fool.

Edberg (6 time champ) at the end of his prime but still a top 2-3 player by the early 90s), Becker (6 time champ)at the end of his prime, Courier (4 time champ and in his prime the first half of the 90s), Agassi (8 time champ in his prime the first half of the 90s and followed that back up in 1999 playing PEAK tennis), Goran (One of the best grass court players of the last 15-20 years), Muster (Peak on clay could challenge anyone in history), Rafter (2 time champ and also whipped Fed in the h2h and was an extremely great attacker and in his prime in the late 90s) Bruguera (2 time French OPen champ) Kafelnikov (2 time champ)

Compared to.

2000's

Roddick (one time champ), Hewitt (2 time champ), Agassi (wayy past his prime), Nadal (Didn't reach true prime until 2008 AFTER Fed's), Nole and Murray (didn't reach their primes until AFTER 2010 when Fed had already broken the record), Nalbandian (NO time champ), Davydenko (NO time champ), Safin (2 time champ)


90s were superior HANDS DOWN
 

Eragon

Banned
Edberg (6 time champ) at the end of his prime but still a top 2-3 player by the early 90s), Becker (6 time champ)at the end of his prime, Courier (4 time champ), Agassi (8 time champ), Goran (One of the best grass court players of the last 15-20 years), Muster (Peak on clay could challenge anyone in history), Rafter (2 time champ and also whipped Fed in the h2h and was an extremely great attacker) Bruguera (2 time French OPen champ) Kafelnikov (2 time champ)

Compared to.

2000's

Roddick (one time champ), Hewitt (2 time champ), Agassi (wayy past his prime), Nadal (Didn't reach true prime until 2008 AFTER Fed's), Nole and Murray (didn't reach their primes until AFTER 2010 when Fed had already broken the record)


90s were superior HANDS DOWN


Federer - Sampras
17 - 14
302 - 286
6 - 5
21 - 11
Career Slam - No Career Slam
Roland Garros Champion - Mug on Clay

Federer is superior, hands down :)
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Do you consider 2003-2007 "weak"?

At the 2005 French Open, Nadal beat Ferrer a lot easier than what he managed in Rome that year. Nadal also beat Federer, and a Puerta who failed a drug test after the final.

At the 2006 French Open, Nadal is pushed hard by Mathieu and Hewitt, and comes back from a breadstick set down to beat Federer in 4 sets.

At the 2007 French Open, Nadal beats Hewitt, Moya, Djokovic and Federer in succession.

Yeah, very weak :confused:
 

Eragon

Banned
At the 2005 French Open, Nadal beat Ferrer a lot easier than what he managed in Rome that year. Nadal also beat Federer, and a Puerta who failed a drug test after the final.

At the 2006 French Open, Nadal is pushed hard by Mathieu and Hewitt, and comes back from a breadstick set down to beat Federer in 4 sets.

At the 2007 French Open, Nadal beats Hewitt, Moya, Djokovic and Federer in succession.

Yeah, very weak :confused:

So you're saying Nadal played "tough Claycourters" but Federer had it easy from 2003-2007?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
So you're saying Nadal played "tough Claycourters" but Federer had it easy from 2003-2007?

Why don't you tell us all who Nadal "should have" faced? And when did I say anything about Federer's competition from 2003 to 2007?
 

Eragon

Banned
And as I already showed with INFERIOR competition from 2003-2007. ROFLMAO

And as I already stated, Roddick, Hewitt, Old-Agassi, Safin had tougher competition than Becker and Edberg did. These guys had to play Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray. Becker and Edberg had to play mug-on-Clay-and-only-14-Slams-Sampras. Federer > Sampras, so Roddick, Hewitt, Safin had tougher competition, so they have fewer Slams than Becker and Edberg :)

Also, Becker and Edberg are from a different generation. If you're gonna count them, you have to count Nadal, Djokovic and Murray too. Hypocrite!
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
So you're saying Nadal played "tough Claycourters" but Federer had it easy from 2003-2007?

I think your thread sums it up all.

RF played in a weak era

So did RN.

The big difference is RN still playing the next 4 years so he'll had faced real competition for longer time ;) hence the 17 slams of RF, 12 from RN so far ;)
 

90's Clay

Banned
And as I already stated, Roddick, Hewitt, Old-Agassi, Safin had tougher competition than Becker and Edberg did. These guys had to play Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray. Becker and Edberg had to play mug-on-Clay-and-only-14-Slams-Sampras. Federer > Sampras, so Roddick, Hewitt, Safin had tougher competition, so they have fewer Slams than Becker and Edberg :)



Huh?? Becker, Edberg played their primes in the 80s (The highly regarded golden age of tennis). I don't remember anyone calling the 00's as such. I have heard people call the 2010's golden era but certainly not the 2000s.

Mac, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Connors, Lendl>>> Freakin Roddick, Hewitt, Fed, Safin, Nalbandian, Baby Nadal for a top 5-6

Hell the 2000s were so weak, Agassi with a bad back was a able to muster huge wins over guys TEN YEARS younger than him. As was Sampras right before he retired
 

Eragon

Banned
Huh?? Becker, Edberg played their primes in the 80s (The highly regarded golden age of tennis). I don't remember anyone calling the 00's as such. I have heard people call the 2010's golden era but certainly not the 2000s.

Mac, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Connors, Lendl>>> Freakin Roddick, Hewitt, Fed, Safin, Nalbandian, Baby Nadal for a top 5-6

Federer - Sampras
17 - 14
302 - 286
6 - 5
21 - 11
Career Slam - No Career Slam
Roland Garros Champion - Mug on Clay

Federer is superior, hands down :)

I proved Federer > Sampras, just like you proved 1990s>2000s :)
 

Eragon

Banned
What's the definition of weak?

I'm not sure. You need to ask the Sampras and Nadal fans that, who insist Federer only won all those Slams from 2003-2007 because he played in a "weak era". I am of the opinion that if Federer's competition from 2003-2007 was "weak", Nadal's competition at Roland Garros was even "weaker".
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
this entire thread shows that everyone including Fed-fans find that 04-07 was weaker (or at least plausibly weaker) than other time spans. at first the idea was summarily dismissed or ignored, now fedephants clamor to debunk such a premise revealing vast insecurity...

thanks to the OP for the support...
 
Top