Nadal won most of his Slams against Weak Competition
- Thread starter Eragon
- Start date
Eragon
Banned
You haven't yet proved that one era can be weaker than any other. Unless you do it, you are the fool, I'm afraid.
Eragon
Banned
Which is exactly the point of this thread. No era can be proved to be weak, it's all circular reasoning. Thank you very much.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
when you win so much it is obvious the others will win less. hewitt and roddick would have won much more without fed and would be considered great players. becker and edberg won most of their slams before facing sampras. becker never won another wimbledon after sampras reached his prime just like roddick for ex stopped winning slams after fed hit his stride.
and you cannot use edberg as sampras's competition. he never defeated edberg in a major and they barely met twice.
and you cannot use edberg as sampras's competition. he never defeated edberg in a major and they barely met twice.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
therefore becker is weak comp because he could not beat sampras in a major after he hit his prime. it is exactly what happened with hewitt and roddick. they won slams before fed hit his stride. who is to say they would not have won more without fed? they sure as heck would have won at least 3 more slams each
Incognito
Legend
Yeah, that weak era champion Nadal has been very opportunistic his whole career on clay. Federer is truly the only great champion we have because he only had to compete against legendary grass courter in the form of .....I can't name anyone now, but he only had to face true titans on grass in winning his 7 wimbledons..
Steffi-forever
Hall of Fame
I saw that match live, just amazing!
Eragon
Banned
Having to face Nadal (2-time Champion), Hewitt (1-time Champion), Djokovic (1-time Champion), Murray (1-time Champion) at Wimbledon is better than having to face... Federer on his worst surface :lol:
Heck, Federer even faced and beat 4-time defending Champion Sampras at Wimbledon!
Mustard
Bionic Poster
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Easily one of the greatest matches of all time.
Clarky21
Banned
Sampras. Yes, old and way past his prime Sampras is who Fed fans will say Fed beat at Wimby which proves how tough his grass court competition was. In reality, the only player Fed had to contend with at Wimby was, according to many Fed fans, a one dimensional, moonballing, dirtballing, Spanish topspin monkey. Doesn't say much for fed's grass competition does it?:lol:
Steffi-forever
Hall of Fame
Which one?
Hannover! I thought the crowd was very indulgent toward Pete.
90's Clay
Banned
Well.. The two years Fed did post wins over Nadal at wimbledon, Nadal was still learning his game off of clay.
What was it.. 2006 Wimbledon was Nadal's 4th or 5th grass court tournament EVER?
2007 Nadal improved by a lot but it took some major choke age by Nadal there at the end to prevail
What was it.. 2006 Wimbledon was Nadal's 4th or 5th grass court tournament EVER?
2007 Nadal improved by a lot but it took some major choke age by Nadal there at the end to prevail
DRII
G.O.A.T.
and you and other insecure fedephants have not proved that all eras/timespans are exactly the same
, which you never will because any sane person knows that impossible!so who's the fool?
the only proof I need are my eyes and judgement...
Eragon
Banned
What about 2001? I'm sure Sampras, a 7-time Wimbledon Champion and 4-time defending Champion, had already learned his game on Grass. And he lost to Federer :shock:
Eragon
Banned
and you and other insecure fedephants have not proved that all eras/timespans are exactly the same
so who's the fool?
the only proof I need are my eyes and judgement...
I never said all eras are "equal". I said it's impossible to prove. You're the guy that said it was possible to "prove" it. And now you're saying it's not. So, I ask again: who's the fool?
Last edited:
90's Clay
Banned
Obviously but by then Pete was slowing down. Was taken to 5 sets in one of the earlier rounds that year by a no namer. Fed lost to a no namer too this year ya know:shock:
Eragon
Banned
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
DRII
G.O.A.T.
I never said anything about proof! Its impossible to prove anything that requires subjective discerning, which is the crutch that people like you lean on all the time...
Eragon
Banned
So am I to understand that you have no proof that 2003-2007 is weaker than the 1990s? And that you're talking out of your rear when you say Federer played against weak era clowns? Good, that's settled.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
it is just a matter of opinion. just because you say fed' s era was weak does not mean you are right. it is purely subjective
Omega_7000
Legend
Nadal fans:
When talking about Nadal's competition: Federer is the greatest of all time
When talking about Federer's competition: Federer is just the result of a clown era.
Hypocrisy at it's best!
When talking about Nadal's competition: Federer is the greatest of all time
When talking about Federer's competition: Federer is just the result of a clown era.
Hypocrisy at it's best!
DRII
G.O.A.T.
first off, i never said anything about weak era clowns! your hyperbole is just another sign of insecurity.
and like I said, I don not have 'proof' that 04-07 was a weaker time span in terms of competition than other time frames (pretty much all recent except 01-03, and most certainly weaker than 08-12); what i have is judgment, which you are clearly lacking...
DRII
G.O.A.T.
duh!
and again, if you're going to malign my opinion I suggest you at least state it correctly!
Eragon
Banned
You called me a fool for saying 2003-2007 wasn't weak. And now you're saying have no proof for your claim. I ask again: who is the fool?
DRII
G.O.A.T.
you and the exaggerations!
I suggest you re-read my post.
here you go: "However, there are most certainly weaker eras or time spans as compared to one another. to deny that is out-right foolishness!"
I said its foolish to claim, as many fedephants do, that all era/time-spans are the same in order to try and falsely protect their demigod's legacy! He needs no protection...
Eragon
Banned
That's an irrelevant post. The point of this thread is that Nadal won 8 of his Slams against Court Jesters and weakass Clowns.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
there have certainly been weaker eras like the one marcelo rios was no.1 in or 2001-2003. believe me these 2 in particular have been far worse than 2004-2007
Eragon
Banned
Or how about the time when the biggest competition for a certain American (who was a mug on Clay) was another American who was off the tour doing meth?
Talk about a Clown Era
OKUSA
Hall of Fame
Fact is that only Federer and Nadal have been dominate at Roland Garros in the last 10 years. You might be able to argue Soderling, but other than those 3 nobody else has multiple RG finals. There was only three other players that actually have multiple SF (Djokovic, Ferrer, and Davydenko)
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
I guess then Federer is weak ? Ok if you say so . I'll take that deal .
Boy that's biting your nose to spite your face if I've ever seen it .
Boy that's biting your nose to spite your face if I've ever seen it .
Eragon
Banned
Yes, Federer is a clown on Clay. So Nadal's French Open titles are meaningless. Because Quality > Quantity, right?
On the other hand, Federer played Strong Opponents at the French Open (Nadal, Kuerten, Moya), Australian Open (Djokovic, Agassi, Safin, Nadal), US Open (Agassi, Djokovic, Roddick, Murray, Hewitt, Del Potro) and Wimbledon (Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt), unlike Nadal at the French Open (Federer). So Federer has 8 Strong Era Slams (not counting 2003-2006. He faced Nadal, Nadal, and Djokovic in 3 Slam finals in 2007 so Strong Era) compared to Nadal's 4 Strong Era Slams.
8 > 4
Federer > Nadal
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
Yes, Federer is a clown on Clay. So Nadal's French Open titles are meaningless. Because Quality > Quantity, right?
On the other hand, Federer played Strong Opponents at the French Open (Nadal, Kuerten, Moya), Australian Open (Djokovic, Agassi, Safin, Nadal), US Open (Agassi, Djokovic, Roddick, Murray, Hewitt, Del Potro) and Wimbledon (Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt), unlike Nadal at the French Open (Federer). So Federer has 8 Strong Era Slams (not counting 2003-2006. He faced Nadal, Nadal, and Djokovic in 3 Slam finals in 2007 so Strong Era) compared to Nadal's 4 Strong Era Slams.
8 > 4
Federer > Nadal
Ok ill take that offer!
lets follow your line of logic . Federer is a "clown " on clay ....so he just got lucky to get a french because Nadal wasn't there .
Which means he doesn't have all the surfaces and cannot be goat. Good argument !
It's a deal
Eragon
Banned
Ok ill take that offer!
lets follow your line of logic . Federer is a "clown " on clay ....so he just got lucky to get a french because Nadal wasn't there .
Which means he doesn't have all the surfaces and cannot be goat. Good argument !
It's a deal
Doesn't matter if Federer is a clown; he has the French. You can't take that away from him no matter how much you whine and snivel :lol:
So what is the point of this thread since the only thing that matters to you are results? This statement contradicts the implication of your own thread title.
Eragon
Banned
Yes, the only thing that matters is results. I'm agreeable to that. So Federer is the GOAT. Right? But no, Nadal and Sampras fanboy-Scholars have decreed that Federer amassed all his Slams in a Weak Era by beating Weak Era Clowns
So I'm following their logic and came to the conclusion that 8 of Nadal's 12 Slams have come against Clowns and that they don't count. Do you see now?
Last edited:
Federer may or may not have amassed his slams in a weak era, but his sheer consistency of beating almost any and everyone in order to win slams is what makes him the best....simply because he rarely had off days against inferior opponents while other greats did.
If you individually inserted 10 of the all-time best tennis players in the toughest era in tennis history and compared their results, it's likely that Federer would come out on top. By a slim margin or by a large margin I don't know.
But that's clearly debatable since it's purely speculative.
If you individually inserted 10 of the all-time best tennis players in the toughest era in tennis history and compared their results, it's likely that Federer would come out on top. By a slim margin or by a large margin I don't know.
But that's clearly debatable since it's purely speculative.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Well said---but that is the Olympian level of self-destruction employed by the Federer Fringe: they want to tear down Nadal, yet fail to realize that it hurts Federer's pockmarked record.
You cannot write such doomed set ups like that.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Is this the same as saying that this a weak era?
moonballs
Hall of Fame
Logically? Lol.
Best = nobody is better
It is different from being as good as a tennis player can ever be, or perfect.
Clay lover
Legend
He doesn't win against past champions because the past champions are no good to compete in RG anymore? What does the supposed "weak field" seem like to you now?
Also, there are no past champions because Nadal doesn't let anyone become past champions.
Also, there are no past champions because Nadal doesn't let anyone become past champions.
moonballs
Hall of Fame
That's exactly the point: if Federer is weak then Nadal literally has nothing to show for his achievement.
It is obvious the OP is very much a tongue in cheek post solely to show logical fallacies in weak era nonsense. Only Nadal fans can't see the obvious.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You are missing the point, if the member admits Federer holds what is a 2nd best standing, that instantly removes him being painted with the broad "best" label. In other words, someone else is better.
90's Clay
Banned
2005- Beat Fed to win the french
2006- Beat Fed to win the French
2007- Beat Fed to win the french
2008- Beat Fed to win the French and Wimbledon
2009-Beat Fed to win the AO
2010- Beat Soderling, Murray, and Djoker to win 3 slams
2011- Beat Fed to win the French
2012- Beat Nole to win the French
2013- Beat Nole to win the French thus far.
I would say thats more impressive and a cast of character than a lot of the guys Fed beat to win the good majority of his slams in the 00's.
Fed/Nole/Murray overrall have showed more worth than Roddick/Hewitt don't ya think?
Why is this even a comparison. Nadal has beaten the 3 BEST Players of the modern era (post Sampras/Agasso) to win damn near ALL of his slams. Fed did not.
/Thread
2006- Beat Fed to win the French
2007- Beat Fed to win the french
2008- Beat Fed to win the French and Wimbledon
2009-Beat Fed to win the AO
2010- Beat Soderling, Murray, and Djoker to win 3 slams
2011- Beat Fed to win the French
2012- Beat Nole to win the French
2013- Beat Nole to win the French thus far.
I would say thats more impressive and a cast of character than a lot of the guys Fed beat to win the good majority of his slams in the 00's.
Fed/Nole/Murray overrall have showed more worth than Roddick/Hewitt don't ya think?
Why is this even a comparison. Nadal has beaten the 3 BEST Players of the modern era (post Sampras/Agasso) to win damn near ALL of his slams. Fed did not.
/Thread
Last edited:
Death Master
Banned
Incognito
Legend
lol Nadal? the 1 dimensional moonballing claycourter on grass? You should be ashamed of bringing him up as legitimate grass player. lost to rosol and darcis lol.
Hewitt..please..
Djokovic on grass is like an elephant on skates on grass..
Murray? you mean chokerray?
Nice, then Henman shat all over him in the next round, which speaks volumes of how below par Sampras played. At least Sampras won his wimbledon in a field of super aggressive attackers and baseliners, whereas Federer had to play only pushers like Nadal who beat him too lol.
Death Master
Banned
I think eragon is doping.
it has ruined his ability to reason.
it has ruined his ability to reason.
Incognito
Legend
Yeah just like Federer 7-time champion in 2013, with immense experience on the surface, lost to Stakovsky..:shock:
storypeddler
Semi-Pro
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,
ROFL. No, not even close. This would only be better if we knew Roger was paying you to post this drivel.
Similar threads
