Nadal won most of his Slams against Weak Competition

[Incognito]

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?

No, he is not.

Even though Nadal has won 8 FO in 9 attempts, there are some who claim he is not the GOAT on clay (you're one example) simply because of weak opponents. The same applies to Federer. That's fair, unless you claim a 1-dimensional moonballing clay courter is a legitimate player on grass..

 

[The_Order]

LOL Nadal beat Fed in a grass major, a HC major and numerous times on clay.

Fed only scraped past baby Rafa on grass, his best major LOL.

As for this crap about Rafa facing weak opponents, hahahaha, you've just made a massive fool of yourself.

Federer, Novak and Soderling at RG are all tougher than Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi ever were.

Roger's AO wins in particular are rubbish nobody was anywhere near the threat that Fed, Novak or Sod were at RG.

Eragon is just another delusional *******...

EDIT: BTW thanks to a recent thread, it has been revealed that Nadal is the only player in history to have faced, and defeated 5 slam champions in a single draw at a major. Now this includes not being a major champion at the time but being an eventual champion as well. The fact that this occured in RG07 shows how weak his draws were.

Del Potro
Hewitt
Moya
Djokovic
Federer

All in one draw. Really weak, Rafa should've got a draw with an easy first round opponent in Federer, Soderling in the second round, Novak in the third, Llendl 4th, Decugis QF, Guga in the semi's and Borg in the final. The sad thing for Fed fans is Nadal would probably still get through a draw like that and win it :grin:

 

[Eragon]

No, he is not.

Even though Nadal has won 8 FO in 9 attempts, there are some who claim he is not the GOAT on clay (you're one example) simply because of weak opponents. The same applies to Federer. That's fair, unless you claim a 1-dimensional moonballing clay courter is a legitimate player on grass..

You need to get your head checked if you think I was serious with the OP.

 

[Eragon]

LOL Nadal beat Fed in a grass major, a HC major and numerous times on clay.

Fed only scraped past baby Rafa on grass, his best major LOL.

As for this crap about Rafa facing weak opponents, hahahaha, you've just made a massive fool of yourself.

Federer, Novak and Soderling at RG are all tougher than Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi ever were.

Roger's AO wins in particular are rubbish nobody was anywhere near the threat that Fed, Novak or Sod were at RG.

Eragon is just another delusional *******...

EDIT: BTW thanks to a recent thread, it has been revealed that Nadal is the only player in history to have faced, and defeated 5 slam champions in a single draw at a major. Now this includes not being a major champion at the time but being an eventual champion as well. The fact that this occured in RG07 shows how weak his draws were.

Del Potro
Hewitt
Moya
Djokovic
Federer

All in one draw. Really weak, Rafa should've got a draw with an easy first round opponent in Federer, Soderling in the second round, Novak in the third, Llendl 4th, Decugis QF, Guga in the semi's and Borg in the final. The sad thing for Fed fans is Nadal would probably still get through a draw like that and win it :grin:

Your post is a massive bunch of butthurt. I used your own logic against you, The_Odor. If Federer had weak competition in his earlier days, Nadal has had weaker competition on Clay. I have illustrated with some facts about the number of former Slam Champions each has faced at each Slam :lol: Come up with something sensible, troll. You probably won't, though.

 

[Eragon]

Yeah just like Federer 7-time champion in 2013, with immense experience on the surface, lost to Stakovsky..:shock:

If Federer beats Nadal, Nadal was too young. If he beats Sampras, Sampras was too old. If he beats Djokovic, Djokovic was too young. If he beats Agassi, Agassi was too old. If he beats Murray, Murray was too young :lol: That's the logic of all of you clowns.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Nadal has won the most slams vs the toughest competition, which has been after 07 until now. He has won a whopping 9 slams in that period vs the tougher competition, while Joker has won 6, Federer 5 (most or all when Nadal was injured), and Murray 2.

 

[adil1972]

OP are you serious, both fed and nadal and djokovic and murray are great players

 

[kalyan4fedever]

OP has a point, Considering Federer is a 1 time RG champion and Djokovic is 0 time champion, and federer is the one who rafa beat consistently to continuously rack up the RG slam 1 after the other !, so it is not far of a stretch to say that rafa thrived a very weak competition...Either this or he is completely a beast on clay (but soderling defeated him)

 

[Sentinel]

True dat. Ralph won all his slams when Fred was playing with an under-sized racquet.

 

[MichaelNadal]

My thoughts exactly

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

OP has a point, Considering Federer is a 1 time RG champion and Djokovic is 0 time champion

You perfectly know Djokovic will get at least 1 or 2 FO.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Nadal has won the most slams vs the toughest competition, which has been after 07 until now. He has won a whopping 9 slams in that period vs the tougher competition, while Joker has won 6, Federer 5 (most or all when Nadal was injured), and Murray 2.

Well thanx for this post, the OP seriously needs to stop trolling :lol:

 

[The_Order]

Your post is a massive bunch of butthurt. I used your own logic against you, The_Odor. If Federer had weak competition in his earlier days, Nadal has had weaker competition on Clay. I have illustrated with some facts about the number of former Slam Champions each has faced at each Slam :lol: Come up with something sensible, troll. You probably won't, though.

Everything I said was sensible, it's just that you have no rebuttal except crap like trying to mock usernames LOL, I could do that to you too, but I won't because I'm the true sensible one here.

If anyone truly thinks that Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi on HC or grass is tougher to beat than Federer, Novak and Soderling on clay, they're delusional. The pattern is only the federinas like yourself believe this to be the case. The conclusion is that federinas are delusional. Congratulations.

 

[FlyingAce]

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

Actually during Fed's prime, let's say till 2010, Novak was 1 slam wonder himself and Andy was just a mug. It is only when Fed declined they started to show something. So for example if Fed somehow managed to stay at that level, they would've still been like Roddick, Hewit and Safin.
And if you will say Fed dominated tham only because they were in a baby phase, than Nadal was doing the same. When Novak 2.0 arrived it was obvious that Novak>>Nadal and now even Andy will be a big problem for Nadal on any surface except clay. Novak became an all time great during Nadal's watch don't forget about it.

 

[Magnetite]

Looks like he beat a lot of good players in those lists.

Not sure what you are smoking.

 

[Eragon]

Looks like he beat a lot of good players in those lists.

Not sure what you are smoking.

The only player among them with notable Claycourt pedigree is Federer, whose worst surface is Clay. You're the one who's smoking.

 

[Eragon]

Nadal has won the most slams vs the toughest competition, which has been after 07 until now. He has won a whopping 9 slams in that period vs the tougher competition, while Joker has won 6, Federer 5 (most or all when Nadal was injured), and Murray 2.

Nadal won 8 of his Slams against Clown competitors on Clay. I've given you the facts and figures, it's not even an opinion anymore. If Federer dominated a weak era, Nadal dominated a Clown-Weak Clay Era.

 

[Eragon]

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

59-1 Record at the French is truly amazing..... However not so amazing when you look at his clay comp since 2005.

WHen Federer is the 2nd best clay courter of the era that says it all. (A guy that couldn't even measure up to a plastic hip Guga on clay)

There has been no true clay greats on clay since the very early 2000's


Lets see Nadal pull a record like that out playing in an era with Rosewall or Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Vilas, and later on with Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten etc.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7619471&postcount=82

 

[mike danny]

Actually during Fed's prime, let's say till 2010, Novak was 1 slam wonder himself and Andy was just a mug. It is only when Fed declined they started to show something. So for example if Fed somehow managed to stay at that level, they would've still been like Roddick, Hewit and Safin.
And if you will say Fed dominated tham only because they were in a baby phase, than Nadal was doing the same. When Novak 2.0 arrived it was obvious that Novak>>Nadal and now even Andy will be a big problem for Nadal on any surface except clay. Novak became an all time great during Nadal's watch don't forget about it.

exactly. both federer and nadal dominated in a weak era. novak was a 1 slam wonder and andy was slamless. now that nadal is facing better competition he stopped winning off clay

 

[monfed]

In his trance of bashing Fed, 90sClud loses track of his own views, often ending up contradicting himself.

 

[Eragon]

Everything I said was sensible, it's just that you have no rebuttal except crap like trying to mock usernames LOL, I could do that to you too, but I won't because I'm the true sensible one here.

If anyone truly thinks that Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi on HC or grass is tougher to beat than Federer, Novak and Soderling on clay, they're delusional. The pattern is only the federinas like yourself believe this to be the case. The conclusion is that federinas are delusional. Congratulations.

All 8 of Nadal's French Open titles came against complete Clowns with absolutely no Claycourt credentials and pedigree of note. The only exception is Federer, whose worst surface is Clay and he's Nadal's "whipping boy" according to you :lol: So all 8 of those Slams mean nothing. Nadal won Wimbledon in 2010 against freaking Berdych! LOL! And the US Open 2010 title came when he beat Youzhny in the semifinals (LOL!) and a gassed Djokovic 1.0 (who was coming off a 5-setter in the semifinal) that had almost no wins against top 10 players that year. That's another two Slams that don't count. So, all in all, Nadal has 2 slams that actually count. LOL! Just 2! :lol:

 

[Anaconda]

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

Get real!


10 char.

 

[mike danny]

Everything I said was sensible, it's just that you have no rebuttal except crap like trying to mock usernames LOL, I could do that to you too, but I won't because I'm the true sensible one here.

If anyone truly thinks that Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi on HC or grass is tougher to beat than Federer, Novak and Soderling on clay, they're delusional. The pattern is only the federinas like yourself believe this to be the case. The conclusion is that federinas are delusional. Congratulations.

The_Order: facts say davydenko and roddick are leading nadal and djokovic since they were in their 20' s. they cannot be that bad. why didn't djokovic and nadal dominate them as well if they were that bad? federer barely lost to these guys. why did nadal and djoko lost more often than won?

this is why the weak era thing has no support. those 2 mugs should not be leading the h2h with the strong era guys

 

[Start da Game]

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

pretty much this.......fediva lovers, you won't be able to sell this argument to many people.......at least accept defeat with dignity.......

 

[mike danny]

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

90's clay you have some flaws: you put becker in as sampras' s competition at wimby. it is true he has a better resume than hewitt and roddick. but he won his slams before sampras hit his prime. after that no more slams for mr. becker. the same with hewitt and roddick. hewitt won his 2 slams before federer ascended. roddick as well started winning majors before this. who is to say they would not have won more slams without federer? i am pretty sure they would. they were both great players in 2004-2005. federer robbed them from a lot of opportunities. the same thing sampras did to becker. he never kissed another wimby with sampras around. why is he strong comp i fail to understand.

and it is foolish to include edberg since they have never met at wimby and he has never beaten edberg in a slam in 2 tries

 

[Eragon]

pretty much this.......fediva lovers, you won't be able to sell this argument to many people.......at least accept defeat with dignity.......

59-1 Record at the French is truly amazing..... However not so amazing when you look at his clay comp since 2005.

WHen Federer is the 2nd best clay courter of the era that says it all. (A guy that couldn't even measure up to a plastic hip Guga on clay)

There has been no true clay greats on clay since the very early 2000's


Lets see Nadal pull a record like that out playing in an era with Rosewall or Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Vilas, and later on with Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten etc.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7619471&postcount=82



PS- That's a post from 90's Clay. The guy you just agreed with :lol:

 

[Eragon]

90's clay you have some flaws: you put becker in as sampras' s competition at wimby. it is true he has a better resume than hewitt and roddick. but he won his slams before sampras hit his prime. after that no more slams for mr. becker. the same with hewitt and roddick. hewitt won his 2 slams before federer ascended. roddick as well started winning majors before this. who is to say they would not have won more slams without federer? i am pretty sure they would. they were both great players in 2004-2005. federer robbed them from a lot of opportunities. the same thing sampras did to becker. he never kissed another wimby with sampras around. why is he strong comp i fail to understand.

and it is foolish to include edberg since they have never met at wimby and he has never beaten edberg in a slam in 2 tries

The usual hypocrisy. He doesn't count Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro as Federer's competition but he includes Becker and even Edberg (LOL!) as Sampras's competition :lol:

 

[Candide]

Everything I said was sensible, it's just that you have no rebuttal except crap like trying to mock usernames LOL, I could do that to you too, but I won't because I'm the true sensible one here.

If anyone truly thinks that Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi on HC or grass is tougher to beat than Federer, Novak and Soderling on clay, they're delusional. The pattern is only the federinas like yourself believe this to be the case. The conclusion is that federinas are delusional. Congratulations.

News flash genius: people who think "LOL" equates with repartee are not 'sensible', neither are they, witty, incisive or possibly even literate. Otherwise you're doing great.

 

[mike danny]

The usual hypocrisy. He doesn't count Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro as Federer's competition but he includes Becker and even Edberg (LOL!) as Sampras's competition :lol:

i love the nadal fanboys logic: federer is nadal's turkey but when it comes to nadal winning slams against him he is one of the greatest and tough competition. also federer was beating on weak mugs and babies but they fail to realise nadal was doing exactly the same. djokovic was a baby for fed but when it came to nadal beating him he is one of the all-time greats and his toughest competition. murray as well.

such hypocrisy....when they both played against the exact same field. nadal is lucky federer was reaching french finals otherwise weak era for the bull as well. even if federer defeated him at the french they would say nadal was baby it does not count.

 

[Eragon]

i love the nadal fanboys logic: federer is nadal's turkey but when it comes to nadal winning slams against him he is one of the greatest and tough competition. also federer was beating on weak mugs and babies but they fail to realise nadal was doing exactly the same. djokovic was a baby for fed but when it came to nadal beating him he is one of the all-time greats and his toughest competition. murray as well.

such hypocrisy....when they both played against the exact same field. nadal is lucky federer was reaching french finals otherwise weak era for the bull as well. even if federer defeated him at the french they would say nadal was baby it does not count.

When Federer beats Nadal at Wimbledon, Nadal was apparently a baby in diapers, despite already being a 2-time Slam Champion. When Nadal beats 30 year-old ******* at the French and the Australian Open, STRONG ERA! :lol:

 

[NatF]

Hewitt and Roddick on grass in 04 >> Djokovic and Federer in 07/08 on clay for sure. Together they certainly equal Federer in 06 too IMO.

 

[mike danny]

what i see is 16-13 and 6-5
also 9-11 and 3-1.
how nadal played in a different era is beyond me.
stupid logic....

 

[Phoenix1983]

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

..in which case, there is no GOAT in men's tennis, since no man has ever been the greatest on all surfaces in their era.

And it's fine if you believe there is no GOAT. However, I have been led to believe that you consider Laver the GOAT, but by your own criteria, he cannot be, since Rosewall was a better clay-courter than him (not as great a clay-courter as Nadal, but greater than Laver for sure).

 

[DRII]

LOL Nadal beat Fed in a grass major, a HC major and numerous times on clay.

Fed only scraped past baby Rafa on grass, his best major LOL.

As for this crap about Rafa facing weak opponents, hahahaha, you've just made a massive fool of yourself.

Federer, Novak and Soderling at RG are all tougher than Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi ever were.

Roger's AO wins in particular are rubbish nobody was anywhere near the threat that Fed, Novak or Sod were at RG.

Eragon is just another delusional *******...

EDIT: BTW thanks to a recent thread, it has been revealed that Nadal is the only player in history to have faced, and defeated 5 slam champions in a single draw at a major. Now this includes not being a major champion at the time but being an eventual champion as well. The fact that this occured in RG07 shows how weak his draws were.

Del Potro
Hewitt
Moya
Djokovic
Federer

All in one draw. Really weak, Rafa should've got a draw with an easy first round opponent in Federer, Soderling in the second round, Novak in the third, Llendl 4th, Decugis QF, Guga in the semi's and Borg in the final. The sad thing for Fed fans is Nadal would probably still get through a draw like that and win it :grin:

logic hurts...

 

[Eragon]

..in which case, there is no GOAT in men's tennis, since no man has ever been the greatest on all surfaces in their era.

And it's fine if you believe there is no GOAT. However, I have been led to believe that you consider Laver the GOAT, but by your own criteria, he cannot be, since Rosewall was a better clay-courter than him (not as great a clay-courter as Nadal, but greater than Laver for sure).

Laver is also second to Rosewall on Indoor Carpets, considering he never won a WCT title (although he does have 5 Indoor Majors). In comparison, Federer has 6 WTF titles. So:

Federer > Laver on Grass
Federer > Laver on Hards
Federer > Laver Indoors
Federer = Laver on Clay (although Federer has way more finals at the French Open)

*Federer and Laver both have one Claycourt Major

 

[DRII]

You perfectly know Djokovic will get at least 1 or 2 FO.

if Nadal is injured or ailing; then yes...

 

[Towser83]

if Nadal is injured or ailing; then yes...

the old "Nadal can only be beaten if injured" line. And they call Federer fans arrogant! Lol. claiming a player can only lose because of injury is the most arrogant statement ever. you will maybe learn about a biological process called aging, which brings a ever increasing loss of speed, stamina and concentration.

 

[The_Order]

All 8 of Nadal's French Open titles came against complete Clowns with absolutely no Claycourt credentials and pedigree of note. The only exception is Federer, whose worst surface is Clay and he's Nadal's "whipping boy" according to you :lol: So all 8 of those Slams mean nothing. Nadal won Wimbledon in 2010 against freaking Berdych! LOL! And the US Open 2010 title came when he beat Youzhny in the semifinals (LOL!) and a gassed Djokovic 1.0 (who was coming off a 5-setter in the semifinal) that had almost no wins against top 10 players that year. That's another two Slams that don't count. So, all in all, Nadal has 2 slams that actually count. LOL! Just 2! :lol:

Yeah, I see the light now, thanks for showing it to me. Really, Nadal's crap on clay, he's so lucky.

And coupled with his easy non clay slam draws, he's amongst the worst players to have ever reached #1 ranking.

He's also lucky that Federer is so weak and easy to beat at the majors...

 

[Eragon]

Yeah, I see the light now, thanks for showing it to me. Really, Nadal's crap on clay, he's so lucky.

And coupled with his easy non clay slam draws, he's amongst the worst players to have ever reached #1 ranking.

He's also lucky that Federer is so weak and easy to beat at the majors...

Good, good! You've finally accepted your own line of reasoning Federer dominated in a Weak Era and Nadal dominated an even Weaker, absolute Clown of a Clay Era.

 

[The_Order]

The_Order: facts say davydenko and roddick are leading nadal and djokovic since they were in their 20' s. they cannot be that bad. why didn't djokovic and nadal dominate them as well if they were that bad? federer barely lost to these guys. why did nadal and djoko lost more often than won?

this is why the weak era thing has no support. those 2 mugs should not be leading the h2h with the strong era guys

First of all, I didn't say they were weak, I said they were weaker. If you honestly think Davydenko is just as dangerous in majors as Federer, Djokovic & Soderling at RG you're delusional.

Nadal and Novak are much tougher opponents at the majors than Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi.

Roddick became a bit of a pusher, his movement nowhere near their level, his BH not as good, his FH not as good at around 2005.

Hewitt always got too defensive whenever he got the lead in matches. He was inconsistent, his FH rubbish compared to Nadal's and overall not as good.

Old Agassi's movement was not great.

Those 3 could never turn defence into offence like Nadal and Novak. This adds pressure to Fed's groundstrokes and he feels like he has to go for more, causing him to generate errors.

 

[The_Order]

Good, good! You've finally accepted your own line of reasoning Federer dominated in a Weak Era and Nadal dominated an even Weaker, absolute Clown of a Clay Era.

Yeah I know! Thanks savoir!

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

if Nadal is injured or ailing; then yes...

i don't see why Djokovic would not be able to beat a healthy Nadal at the French :shock: anyone who knows a bit about tennis, knows he is a way bigger threat to Nadal than Roger used to be

 

[TMF]

Yeah, I see the light now, thanks for showing it to me. Really, Nadal's crap on clay, he's so lucky.

And coupled with his easy non clay slam draws, he's amongst the worst players to have ever reached #1 ranking.

He's also lucky that Federer is so weak and easy to beat at the majors...

Well if you have convinced yourself that Fed had weak competition(which only coming from Fed detractors) then you have to accept that Nadal is playing even in a weaker clay field.

I see you're getting a taste of your own medicine.

 

[Eragon]

First of all, I didn't say they were weak, I said they were weaker. If you honestly think Davydenko is just as dangerous in majors as Federer, Djokovic & Soderling at RG you're delusional.

Nadal and Novak are much tougher opponents at the majors than Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi.

Roddick became a bit of a pusher, his movement nowhere near their level, his BH not as good, his FH not as good at around 2005.

Hewitt always got too defensive whenever he got the lead in matches. He was inconsistent, his FH rubbish compared to Nadal's and overall not as good.

Old Agassi's movement was not great.

Those 3 could never turn defence into offence like Nadal and Novak. This adds pressure to Fed's groundstrokes and he feels like he has to go for more, causing him to generate errors.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Blake, and old-Agassi are better than Tomic, Raonic, Dimitrov etc. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have it easier than Federer did. All 4 have to contend with the rest of the top 4 so don't pretend only Nadal had competition from Djokovic and Murray :roll:

 

[The_Order]

Well if you have convinced yourself that Fed had weak competition(which only coming from Fed detractors) then you have to accept that Nadal is playing even in a weaker clay field.

I see you're getting a taste of your own medicine.

Actually no, Sampras fans agree with me as well as other Rafa fans as well as Laver fans. Only Fed fans agree with you. So the majority must be right as per your rule correct? :grin:

 

[The_Order]

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Blake, and old-Agassi are better than Tomic, Raonic, Dimitrov etc. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have it easier than Federer did. All 4 have to contend with the rest of the top 4 so don't pretend only Nadal had competition from Djokovic and Murray :roll:

Quality over quantity pal. It's easier to get through a couple of decent players than it is to get through a really tough player.

Only blind people can't see that Nadal, Novak, Federer and Murray have far more complete games than the guys you mentioned.

 

[NatF]

Murray and Djokovic have only had complete games consistantly for the last 2-3 years. Nadal won most of his slams in the same weak era as Federer. And on clay he had less competition than Federer did during his dominance.

 

[TMF]

Actually no, Sampras fans agree with me as well as other Rafa fans as well as Laver fans. Only Fed fans agree with you. So the majority must be right as per your rule correct? :grin:

Sampras fans jump on Nadal's bandwagon because they don't like Federer after breaking many of Pete's records. Had Nadal won 17 slams and 302 weeks at #1, rest assure they would jump on Fed's bandwagon to disparage Nadal.

 

[Eragon]

Actually no, Sampras fans agree with me as well as other Rafa fans as well as Laver fans. Only Fed fans agree with you. So the majority must be right as per your rule correct? :grin:

Um, over 50% of the people consider Federer the GOAT. You are free to make a poll to substantiate my claim (which you know is true)

 

[DRII]

Murray and Djokovic have only had complete games consistantly for the last 2-3 years. Nadal won most of his slams in the same weak era as Federer. And on clay he had less competition than Federer did during his dominance.

so you just disregard Nadal's dismantling and dominance over Federer (the GOAT in your mind) even as a baby

sure thing...