Nadal's last 12 slams

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
At Slams Nadal did it best? How? He hasn't won Wimbledon since 2010.

Yeah but when he won, he knocked off prime Federer... not old man Rogi...

AO09: def #2 Federer (27 yo)
RG12: def #1 Djokovic (25 yo)
WIM08: def #1 Federer (26 yo)
US13: def #1 Djokovic (26 yo)

That's what he was talking about...
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
It doesn't matter who he knocked off at all. He was relevant in 2008 10 13 17 19 22.

Too far apart and too few to compare to the GOAT.

Also clay clay clay clay clay clay
He is clay king I get it but so boring it's too boring man I don't want to see another clay win for him ever which luckily we won't.

So old Rafa beating even older fed in 2008 is now some old tale. It's been 15 years now.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Nadal's first and only multi slam year came in federer's supposed peak then. This guy has tailgated on those 1/2 slam wins vs Federer way back in 2000s until this day and his fans did the same. Instead of staying in real time, they always went back to 2008 and made up stories.

That's how nadal's supposed peak in Wimbledon even eclipsed Djokovic's in mind of the rafans. This guy Nadal, the lefty spinner, had huge advantage over Federer match up wise and still barely defeated Federer in 1 final. But he WAS built like some unstoppable force for a decade. It is good that he kept getting exposed in 2010s.

2012 vs rosol
13 vs darcis
14 vs kyrgios
15 vs brown
17 vs muller

It was a sight to behold every year seeing these upsets.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Yeah but when he won, he knocked off prime Federer... not old man Rogi...

AO09: def #2 Federer (27 yo)
RG12: def #1 Djokovic (25 yo)
WIM08: def #1 Federer (26 yo)
US13: def #1 Djokovic (26 yo)

That's what he was talking about...
He still hasn't won it in going on 14 years. Living off glory from one win doesn't mean he did it best. His Wimbledon winning years only lasted for 2 years (2008-2010), while Djokovic's was 11 years.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
He still hasn't won it in going on 14 years. Living off glory from one win doesn't mean he did it best. His Wimbledon winning years only lasted for 2 years (2008-2010), while Djokovic's was 11 years.

Yep... count the years Djok didn't win but exclude Nadal's...

fwiw, Rafa was in Wimbledon winning form in 06, 07, 11 and 18 as well...

Reality is, Djok couldn't beat Fed at Wimbledon until Fed was 32... with a 6 year age advantage...
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nadal's first and only multi slam year came in federer's supposed peak then. This guy has tailgated on those 1/2 slam wins vs Federer way back in 2000s until this day and his fans did the same. Instead of staying in real time, they always went back to 2008 and made up stories.

That's how nadal's supposed peak in Wimbledon even eclipsed Djokovic's in mind of the rafans. This guy Nadal, the lefty spinner, had huge advantage over Federer match up wise and still barely defeated Federer in 1 final. But he WAS built like some unstoppable force for a decade. It is good that he kept getting exposed in 2010s.

2012 vs rosol
13 vs darcis
14 vs kyrgios
15 vs brown
17 vs muller

It was a sight to behold every year seeing these upsets.
Lol put that work in bestie :D
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Yep... count the years Djok didn't win but exclude Nadal's...

fwiw, Rafa was in Wimbledon winning form in 06, 07, 11 and 18 as well...

Reality is, Djok couldn't beat Fed at Wimbledon until Fed was 32... with a 6 year age advantage...
He played Federer 1 time. Was a 4 set match just like nadal's 2019. Stop trying to portray like he lost to Roger 10 times before.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
I meant overall while the big 3 were all playing.
The big 3 all played at the same time for 9 and a half years after his last Wimbledon win though. The person that did it best at Slams would be winning all 4 at least somewhat closer together throughout their 20 year career, correct?
 
The big 3 all played at the same time for 9 and a half years after his last Wimbledon win though. The person that did it best at Slams would be winning all 4 at least somewhat closer together throughout their 20 year career, correct?
There are 4 slams. If you are placing more emphasis on wimbledon than the others fair enough but if so then rank the slams in ordsr of importance. Im amazed professionals are never asked this queztion hut i guess in this era and society any comment could be deemed offensive.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
There are 4 slams. If you are placing more emphasis on wimbledon than the others fair enough but if so then rank the slams in ordsr of importance. Im amazed professionals are never asked this queztion hut i guess in this era and society any comment could be deemed offensive.
I think Wimbledon is the most important Slam and then the others because of its history, but I feel they all have equal weight in the 21st century. I'm talking about that one because of how long it's been since he won it.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
Because 2 years is nothing in grand scheme of things. 2 years is absolutely nothing.
But it is though. Since nadal was last competitive at a slam (22 rg), Djokovic has won 4 freebie slams, 22 W, 23 AO/RG/USO vs non existent competition to take him from 2 slams behind to 2 in front. Context is needed.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
But it is though. Since nadal was last competitive at a slam (22 rg), Djokovic has won 4 freebie slams, 22 W, 23 AO/RG/USO vs non existent competition to take him from 2 slams behind to 2 in front. Context is needed.
Context doesn't compute ;)

marcin-blaszczak-as-gl-n-02.jpg
 
I think Wimbledon is the most important Slam and then the others because of its history, but I feel they all have equal weight in the 21st century. I'm talking about that one because of how long it's been since he won it.
So are ypu adding extra points for more recent wins? Sort of like they do in cricket in the test championship and fifa world rankings?
Personally i think if a player wins a major twice he is an atg there. Has nothing to prove. One slam is different as that could be a fluke.
 
Top