Beats winning a tournament with only 8 players where you can win by losing 2 matches, no?
Yes, for now. Except when they play each other.
These guys don't seriously think about retooling their games until they have a bad decline. Fed did it first - he's the oldest. Nadal was next. Novak may do the same thing.
And Nadal was forced to change most by Djokovic. Could Djokovic's change be a response to Federer's AO success, thus closing the beautiful circle of GOAT life?
He's the only one capable of doing it, Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil. The only one.Nadal won't change that in the future, Rusty.
Not really. I feel RG and Wimbledon are just as important. USO and AO by virtue of being 2 slams on HC are not as important. It is common sense.
Actually, I think that is pretty much what is happening, except that right now we are also (probably) looking at some changes in Nadal's game for future games against Fed. And I think that everyone has to take notice of what Stan has changed. He is still VERY dangerous on clay.And Nadal was forced to change most by Djokovic. Could Djokovic's change be a response to Federer's AO success, thus closing the beautiful circle of GOAT life?
Tell that to Borg and Nadal. Natural surfaces is where it's at. That's why the Channel Slam is the hardest feat in tennis. Anyone can play on HC. Even Baghdatis and Philippousis can play HC Slam finals.
Nadal beat Fed at RG and Wimbledon back to back in 2008. That must have hurt a lot. Then again on HC at AO09. LOL
What you said. Don't forget Olympic Singles gold too. And for those who say it doesn't matter Djoker bawled like a baby after he lost because it meant so much to him and he wanted to get the gold. Happens once very four years.Well, "two different sets of conditions" for Borg means grass and clay, which indeed is impressive. HC and grass? PFFFFF.
How many players have won 9 mayors in the same event, PLUS the Career Grand Slam?
RG and Wimbledon are most important. As you said there are two HC slams. Only one clay and grass.
Solid comeback.
2008 was the year where Federer had a record of 7-6 record against non-Rafa top 10 players (7-10 including Rafa) compared to 2007's 17-4 (including Rafa) and Fed started losing to players he mostly beat like Roddick, Fish, Blake, Karlovic, etc on HCs and on grass Fed didn't face a single top 20 player(s) before facing Rafa that year. Federer was definitely in his prime but there was a clear dip in form that year.
Goes both ways. Every great player benefits from previous greats' decline. Many had benefitted from Fed's own decline and Fed had to change racquet in late 2013 to keep up with the tour but you don't mention that.
Using the same argument, please tell me how many Wimbledons and USOs would Roddick end up with if not for Federer? How many HC slams would Hewitt and Safin end up with if not for the same player? How many slams would Murray end up with before his maiden USO victory in 2012? You're cherrypicking arguments here without mentioning the whole picture to suit your own agenda
And of course, he doesn't mention that Nadal had won the majority of his slams before Djoker reached his prime2008 was the year where Federer had a record of 7-6 record against non-Rafa top 10 players (7-10 including Rafa) compared to 2007's 17-4 (including Rafa) and Fed started losing to players he mostly beat like Roddick, Fish, Blake, Karlovic, etc on HCs and on grass Fed didn't face a single top 20 player(s) before facing Rafa that year. Federer was definitely in his prime but there was a clear dip in form that year.
You say Rafa wasn't in his prime on grass back in '06/'07? So was Rafa in prime when, at 26, he lost to Rosol, at 27 he lost to Darcis and so on?
Goes both ways. Every great player benefits from previous greats' decline. Many had benefitted from Fed's own decline and Fed had to change racquet in late 2013 to keep up with the tour but you don't mention that.
Using the same argument, please tell me how many Wimbledons and USOs would Roddick end up with if not for Federer? How many HC slams would Hewitt and Safin end up with if not for the same player? How many slams would Murray end up with before his maiden USO victory in 2012? You're cherrypicking arguments here without mentioning the whole picture to suit your own agenda
If Federer faced 1 or 2 times slam champions during his domination period then so did Nadal during his domination on clay (1 time RG champion and that too "lucky" in Nadal's fan words). Soderling must be the GOAT for taking out prime Rafa then at his own backyard
Btw, I don't believe any player has played in a "weak era". Some of them are top heavy while some have more depth. Every player has its own no. 1, no. 2. and so on and there is NO objective way of comparing eras. All competition debates are highly subjective in nature.
Everyone knows Federer is the superior talent.Nadal beat Fed at RG and Wimbledon back to back in 2008. That must have hurt a lot. Then again on HC at AO09. LOL
The only reason Nadal doesn't have 20 slams right now is injury.
Nadal has beaten Fed in Wimbledon and AO Finals, but Fed will never, ever beat Nadal at RG.
True GOATs defend their domain against their rivals.
Nadal has 5 slams on grass and HC, Fed 1 (lucky one) on clay. Of course you don't like clay.
Slams are the only 1st Tier Tournament, and Nadal has 14 of those. Yet he is 6th? I believe it would be better to talk about Open Era and not All Time, since tennis is a radically different sport before and after the Open Era.
8 is only marginally bigger than 5. However, 23 is much larger than 14. Nevermind the slam H2H, which is risible. Fed has only beaten Nadal in slam finals 3 times. LOL. He can't be GOAT with that resume.
Out of interest Rusty, which players do you consider to be greater than Nadal, both Open Era and all time?
So does Nadal winning 30 masters 1000 count for nothing? Remember these tournaments are incredibly hard to win. In the last 5 years no one outside the big 4 has won more than 1 of these titles.
This is not math, Djokovic2011. I don't feel saying Player A > Player B is right most of the times when talking about different eras (specially pre Open Era). I think Sampras, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, and Gonzales from the ones I know are comparable to Nadal, even if many of them were very different. What do you think in that way, except using Djokovic as the measure? Probably around the same, right?
Djokovic achieved the Career Grand Slam much later than Nadal, and against pathetic competition. And if you value Novak's NCYGS, then you have to notice Nadal does have a CGS and Sampras doesn't. Sampras was a fast court player who couldn't compete against clay specialists. Nadal not only is the best clay player of all time, but he beat the best in Wimbledon, the AO, and the USO Finals. The fact anyone can even think Sampras is superior to Nadal, when Nadal is clearly more rounded, boggles the mind. I attribute it to the Fed fanbois that keep pumping up Wimbledon / USO in detriment of RG because they can't deal with the fact Fed only won 1 lucky slam there.
I think Djokovic is certainly comparable to Nadal, Sampras, Borg, and Rosewall(in terms of overall achievements) - Laver and Gonzales not so much although I agree that it's difficult to compare great champions from different eras due to all the huge changes we've seen in the sport over the years.
Hahaha, he's my favourite player Phoenix, not my hero
Effortless minimizing of Djokovic's, Federer's and Sampras' achievements all at once. I admire this talent of yours.
