Rafa Nadal is the best tennis player to ever live

Djokovic2011 said:
No you didn't. You decided to act like a child just because someone said something you disagreed with(heaven forbid on an internet forum). That throwing your toys out the pram look isn't very befitting of a supposedly grown up man.
Click to expand...
Aw, poor baby upset because I went against his boy. I don't have time for these shennanigans, take your own advice and grow up.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
This is hilarious coming from someone who constantly acts like a baby that's just had his candy confiscated whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about Lleyton bloody Hewitt. :D
Click to expand...

The David Ferrer of the ealy 2000's, The Weakest Era in Tennis History
icon_twisted.gif
 
clayqueen said:
Are you suggesting that only tennis pros should have an opinion? Non of us here are tennis pros and we feel we are entitled to have an opinion.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about pros? This is at least a tennis forum. Good that you recognise it is an opinion though...
 
TennisFan2017 said:
It's plain fact that Federer fans can't handle. Since 2007 Nadal and Djokovic are ahead of Federer on every level.
Click to expand...

1. Tennis didn't start in 2007. 2. But I'll play along. Not quite. Fed has 3 Wimbledons since 2007. 1 more than Nadal, tied with Djokovic. 3. He has 2 USOs. Same as Nadal. 3 AO 2 more than Nadal. How is that ahead of him on every level?

What next? Since 2008? Since 2010? You should cherry pick some more to make Fed look even worse!

TennisFan2017 said:
please could you elaborate how every Federer loss is irrelevant? I mean how does that work exactly? Lmao.

I love Federer but I just deal in facts. On hard court Nadal and Djokovic are better than Federer. However the problem for Federer is on clay. He is so inferior that he simply can't have any claim to being ahea of either.
Click to expand...

The only irrelevant losses are those which occured when Fed was 30-35 years old, playing prime 25-29 year old Nadal and Djokovic. They don't indicate anything like which player is better at a particular event. Especially seeing as Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Fed during his actual prime at any HC slam between 04-08.

Federer owned peak Djokovic in 2011 RG when he himself was past his prime, and they're 3-3 on clay. They're also 17-17 on HCs despite the vast majority of these matches being once Fed was past his best, and he also leads 10-8 in HC GS wins, and is way ahead in overall HC titles. Federer is better than Djokovic on HCs. He's WAY better than Nadal on HCs. I don't even need to dissect that ridiculous statement LOL.

The only player who is better than Fed since 2005, is Nadal on clay. That's it. Djokovic has been better on slow HC too, but they hardly met there during Fed's prime so we don't know how the H2H would have went.
 
Sabratha said:
Really? So that's why he has 5 USO trophies to Djokovic's 2 and 5 AOs to Djokovic's 6? Don't mention M1000 tournaments either or I will think it is a joke.
Click to expand...
Well, since 2007, Djokovic has acheieved more than Fed, which is true.

But he was supposed to, since he is younger. Of course, TennisFan 2017 is a Fed hater, so he fails to aknowledge that.
 
He's like the only player of note I haven't watched live yet. Always withdraws from the tournaments I visit (usually indoor hardcourts ones so why am I never surprised).
 
KINGROGER said:
1. Tennis didn't start in 2007. 2. But I'll play along. Not quite. Fed has 3 Wimbledons since 2007. 1 more than Nadal, tied with Djokovic. 3. He has 2 USOs. Same as Nadal. 3 AO 2 more than Nadal. How is that ahead of him on every level?

What next? Since 2008? Since 2010? You should cherry pick some more to make Fed look even worse!



The only irrelevant losses are those which occured when Fed was 30-35 years old, playing prime 25-29 year old Nadal and Djokovic. They don't indicate anything like which player is better at a particular event. Especially seeing as Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Fed during his actual prime at any HC slam between 04-08.

Federer owned peak Djokovic in 2011 RG when he himself was past his prime, and they're 3-3 on clay. They're also 17-17 on HCs despite the vast majority of these matches being once Fed was past his best, and he also leads 10-8 in HC GS wins, and is way ahead in overall HC titles. Federer is better than Djokovic on HCs. He's WAY better than Nadal on HCs. I don't even need to dissect that ridiculous statement LOL.

The only player who is better than Fed since 2005, is Nadal on clay. That's it. Djokovic has been better on slow HC too, but they hardly met there during Fed's prime so we don't know how the H2H would have went.
Click to expand...
While a player is professional all losses are relevant unless injury is an issue like nadal at ao 2014 and 2011.

If Federer wants to make excuses well, further proof that he is a long way behind Nadal and Djokovic in terms of goathood. They don't spout such nonsense that 5 years is a free ride lol.
 
TennisFan2017 said:
Do the maths. In last decade Federer has a lot less majors and masters 1000 plus an inferior h2h.

Only argument for Federer is that maybe his level 2003-2006 was higher than Nadal and Djokovic ever hit but that is very hard to establish
Click to expand...

Arguments are career performance in Slams, WTF, Masters 1000, and total weeks at #1 (at least for this era). Anyone who says differently has an agenda.
 
TennisFan2017 said:
While a player is professional all losses are relevant unless injury is an issue like nadal at ao 2014 and 2011.

If Federer wants to make excuses well, further proof that he is a long way behind Nadal and Djokovic in terms of goathood. They don't spout such nonsense that 5 years is a free ride lol.
Click to expand...

Fed losing AO SF aged 31-33 to Nadal in 2012 and 2014 actually proves his superiority as a player. Reason being young Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Fed at any HC slam between 04-08 but since 04-17 Fed has been making at least 1 SF every year and many finals, wins etc.
 
KINGROGER said:
Fed losing AO SF aged 31-33 to Nadal in 2012 and 2014 actually proves his superiority as a player. Reason being young Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Fed at any HC slam between 04-08 but since 04-17 Fed has been making at least 1 SF every year and many finals, wins etc.
Click to expand...
Bend it, shake it any way you want it.
 
FACT: Nadal has stopped tennis from being a one man show by challenging fed and Novak
whether that equals him being Goat I don't know but it has certainly made him "THE GUY"
 
Tatenda said:
FACT: Nadal has stopped tennis from being a one man show by challenging fed and Novak
whether that equals him being Goat I don't know but it has certainly made him "THE GUY"
Click to expand...

Your point gives quite an interesting insight into the thinking of some people.

I can understand saying this about Nadal in regard to Federer since Federer came on the scene earlier etc.

To say that about Nadal in regard to Djokovic, however, is odd as Nadal became a force long before Djokovic and, if anything, Djokovic stopped Nadal from being a dominant force on tour.

:cool:
 
Now i'm seriously reading the article.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete)
Great start, very impartial

(...)

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:
Honestly, how can this guy call himself a journalist?

First argument: Head to Head.

Then

"he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima", What the actual ****? "La Decima" literally means "The tenth" in spanish, winning 10 majors is a feat known as "winning 10 majors". Whatever he tried to say in that sentence is wrong either by ignorance or imbecility.

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

I mean, any serious person shouldn't even get that far in the "article", but this part is beyond ridiculous, as it shows a severe lack of knowledge from the so-called "writer". I've seen better reasoning from some of the 15 year old girls on this board.
 
Nadal's la decima will be immortal record.

Federer's best records IMO are
1. 5 year end #1
2. 18+ slams (whatever # of slams Federer ends his career with)

I predict 18+ slams open era record will be broken easily within 10 years.

If homogenized surfaces stay same, we will see players with 20+ slams, about once a decade. That is my prediction.
 
ultradr said:
Nadal's la decima will be immortal record.

Federer's best records IMO are
1. 5 year end #1
2. 18+ slams (whatever # of slams Federer ends his career with)

I predict 18+ slams open era record will be broken easily within 10 years.

If homogenized surfaces stay same, we will see players with 20+ slams, about once a decade. That is my prediction.
Click to expand...
So you give no weight to Fed's 237 consecutive weeks at no. 1, nor to his at least five majors each on three of four slams
 
ultradr said:
Nadal's la decima will be immortal record.

Federer's best records IMO are
1. 5 year end #1
2. 18+ slams (whatever # of slams Federer ends his career with)

I predict 18+ slams open era record will be broken easily within 10 years.

If homogenized surfaces stay same, we will see players with 20+ slams, about once a decade. That is my prediction.
Click to expand...
also no weight to his record 6 World Tour Finals?
 
pame said:
So you give no weight to Fed's 237 consecutive weeks at no. 1, nor to his at least five majors each on three of four slams
Click to expand...

Most of Federer's records are insane.

It will take a monster of a player to match his consistency and even he will probably have to benefit from some change in the rules.

Nadal has done it on one surface, creating insane records of his own, but what Federer did across all surfaces is something else.

:cool:
 
Nadal is the best player ever? Uh no, he is the best clay court player ever. On other surfaces Federer is king. He has a better record, more titles, more consistency (sf record) more weeks at number 1, and time will tell but probably more longevity. It appears he is the greatest in the eyes of most pro players as well. At least by the number of comments from them that I have personally seen on tv.
Besides anyone who spouts off all the time about one player being the greatest with such a closed mind, I have to tell you that you are embarrassing yourself. You might want to stop. People on here are laughing at you. It is kind of sad.
 
gplracer said:
Nadal is the best player ever? Uh no, he is the best clay court player ever. On other surfaces Federer is king. He has a better record, more titles, more consistency (sf record) more weeks at number 1, and time will tell but probably more longevity. It appears he is the greatest in the eyes of most pro players as well. At least by the number of comments from them that I have personally seen on tv.
Besides anyone who spouts off all the time about one player being the greatest with such a closed mind, I have to tell you that you are embarrassing yourself. You might want to stop. People on here are laughing at you. It is kind of sad.
Click to expand...
 
According to OP, Nadal is clearly a better player than Sampras now that he has an extra slam, yet Fed is not better than Nadal despite having THREE extra slams.

Hmmm... interesting reasoning.

Personally the only person I think can be suggested to be better than federer, is Djokovic. He dominated Nadal and had an edge on Federer when they were both playing decent. On all 3 surfaces.

Nadal is the best ever on clay though.
 
Last edited:
jimjam said:
According to OP, Nadal is clearly a better player than Sampras now that he has an extra slam, yet Fed is not better than Nadal despite having THREE extra slams.

Hmmm... interesting reasoning.

Personally the only person I think can be suggested to be better than federer, is Djokovic. He dominated Nadal and had an edge on Federer when they were both playing decent. On all 3 surfaces.

Nadal is the best ever on clay though.
Click to expand...

Agreed...very interesting indeed.

And yet you claim Djokovic may be better than Federer despite 6 fewer slams. Also H2H has no place in any GOAT argument, but even if it did you seem to forget that Federer actually was the one with the edge until recently.

Why can't some Nadal fans ever just be happy with the fact that he truly is the best ever on clay. That's no small accomplishment.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
I don't know your sources (care to share?), but his results in that year plummeted suddenly and that was long before the match you mention, so no success for you here.

:cool:
Click to expand...
If I quote doctors does it matter? Are you likely to know Australian doctors? Basically any doctor will tell you that you can't play any competitive sport if truly struck with mono
 
Sabratha said:
Keep cherrypicking, just makes you look desperate.
Click to expand...
Well what's the point of including 2003 and 2004 in a direct comparison when Nadal and Djokovic were both under 18?

We are comparing three players seems to me a decade is a good yardstick. As they are all playing that means from 2007 to now
 
KINGROGER said:
Fed losing AO SF aged 31-33 to Nadal in 2012 and 2014 actually proves his superiority as a player. Reason being young Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Fed at any HC slam between 04-08 but since 04-17 Fed has been making at least 1 SF every year and many finals, wins etc.
Click to expand...
You get more desperate per post. So now losing is winning when Federer plays?

You want to discount Federer losses post 2009 yet want to include Nadals pre 2008 when he was just a kid? I'm not being cruel but honestly your logic is shall we say beyond misguided.
 
Thorondor said:
Arguments are career performance in Slams, WTF, Masters 1000, and total weeks at #1 (at least for this era). Anyone who says differently has an agenda.
Click to expand...
WTF is irrelevant as OG for this generation far more significant as Andy Murray said yesterday replying to McEnroe trolling him.

Total weeks at no. 1 is also irrelevant. Year end no.1 more significant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Rafa Nadal is the best tennis player to ever live
Replies
22
Views
2K
LETitBE
L
R
US OPEN 2010: Nadal v Federer.. Who really is the best tennis player (article)
Replies
0
Views
596
rogerfederer26
R
Halba
nadal- the most complete player ever?
2
Replies
60
Views
7K
BeatlesFan
BeatlesFan
F
If Federer wasn't around would Nadal be the greatest tennis player around?
Replies
13
Views
839
Cenc
C
triforce defender
Rafa Nadal Trivia Question
Replies
5
Views
755
triforce defender
triforce defender
Back
Top