QuentinFederer
Professional
Come back when you pull your head out.It's impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with people who have their heads buried in the sand.
Rafa Nadal is the best tennis player to ever live
- Thread starter clayqueen
- Start date
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol. You couldn't make it up.
Exactly.It's impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with people who have their heads buried in the sand.
Are you trolling on purpose?
Rafa was still playing good tennis in 2013 whereas it's arguably Roger's worst season since 2002, because of his injury, but he still played.
Rafa played like total garbage in 2015 while Roger had a pretty good year.
2013 - 5 matches
2015 - 1 match
You are the one making arguments up and picking cherries.
How can anyone be in denial who just recognizes and understands that Federer leads not only the overall slam count over Nadal, but is also far superior in 3 of the 4 slams, the WTF, overall titles and years and weeks at Number 1?
And don’t get me wrong: Nadal himself is impressive and “La Decima” even more! But Federer is still undisputedly above him.
I know, it's indoor courts
2013 ATP World Tour Finals SF Hard Rafael Nadal def Roger Federer 7-5 6-3
Lol 2013 32 year old bad back Fed vs HC peak 27 year old Nadal who lost the final anyway. And those USO matches were vs Djokovic. Nadal wasn't good enough to reach the final during Fed's prime of 04-09. Too busy losing to Roddick, Blake, Youzny, Murray LOL.
It proves Fed is superior, even in his 2013 terrible year he made Rome final, IW SF, Cincy QF, WTF SF
In 2015 Nadal crashed out early everywhere, including Cincy and IW to mugs where Fed would've been next and heavy favourite to win.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
This is a case of never letting the facts get in the way.
2 Surfaces + Indoors.. And the reason for not dominating third surface is having to deal with greatest clay courter ever. Now let's go and check why Nadal could not dominate other two surfaces - Rosol, Brown, Fognini, Berdych Verdasco, Darcis and so many. LOL!
KingKyrgios
Professional
It's impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with people who have their heads buried in the sand.
DAMNNNNNNNN
That's a textbook example of psychological projection.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
She loves to parrot 'Rafa is the greatest player'. 'Rafa lost only because he was injured'. 'Rafa would have more slams if he was not injured '.
Rinse and repeat all day. If we expect logical response we would be disappointed
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Only when uncle is not around
FiReFTW
Legend
Federer is the best grass player in history.
Federer is the best hard court player in history.
Federer is amongst the top 10 clay court players ever, if not for Nadal he would win many french opens.
Meanwhile
Nadal is the best clay court player in history.
Nadal is like top 20 best grass player and hard court player in history.
I rest my case.
Nadal without his French open would be at 5 slams, decent count but nothing out of this world.
Meanwhile Fed without Wimbledon would still be at 11 slams.
And the only reason Nadal dominated the clay so much is because he has superior speed, young Nadal was probably the fastest player ever, and his game is tailored made for clay, and he killed himself on the court everytime, playing like crazy for every point at superhuman intensity... if not he would not be injured so often and have knee problems.. but if he wouldn't then his play level on clay would also be lower and he wouldn't win as much.
Meanwhile Federer does not have Nadal's speed, strenght, stamina.. no physical traits superior to him, but he is an artist, technicaly the best player ever, his shotmaking, intelligence, technique are flawless, and he is great on every surface, probably the best player on every surface to ever live, apart from clay, where he also ranks very hightly, if not for Nadal afterall (the best clay court player in history), Federer would have a ton of french opens now and sitting at way over 20 slams.
Federer is the best hard court player in history.
Federer is amongst the top 10 clay court players ever, if not for Nadal he would win many french opens.
Meanwhile
Nadal is the best clay court player in history.
Nadal is like top 20 best grass player and hard court player in history.
I rest my case.
Nadal without his French open would be at 5 slams, decent count but nothing out of this world.
Meanwhile Fed without Wimbledon would still be at 11 slams.
And the only reason Nadal dominated the clay so much is because he has superior speed, young Nadal was probably the fastest player ever, and his game is tailored made for clay, and he killed himself on the court everytime, playing like crazy for every point at superhuman intensity... if not he would not be injured so often and have knee problems.. but if he wouldn't then his play level on clay would also be lower and he wouldn't win as much.
Meanwhile Federer does not have Nadal's speed, strenght, stamina.. no physical traits superior to him, but he is an artist, technicaly the best player ever, his shotmaking, intelligence, technique are flawless, and he is great on every surface, probably the best player on every surface to ever live, apart from clay, where he also ranks very hightly, if not for Nadal afterall (the best clay court player in history), Federer would have a ton of french opens now and sitting at way over 20 slams.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Because it's like banging my head against a brick wall. I find it more rewarding watching the RG 2017 final for the 1 millionth time on my laptop whilst keeping my eye on Stuttgart on TV.
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
shouldn't you recuse yourself??
TheMaestro1990
Hall of Fame
Lol. Just lol.
Surecatch
Semi-Pro
Surgical deconstruction of an argument that has more holes in it than Swiss Maestro cheese.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, the supposed "mum of four" has created this thread?
Decimo, we already know that you are not what you say you are.
Decimo, we already know that you are not what you say you are.
Topfit Rafa against exhausted Stan on clay, yea super exciting.Because it's like banging my head against a brick wall. I find it more rewarding watching the RG 2017 final for the 1 millionth time on my laptop whilst keeping my eye on Stuttgart on TV.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Clayqueen is one of those posters I'd genuinely like to meet in real life just to see if she's really as mentally unstable as she so frequently appears on this forum.
S
Stupendous1HBH
Guest
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.
The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal
Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.
First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:
- He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.
- There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?
- His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.
- His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.
- As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)
- Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.
- Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
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.
If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Why would you want to meet someone who is mentally unstable? Maybe I need to call Pepe.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
To be fair, you've appeared to be quite unstable mentally yourself. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black...
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Lol, you've gotta be kidding me - Clayqueen's in a completely different stratosphere. Can you honestly tell me you agree with the things she's coming out with in this thread?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Haven't read it to be honest.
But I assume she's riling up the feathers of the golden eagle fans so I'm ok with it
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Well you ought to and then you'd realise she's coming out with things far worse than anything I ever have.Haven't read it to be honest.
But I assume she's riling up the feathers of the golden eagle fans so I'm ok with it
NatF
Bionic Poster
Haven't read it to be honest.
But I assume she's riling up the feathers of the golden eagle fans so I'm ok with it
I don't know why mocking is confused for being riled up on here
NastyWinners
Hall of Fame
Because I am lazy, I would imagine the avg rank of those beating Rafa had to be around 70ish?
Get A Grip
Hall of Fame
Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.
The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal
Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.
First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:
- He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.
- There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?
- His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.
- His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.
- As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)
- Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.
- Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
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.
If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
Well, it's lovely to see Nadal fans blowing their horns, for a change, instead of the constant Goatcheese buffet served up by some of the Fed fans. Constantly puffing out their chests, and making any discussion of Rafa or Fed or Djok always about that. So tiresome, so insecure, so idiotic, really. Can we just talk about tennis, please? And three all time greats going at it still?
But still, He makes a decent argument, only mentions the "weak era" argument in passing--i.e. that Fed got most of his slams and less important titles, weeks at #1 in the gap era--between Agassi/Sampras---Nadal/Djokovic. This explanation absolutely stifles the Fed GOAt thesis, but if you're a Fed fan you don't care. There's no arguing this rationally, and everyone cites the stats that favour them. So it's irritating to go over this ****e again and again.
This writer also forgot to mention the Masters1000 titles, where Nadal leads by a good margin.
I am a passionate debunker of the Fed as GOAT, but not sure I want to take up Rafa as GOAT, yet. YET!!!! I said. Because, we have to wait and see what happens on HC, and grass as well, but less so. And Djok put a spoiler on this for Rafa, if he comes back to peak level. I'm not sure peak level Djok would beat this Rafa though. I consider this Rafa as good if not better than past peak Rafas, and he has corrected the weakness that Djok exploited. Weak 2nd serve, over reliance on ISOFHCC. Neutralized by Djok. With Rafa's new BH, he doesn't need to rely on that, can change patterns of play.
Anyway, once all is said is done and all three have hung up their racquets for good, (we shall miss them, there's nothing like them coming immediately after) then these kind of statements can be made. It might be too close to call, or it might not. A GOAT is not someone who won 81 slams to the nonGoats 17. A GOAT is someone who leads by sizable margins in a number of different stats.
All that said, I think he prove to be right. But too soon to say.
Remember, tennis pundits declared Fed GOAT, then they realized they spoke too soon and some switched to Rafa GOAT, then Djok got so good, some then Switched Djok GOAT, then DJok got less good, theen is 3 alltime Greats, now it's "the two greatest players of all time."
DOn't people realize this is ridiculous?
Get A Grip
Hall of Fame
Obvious typos: 18-17 GSs.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
AGASSI ON GOAT: "I'D PUT NADAL NO. 1, FEDERER NO. 2"
by: AP | May 08, 2014
SINGAPORE -- Andre Agassi says Rafael Nadal should be considered the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer.
Agassi made the comments in an interview with Singapore newspaper Straits Times, saying Nadal's achievements are more impressive because he has had to deal with tougher opponents.
Federer has 17 Grand Slam titles to Nadal's 13, although the Spaniard leads his Swiss rival 23-10 in head-to-head meetings.
Agassi is quoted as saying that "I'd put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2," adding that "it's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer's prime."
The former No. 1 says "Nadal had to deal with Federer, (Novak) Djokovic, (Andy) Murray in the golden age of tennis. He has done what he has done and he's not done yet."
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/05/ ... o-2/51390/
by: AP | May 08, 2014
SINGAPORE -- Andre Agassi says Rafael Nadal should be considered the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer.
Agassi made the comments in an interview with Singapore newspaper Straits Times, saying Nadal's achievements are more impressive because he has had to deal with tougher opponents.
Federer has 17 Grand Slam titles to Nadal's 13, although the Spaniard leads his Swiss rival 23-10 in head-to-head meetings.
Agassi is quoted as saying that "I'd put Nadal No. 1, Federer No. 2," adding that "it's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer's prime."
The former No. 1 says "Nadal had to deal with Federer, (Novak) Djokovic, (Andy) Murray in the golden age of tennis. He has done what he has done and he's not done yet."
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/05/ ... o-2/51390/
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
Sounds about right.
It's become part of the excitement every year at Wimbledon, which journeyman, local junior, groundskeeper or drunken fan from the crowd is gonna give Rafa a beatdown.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
All four of those players were in the triple digits ranking wise. Can history repeat itself for a 5th time? Ace on MP for the 5th time as well?
NastyWinners
Hall of Fame
Bolded the important part of the text for ya.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Of course Starkovsky reserves his beatdown for the King of Grass.
racquetreligion
Hall of Fame
Troll for life should be the title of this thread
TheMaestro1990
Hall of Fame
Will you please sign off the entire forum and never return?
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
I thought you just informed me in the Nadal News thread that you never demean Federer or his accomplishments and then you start a thread like this one and do precisely that.
