Rafa winning Roland Garros 12 times is the greatest achievement of the greatest era of men's tennis.

Sport

Legend


Finals played in Majors on HC/grass:

Federer vs Nadal:

3-2

Federer vs Djokovic:

1-3

SF played in Majors on HC/grass:

Federer vs Nadal:

0-2

Federer vs Djokovic:

3-5

:cool:
H2H at the Australian Open:

Nadal leads Federer 3-1

Djokovic leads Federer 3-1
 

GabeT

Legend
Winning a CYGS is not even close to winning 12 titles in a single slam. That is 7 rounds in Bo5 for 12 years! That is, in Rafa's case, turning up for 14 years and losing only 2 matches out of 95. A player could strike lucky in a year when, for instance, his rivals are sidelined and they get a free run and win all the slams. On Federer's best surfaces, he has played Wimbledon 20 times and has only won it 8 times, the USO 20 times and won it only 6 times, the AO 18 times and won it only 5 times. So Federer has 3 cracks of the whip and hasn't been able to win 12 titles in any one slam. That's how difficult it is to totally dominate a tournament.
But 12 RGs show that you are incredibly good and consistent at just one surface. A CYGS, in today’s game, means you are incredibly good across all surfaces (but only within one year)
 

Sport

Legend
It is certainly a great achievement, but I think we will need a couple of decades of context to judge how great.

I think the same is true for Federer and Djokovic's achievements. The game has changed so much in the 21st century that it is hard to really compare to those who came before. If the future of the tour is individual players or small groups of players dominating particular surfaces or Slams for longer periods, then a lot of their achievements will look a little less impressive.

12 is still an awful lot though. I would be surprised if that record comes close to being surpassed in my lifetime.
Assuming Nadal stops in 12 rather than 15-16 and assuming someone is going to surpass Nadal's record at RG, not only in your lifetime, but ever. We can't assume that it will be surpassed. Some records are never surpassed.
 

Pantera

Banned
8-5 after 2017. But yes, a better winning percentage than Djokovic vs. Federer in outdoor hard courts: 13-13.
The AO is quasi indoors, never any wind there as roof is always pulled to more than other events.

Nadal is 2-1 v Djokovic at USO.

On outdoor hardcourts Nadal is better than Federer and on a par with Djokovic, it is indoors where he is clearly markedly inferior.
 

Sport

Legend
But 12 RGs show that you are incredibly good and consistent at just one surface. A CYGS, in today’s game, means you are incredibly good across all surfaces (but only within one year)
Djokovic achieved his only NCYGS winning RG when Nadal was injured and out of form, so not a sign of domination of all surfaces, but rather an opportunistic clay success.

Also, Djokovic is not the first to do so. Laver achieved the CYGS twice, not only once like Djokovic. Nadal's 12 RG has never been done before and so is more important.

Something that has never been done before >>> something that has already been done before.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
But 12 RGs show that you are incredibly good and consistent at just one surface. A CYGS, in today’s game, means you are incredibly good across all surfaces (but only within one year)
In your opinion. There are 2 h/c slams for a start so if that's your best surface you have 2 bites of the cherry.
 

Pantera

Banned
We are taking about men’s tennis in the Open Era, no? WTA and pre Open Era are something very different
No, we ae talking in sport. Nothing compares to Nadal at the FO. unique and will never be repeated. Federer not even the highest Major winner in tennis.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Federer has not won the USO in the Nadal era though. Federer hasn't even been YE! since 2009 which definitely places a question mark as to how great he really was.
He's been number 1 at age 37, rankings are always based on a years worth of play

Lol at "the Nadal era"

Nadal hasnt even won the AO or Wimbledon in the Djokovic era
 

Sport

Legend
He's been number 1 at age 37, rankings are always based on a years worth of play

Lol at "the Nadal era"

Nadal hasnt even won the AO or Wimbledon in the Djokovic era
Djokovic hasn't won RG in Nadal's era either. He won his only RG when Nadal withdrawed injured and was out of form.
 

Sport

Legend
It's one of them for sure. 4 slams in a row and 20 slams (for now) still have a claim as well though
4 Slams in a row has already been done before (Laver twice), so not comparable to Nadal's 12 RG.

Something that has neve been done before >>> something that has been done before.

20 Slams of Federer is the greatest achivement ever as long as it never gets surpassed.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
4 Slams in a row has already been done before (Laver twice), so not comparable to Nadal's 12 RG.

Something that has neve been done before >>> something that has been done before.

20 Slams of Federer is the greatest achivement ever as long as it never gets surpassed.
It wasnt done on 3 surfaces though so Djokovic has that distinction
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
It's one of them for sure. 4 slams in a row and 20 slams (for now) still have a claim as well though
20 slams will be broken many times over. Might even be broken in this era.

Nadal's RG wins mark will likely never be broken, or will take thousands of years.

4 slams in a row is great, but has already been done multiple times.

Of course the slam record is much more important than winning a slam 12 times. However in terms of invincability of a particular record, it is no contest.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic hasn't won RG in Nadal's era either. He won his only RG when Nadal withdrawed injured and was out of form.
How is that not in his era? Nadal's prime started in 2008 let's say and he's still winning it now, just because he didnt win it inbetween , doesnt mean his era stopped and started again lol

Anyway this is not really my point, my point was it's a but silly to talk of a Nadal era at the USO just as it's silly to talk of a Djokovic era at Wimbledon (so open is actually valid) as neither player maintained a sustained period of dominance at those slams
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
20 slams will be broken many times over. Might even be broken in this era.

Nadal's RG wins mark will likely never be broken, or will take thousands of years.

4 slams in a row is great, but has already been done multiple times.

Of course the slam record is much more important than winning a slam 12 times. However in terms of invincability of a particular record, it is no contest.
But for the moment 20 slams is the best.

No one has won 4 in a row on 3 different surfaces
 

Sport

Legend
How is that not in his era? Nadal's prime started in 2008 let's say and he's still winning it now, just because he didnt win it inbetween , doesnt mean his era stopped and started again lol

Anyway this is not really my point, my point was it's a but silly to talk of a Nadal era at the USO just as it's silly to talk of a Djokovic era at Wimbledon (so open is actually valid) as neither player maintained a sustained period of dominance at those slams
Nadal wins both the AO and WB without Djokovic withdrawing from the tournament: it wasn't Djokovic's era.

Djokovic win his only RG with Nadal withdrawing injured and in bad form: it was Nadal's era.

Ridiculous double standard. So when Djokovic is not at his best it is not his era, but when Nadal is not at his best, it is his era.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
But for the moment 20 slams is the best.

No one has won 4 in a row on 3 different surfaces
In terms of most impressive for me it isnt since it is fairly easily beatable record; and light years more beatable than 12 titles at the French Open. In terms of most important, yes it is the best.

As for the latter, that is the start of a potential lengthy discussion I dont care to get into. All I will say is whenever Nadal fans (not me as I am not even one of them) brought up his being the only one to win the French-Wimbledon-U.S Open triple since U.S Open went to hard courts as a way to bolster his 2010 year as possibly atleast a top 10 year in the Open Era it was ridiculed, so..
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Remember when someone won 7 in France and people started to think there was something not quite right? Anything suspicious in getting 12?

Yeah, good call. I ceratinly question WHY Federer can't perform on clay and be called a GOAT. Seems to be a huge blight on his GOAT resume. Djo as well to a lesser degree! VERY suspect indeed.
 

Sport

Legend
But for the moment 20 slams is the best.

No one has won 4 in a row on 3 different surfaces
And no one has won 3 Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces the same year like Nadal did in 2010. It doesn't mean Nadal 3 x 3 is more important than his 12 RG, as 12 RG is more difficult to repeat.

4 Slams in a row on 3 surfaces is easier to repeat than 12 RG, and so is less relevant.
 
Last edited:

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Djokovic hasn't won RG in Nadal's era either. He won his only RG when Nadal withdrawed injured and was out of form.
Double standards apply here.

When Novak loses to Nadal at the Us open he's playing his absolute best. When he wins at the FO Nadal is out of form.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
If you are talking about RG obviously not. He even lost to Wawrinka.
Mabe Wawrinka is tougher for Novak than Nadal. Style of play have to be taken into account. Nadal would destroy Wawrinka. On the other hand Novak would struggle against Wawrinka. Does it make Wawrinka a terrible player? Does it make Novak bad? don't think so.

Darcis Brown Muller Rosol are threats to Nadal. They are not to Novak.
 

Sport

Legend
Double standards apply here.

When Novak loses to Nadal at the Us open he's playing his absolute best. When he wins at the FO Nadal is out of form.
Nope. Fallacy of bad analogy. A fallacy of bad analogy occurs when you compare two situations which ressemble some aspects, but are not similar enough to be be totally compared.

Nadal in 2015 < Djokovic at the USO 2013 and USO 2010.

Nadal in 2015 = Djokovic in 2017.

Nadal in 2011 = Djokovic in 2013.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Nope. Fallacy of bad analogy. A fallacy of bad analogy occurs when you compare two situations which ressemble some aspects, but are not similar enough to be be totally compared.

Nadal in 2015 <<< Djokovic at the USO 2013 and USO 2010.

Nadal in 2015 === Djokovic in 2017.

Nadal in 2011 = Djokovic in 2013.
Nop.

Nadal 2011 is at his absolute best. Just not good enough for Novak.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Mabe Wawrinka is tougher for Novak than Nadal.
At RG and on clay not a chance. 1-6 at RG and the only win against a pathetic Nadal who probably would have even lost to Murray.

And Nadal at RG 2015 would have been utterly destroyed by Wawrinka (not that he would ever have made the final to play him there with any draw).
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
At RG and on clay not a chance. 1-6 at RG and the only win against a pathetic Nadal who probably would have even lost to Murray.

And Nadal at RG 2015 would have been utterly destroyed by Wawrinka (not that he would ever have made the final to play him there with any draw).
Novak was close to Nadal in 2013 and he's won a lot against Nadal on clay.
 

Sport

Legend
Nop.

Nadal 2011 is at his absolute best. Just not good enough for Novak.
A double standard is applied here.

Nadal loses in 2011 to Novak = he is at his absolute best.
Djokovic loses in 2013 to Nadal = he is not at his best.

The reality is that Djokovic was also at his prime/best in 2013. 2013 would have been one of Djokovic's best years if not for Nadal. In effect, Djokovic would have won 3 Grand Slams plus the ATP finals in 2013 if not for Nadal.
 

StrongRule

Hall of Fame
Nope. Fallacy of bad analogy. A fallacy of bad analogy occurs when you compare two situations which ressemble some aspects, but are not similar enough to be be totally compared.

Nadal in 2015 < Djokovic at the USO 2013 and USO 2010.

Nadal in 2015 = Djokovic in 2017.

Nadal in 2011 = Djokovic in 2013.
More like <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<. But you are just wasting your time as the guy you are writing to is one of the biggest trolls here.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Novak was close to Nadal in 2013 and he's won a lot against Nadal on clay.
Novak was probably better at RG 2013 than 2015 if anything. And based on the match stats (something like less than 20 points won, fewer winners, more errors) he was super lucky to even be that close to winning.

He is still 1-6, and his only win over a Nadal who everyone concedes was awful and a non factor.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
A double standard is applied here.

Nadal loses in 2011 to Novak = he is at his absolute best.
Djokovic loses in 2013 to Nadal = he is not at his best.

The reality is that Djokovic was also at his prime/best in 2013. 2013 would have been one of Djokovic's best years if not for Nadal. In effect, Djokovic would have won 3 Grand Slams plus the ATP finals in 2013 if not for Nadal.
You are ignoring the facts.

3 all in 2013 against Novak.
Nadal very lucky to get his wins

When Novak won he thrashed Nadal.

Glad you mentioned 2013. That was Nadal's last set against Novak on hard court. It's been a while.
 
Last edited:

Tennisgods

Hall of Fame
Damn. I held off for a long time but I have to put CQ on ignore. Inane threads and comments galore since FO from the hardcore Nadalistas.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Well 20 > 12. You have to be ombiliably stupid to argue otherwise. But by that same logic, 12 RGs is better than 8 Wimbledons, etc etc.
Without question 12 RG's is a superior achievement to 8 Wimbledon's. All of that is just minutiae, the only number that matters is the total number of majors.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
. Djokovic has never defeated a well-playing Nadal at RG.
No shame in that, the only person who ever did that was Soderling. Now on cue, many Nadal fans will swarm in and give their opinions, when almost none of them were even watching tennis then and never watched the match live. Nadal wasn't injured, sick or playing poorly. He was playing at his usual clay level and Soderling was simply a beast that day.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
No shame in that, the only person who ever did that was Soderling. Now on cue, many Nadal fans will swarm in and give their opinions, when almost none of them were even watching tennis then and never watched the match live. Nadal wasn't injured, sick or playing poorly. He was playing at his usual clay level and Soderling was simply a beast that day.
I was at the match. Unbelievable atmosphere.
 
Top