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

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.
The point is there isnt really a Djokovic era at Wimbledon or a Nadal era at the USO. Besides Djokovic had beaten Nadal the year before at RG, Nadal has never defeated Djokovic at the AO. Djokovic had won the AO in 2008 but it didnt signal the start of his dominance there just like nadal has never dominated the USO
 
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.
Until it is done it hasn't been proved what is more difficult. The thing is I recognise that all the big three have unique records that the others could not achieve, that no one else in history has achieved as of yet, I'm not determined to rank them to say one is the best

Djokovic has done 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in 12 months anyway

Btw I notice you wont reply to my post defeating your argument that Djokovic was prime in 2010... disappointing when a good poster cant admit they're wrong
 
Djokovic on hard court is no Borg on clay!

Rafa is as much a threat to Federer on grass and hardcourts as Djokovic is. Why do people assume that Djokovic is the ONLY one who can take Federer on on hard courts? It's better to make a case on the facts rather than just making assumptions. Apart from his AO title in 2008, Djokovic didn't start winning anything on any surface until 2011 when Federer was 30. Federer turned pro in 1998 and played his first slams in 1999 and he's still won less than 50% of the titles on grass and hardcourts. He had plenty of time to win titles before Rafa and Djoker were old enough to challenge him. Federer doesn't dominate any surface if the truth be known.

Federer v Nadal


Djokovic v Federer
Against Federer maybe, against the field djokovic is far superior on HC and grass. And sorry 8 Wimbledon titles is grass domination. As is 11 hc slams

Dont forget that if we discount the AO 2008 like you are and pick 2011 as the start of Djokovic's real prime Nadal diidnt win the AO in that time and won 1 uso vs Djokovic and 1 where Djokovic was injured and no Wimbledons
 
Last edited:
Federer has had to play into his late 30s to bump up his numbers.
Nadal had to win in his teens to bump up his. When they're retired all will be revealed

Nadal has only now gone one ahead of Federer at the same age and against a weaker field with no young all time greats around
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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.
First of all, AO isn't quasi indoors.
And if one were to take your deluded assumption, it would be only 5-4 Nadal in outdoor HC. So you are shooting yourself in the foot. :-D
Overall outdoor HC, Federer >>>>>>>Nadal
11 slams >>>>>4 slams
6 slams at AO >>>>>>> 1 slam
5 slams at USO (in a row) >>> 3 slams
 
Last edited:
OP had posted this: http://www.tennisnow.com/News/2019/June/Next-Level-Nadal-has-Gone-Beyond-Greatness-in-Pari.aspx
___________________________________________

It may seem routine to all who saw it coming and who knew better than to expect any other outcome. But when Rafael Nadal stops winning Roland Garros titles one day in the not too distant future we will all look back in awe, the realization that his simple and sublime quest has yielded the greatest achievement of the greatest era of men’s tennis.

Those beads of sweat that colored the fabled clay of Court Philippe Chatrier, they’ll forever be a part of the fabric of Nadal’s magic in Paris. An improbable feat managed with the most humble of origins.

When he’s gone, replaced no doubt by a statue, we’ll know where to find the true essence of Nadal: in the terre battue, trampled beneath the feet of future generations, who will endeavor but never match what he’s accomplished.
____________________________________________
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
So he pulled out of Queens and Wimbledon both at which he was the defending champion for the sake of it? Yea, right.
Here, read :

actually that's perfectly correct.

Evidence :

a) No reports of Nadal being injured before the Soderling match.
b) Nadal had completely destroyed Hewitt in the round before. Hewitt took twice the games in 2007 & 2010 at RG than he did in 2009 (10 vs 5). An "injured" nadal doing much better than an uninjured prime Nadal ? yeah, right.
c) Nadal did not take a MTO in that Soderling match. If he had some problem ,he'd have taken one. We know he takes MTOs when he has any injury problem. Quite a few matches serve as evidence for it. If had a problem in the Soderling match, why did he not take a MTO ?
d) No mention of any injury in the post-match conference by Nadal. If there was some problem, he'd have mentioned it later.
e) Actually watch the match. Nadal is moving as well as ever.

Seeing all this, its clear that the knee problem was a concocted story from the Nadal camp afterwards. Alternate facts, if you will.

Here's the interview of nadal right after the match :

https://web.archive.org/web/2009062...erviews/2009-05-31/200905311243796048503.html

Interviewer explicitly asked him:

Q. You looked tired. Do you feelexhausted? Do you feel tired physicallyand mentally?

RAFAEL NADAL: No.

Q. You look a bit tired.

RAFAEL NADAL: No, no, I feel okay.


Now what is delusional is I've mentioned this to you before. You ran away that time. Now, you want to bring it up again ? :D

(https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-transition-years.588036/page-8#post-11498096)

I didn't say Nadal skipped Wimbledon to save face for his loss to Soderling.

No, he was completely shocked by the loss and mentally shook up at that time.
The fake injury excuse was used by his camp to cover up for the loss well after the match --- as I've shown and proven completely.

He played 2 practice matches on grass ( vs Hewitt & Stan IIRC) in London. Was not still mentally recovered completely.
Then saw the tough draw ( Hewitt in R2, Roddick in QF, Murray in SF, Federer in F). Knew he wouldn't win. So withdrew and the injury excuse was extended for Wimbledon.

The next year's RG final has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Nadal played clearly better and Soderling played much worse.

Lets see if you can actually respond to the points I made in my previous post. a) to e) . Compelling evidence for a clear cut argument, isn't it ? ;)
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Well I can't argue that the 12 RG titles of Nadal may very well be the greatest record in tennis, and I can be rest assured that, whilst other great records will fall, this one ain't going to be broken in the next 100 years.
 
First of all, AO isn't quasi indoors.
And if one were to take your deluded assumption, it would be only 5-4 Nadal in outdoor HC. So you are shooting yourself in the foot. :-D
Overall outdoor HC, Federer >>>>>>>Nadal
11 slams >>>>>4 slams
6 slams at AO >>>>>>> 1 slam
5 slams at USO (in a row) >>> 3 slams
Oh dear, what part of pre-2008 not being relevant confuses you.

Lets look at the reality. Nadal 4 HC Majors Federer 3 HC Majors peak v peak. Fact Federer not got a single USO which is the main HC Major is appalling.

The clay gulf between them ontop of Nadals superiority on HC is why Nadal is miles ahead of Federer according to all experts. Stop being salty and deal with it.
 
Judging others by your own standards. So why did he pull out of Queens which started the day after RG finished? RG finished on 7th June 2009 and Queens started on 8th June 2009. If Rafa had said anything about his injury after he lost, he would be called a bad loser.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Oh dear, what part of pre-2008 not being relevant confuses you.

Lets look at the reality. Nadal 4 HC Majors Federer 3 HC Majors peak v peak. Fact Federer not got a single USO which is the main HC Major is appalling.

The clay gulf between them ontop of Nadals superiority on HC is why Nadal is miles ahead of Federer according to all experts. Stop being salty and deal with it.
peak to peak,
2005-2009 :
Federer = 6 HC slams
Nadal= 1 HC slam


Nadal is not within a galaxy of Federer on HCs in terms of greatness. Sorry, reality is so inconvenient to you :)
 
peak to peak,
2005-2009 :
Federer = 6 HC slams
Nadal= 1 HC slam


Nadal is not within a galaxy of Federer on HCs in terms of greatness. Sorry, reality is so inconvenient to you :)
In the 10 years since 2008, Rafa has won the USO (H/C) 3 times and Federer has won it once. That's far closer than a galaxy.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Judging others by your own standards. So why did he pull out of Queens which started the day after RG finished? RG finished on 7th June 2009 and Queens started on 8th June 2009. If Rafa had said anything about his injury after he lost, he would be called a bad loser.
and yet he has done that several times before that loss and after that loss.
explain the rest of what I mentioned - especaially why he didn't take a MTO in the match.

why did he pull out of Queens which started after RG finished ? still reeling from the shock of losing to Soderling+to keep up the charade of injury - a false injury excuse which was concocted by Tio Toni/someone else in his camp a day or later after the actual loss.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
In the 10 years since 2008, Rafa has won the USO (H/C) 3 times and Federer has won it once. That's far closer than a galaxy.
I'm talking overall. 11 HC slams >>> 4 HC slams. 6 YECs >>> 0 YECs. lot more masters&overall titles for Federer as well.
besides deluded guy thinks 2009-later was peak Federer, so had to reply back in kind.
 
LOL, so according to you Nadal faked an injury? Look, I never made excuses for the loss against Soderling but it is obvious Nadal clearly lost his form in the second half of 2009 and it started from him skipping Wimbledon. And one loss at RG wasn't the reason for it.
 
and yet he has done that several times before that loss and after that loss.
explain the rest of what I mentioned - especially why he didn't take a MTO in the match.

why did he pull out of Queens which started after RG finished ? still reeling from the shock of losing to Soderling+to keep up the charade of injury - a false injury excuse which was concocted by Tio Toni/someone else in his camp a day or later after the actual loss.
So he faked injury to avoid defending his Wimbledon title?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
LOL, so according to you Nadal faked an injury? Look, I never made excuses for the loss against Soderling but it is obvious Nadal clearly lost his form in the second half of 2009. And one loss at RG wasn't the reason for it.
Yes, Nadal/his camp spread fake news about so called injury.

Loss at RG was only part of the story. There was the level/intensity that he played from clay season 2008 to clay season 2009 -- leading to some sort of burn out/loss of form.
Also top 10 in 2009 was the best its been in this century at the very least. That didn't help
 
Yes, Nadal/his camp spread fake news about so called injury.

Loss at RG was only part of the story. There was the level/intensity that he played from clay season 2008 to clay season 2009 -- leading to some sort of burn out/loss of form.
Also top 10 in 2009 was the best its been in this century at the very least. That didn't help
Nadal played exhibitions against Hewitt and Wawrinka (who is not an all time great on grass at the very least) and lost both. This is when he decided to withdraw, and then he played very bad until the end of the year. Something was clearly wrong.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
So he faked injury to avoid defending his Wimbledon title?
That was already answered.
If you had bothered reading.
Try again :

"I didn't say Nadal skipped Wimbledon to save face for his loss to Soderling.

No, he was completely shocked by the loss and mentally shook up at that time.
The fake injury excuse was used by his camp to cover up for the loss well after the match --- as I've shown and proven completely.

He played 2 practice matches on grass ( vs Hewitt & Stan IIRC) in London. Was not still mentally recovered completely.
Then saw the tough draw ( Hewitt in R2, Roddick in QF, Murray in SF, Federer in F). Knew he wouldn't win. So withdrew and the injury excuse was extended for Wimbledon."

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?goto/post&id=11542460
 
That was already answered.
If you had bothered reading.
Try again :

"I didn't say Nadal skipped Wimbledon to save face for his loss to Soderling.

No, he was completely shocked by the loss and mentally shook up at that time.
The fake injury excuse was used by his camp to cover up for the loss well after the match --- as I've shown and proven completely.

He played 2 practice matches on grass ( vs Hewitt & Stan IIRC) in London. Was not still mentally recovered completely.
Then saw the tough draw ( Hewitt in R2, Roddick in QF, Murray in SF, Federer in F). Knew he wouldn't win. So withdrew and the injury excuse was extended for Wimbledon."

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?goto/post&id=11542460
Whatever. Why does it bother you so much? Nadal is the undisputed King of Clay.

At least Sod is still dining on it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Whatever. Why does it bother you so much? Nadal is the undisputed King of Clay.

At least Sod is still dining on it.
It is annoying because :
a) sore Nadal fans keep taking away credit from Soderling's magnificent performance/win.
b) its also used as an excuse to discredit Federer's RG 2009/his 2009 in general.
c) I'm not a fan of fake news.
 
It is annoying because :
a) sore Nadal fans keep taking away credit from Soderling's magnificent performance/win.
b) its also used as an excuse to discredit Federer's RG 2009/his 2009 in general.
c) I'm not a fan of fake news.
Fans who actually watched tennis back then would never take away credit from Soderling. His performance that day was scary. As for Federer-well yes, it's a fact that Soderling helped him a lot. RG 2009 wasn't even his best RG performance IMO (2011 was better for sure) but he had extra motivation starting from the fourth round because he knew Nadal lost.
 
Last edited:
Top