Sorry, Roger: Rafael Nadal is not just the king of clay

octogon said:
But---but-but----"too many clay slams'....WTF indoors..b-but, b-but"

Welcome to the real world Fed fans.This is what the general consensus will start looking like if Nadal is within 1 or 2 slams, no matter how many goalposts you try to shift.
Click to expand...

See my signature for why Fed is the greatest of all time across the surfaces.

Rafa Nadal is the greatest clay court player of all-time, but not the greatest across all surfaces. He has never won the World Tour Finals even once. He has never successfully defended a title off clay. He's still 3 majors behind Federer.
 
mavsman149 said:
GOAT is such an impossible thing to decide. Especially with the Slam obsession on this board, yes they are the most important, but they aren't the only tournaments for a reason.

Who is better? Terrell Davis who dominated the NFL for only 4 years or Curtis Martin who was very solid but never the best for 10 years?
Click to expand...

Hard to compare a team sport where you need 11 guys doing their jobs exceptionally well to a solo sport like singles tennis. I mean you could be Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders, etc. If your o-line is ****, then you're going to have a really tough time racking up yards and shedding defenders when you've constantly got guys in the backfield, and the defense is consistently winning the battle at the line of scrimmage.
 
Big_Dangerous said:
Hard to compare a team sport where you need 11 guys doing their jobs exceptionally well to a solo sport like singles tennis. I mean you could be Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders, etc. If your o-line is ****, then you're going to have a really tough time racking up yards and shedding defenders when you've constantly got guys in the backfield, and the defense is consistently winning the battle at the line of scrimmage.
Click to expand...

Of course in football or other team sports there are far more variables to consider but I was merely making an example that I think in tennis we focus too much on longevity stats as opposed to greatness. My point about Curtis Martin (14,101 yards rushing) and Terrell Davis (7,607 yards rushing) was used merely to illustrate that sometimes peak is more important than accumulative statistics as I'm sure most people will consider Davis the superior running back.

While I think people are too fixated on slams, if I HAD to pick a GOAT it'd still be Federer. He of course has the accumulative stats but there was a period of 4 years straight where he was nearly unstoppable.
 
clayqueen said:
Because everyone is entitled to my opinion. My opinions are not biased, they are supported by facts.
Click to expand...
And God knows facts can't ever be manipulated...

The lack of self awareness is my least favorite part of this forum. Because you're not wrong, you do have facts to back up your opinions. But they're selective facts, just like everyone else uses. Everyone cherry picks whatever numbers or records make their player sound better and try to pass that off as definitive proof.
 
MeatTornado said:
And God knows facts can't ever be manipulated...

The lack of self awareness is my least favorite part of this forum. Because you're not wrong, you do have facts to back up your opinions. But they're selective facts, just like everyone else uses. Everyone cherry picks whatever numbers or records make their player sound better and try to pass that off as definitive proof.
Click to expand...

Whatever makes them sleep better at night.
 
MeatTornado said:
And God knows facts can't ever be manipulated...

The lack of self awareness is my least favorite part of this forum. Because you're not wrong, you do have facts to back up your opinions. But they're selective facts, just like everyone else uses. Everyone cherry picks whatever numbers or records make their player sound better and try to pass that off as definitive proof.
Click to expand...
What is selective about Rafa winning the USO with Roger in the draw and 6 of the top 10?
 
clayqueen said:
Can anyone imagine Rafa saying Delpo has more chances of beating Fed in the SF at RG than he (Rafa) has?
Click to expand...
So you're basing this on ONE match? How many matches have Fed and Rafa played against each other over their careers? None of them are afraid to face each other, federer felt he wasn't prepared, so suggested that Delpo might've given Rafa a better game. End of. Also why are you still trolling? Your guy won ffs go enjoy it, is this how bitter you are???
 
KingKyrgios said:
Sure thing.

He is widely regarded as a king of supstances as well...
Click to expand...
another reason I laugh everytime I see your posts. First off, you're absurd with your absolute hate of Nadal and spewing PED talk just like the last time I called you on it. Second, you can't even spell.
 
swordtennis said:
Hell to the yeah.
Hoping he gets ready.
Seems he is already starting to train to get back next year.
Next year might have some epic comebacks. ;)
Questions. Questions.
Will the d*ck head weak era return if fedal get punched out again?:)
Will we hear the screaming screeching yet again?
Click to expand...
It's weaker now than when Djoker was winning.

Can EASILY admit that as a "Fed fan".

Now that I've come to appreciate Novak more I really HOPE he wins 2 or 3 slams next year. It wouldn't just shut the Fed fans up but the Nadal fans who peddle crap arguments.
 
swordtennis said:
Hell to the yeah.
Hoping he gets ready.
Seems he is already starting to train to get back next year.
Next year might have some epic comebacks. ;)
Questions. Questions.
Will the d*ck head weak era return if fedal get punched out again?:)
Will we hear the screaming screeching yet again?
Click to expand...


LOL :) No doubt they'll start the weak era tunes all over again. But honestly though, Federer's slam count record is now beyond reach for Djokovic. I doubt he'll even catch Nadal. We'll just have to wait and see how he does on his return.
 
Sunny Ali said:
LOL :) No doubt they'll start the weak era tunes all over again. But honestly though, Federer's slam count record is now beyond reach for Djokovic. I doubt he'll even catch Nadal. We'll just have to wait and see how he does on his return.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah he is done on that front. I knew that was kaput back in 2013 when he lost all those opportunities. He needed to be at 14 majors right now to have any chance at that.
He prob will not even catch Nadal. If he can tie Pete that would be epic.
 
mike danny said:
For those of you still debating the competition thing, Nadal has had tougher competition than Fed at RG only. At the othet 3 slams not so much.
Click to expand...
Nadal has beaten Djokovic twice at the USO, he's beaten Fed, once in Australia and once at Wimbledon. What more do you want?
 
swordtennis said:
Oh yeah he is done on that front. I knew that was kaput back in 2013 when he lost all those opportunities. He needed to be at 14 majors right now to have any chance at that.
He prob will not even catch Nadal. If he can tie Pete that would be epic.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Sword bhai! Djokovic really did himself no favors, losing 9 slam finals. While 12 titles is outstanding, the conversion ratio in finals is very average for a player of his caliber. You're right, he needed to be at 14 slams to have any chance, especially with this long layoff.
 
clayqueen said:
What is selective about Rafa winning the USO with Roger in the draw and 6 of the top 10?
Click to expand...

Rafa didn't have to beat even 1 top ten player en route to his US Open win though. Taking nothing away from his victory, as a slam is a slam is a slam, and you can't control who you play. However, you'd have to agree that he had a much easier draw than he could have.
 
I cannot tell you how disappointed I was when I opened this thread, and the body of the post did not read "He is also the king of my heart". Talk about a missed opportunity.
 
Big_Dangerous said:
Rafa didn't have to beat even 1 top ten player en route to his US Open win though. Taking nothing away from his victory, as a slam is a slam is a slam, and you can't control who you play. However, you'd have to agree that he had a much easier draw than he could have.
Click to expand...
Rafa was waiting for World #3, Roger, in the SF, but Fed failed to show up.
 
Last edited:
uscwang said:
Rafa and Fed tie at the top with Novak coming in 3rd. That sounds about right as of now.
Click to expand...
Author of the article trolling somewhat. Trolling sells more magazines, even in high quality publications like "The Economist."

I don't think even many die-hard Rafa fans would say that he has achieved more than Fed. Yes, you can talk about the tougher competition. Yes, you can talk about winning percentages, Masters 1000 titles, but he has not yet equalled Fed in slams or weeks at No 1.

Still, he has a chance to come close. Let's hope that Fed can pad his lead once again. I knew things would get tight if Rafa won the USO. Just imagine how important that Fifth Set in Australia was NOW!
 
clayqueen said:
I'm beginning to think FedFans have no original thought. You just turn whatever I say around.
Click to expand...

You think I'm a Fed fan? Your powers of observation must not be the greatest.....

Anyways 8 out of 10 of Rafa's Roland Garros at least one of Federer or Djokovic managed to reach Nadal and take their loss.
05 beat Fed SF
06 beat Djokovic in the QF and Fed in the F
07 beat Djokovic in the SF and Fed in the F
08 beat Djokovic in the SF and Fed in the F
10 Did not have to beat either Fed or Djokovic
11 beat Fed in the F (Djokovic lost SF to Fed)
12 beat Djokovic in the F (Federer lost SF to Djokovic)
13 beat Djokovic in the SF
14 beat Djokovic in the F
17 Did not have to beat either Fed or Djokovic

Federer reached Nadal at Roland Garros 5 times and Djokovic reached him 7 times.

Fed may have not taken the loss to Nadal at the USO this year or in 2013(?) but he has reached Nadal in many situations unfavorable to him where he is the significant underdog, Novak has as well.

For comparison Nadal has only reached Federer 3 times at his best slam (impressively taking the 08 trophy to his credit) and has only reached Novak once at his best major.
 
Sunny Ali said:
Well because, and quote unfortunately if I may say, when it really mattered the most, Nadal beat Djokovic. Beating your main opponent regularly at the smaller tournaments is alright but it's the slams that players are measured by. As a Djokovic fan, I can rattle off all the slam wins of his if you woke me up from a deep slumber but master tournaments, can't do without help from google!

Nadal has a pretty dominant record against Djokovic at the slams. Djokovic really did no favors to himself losing 9 slam finals. While 12 titles is outstanding, the conversion ratio in finals is very average for a player of his caliber.
Click to expand...

Nadal was pretty dominant against Djokovic pre 2011, unfortunately that is indeed a reflection of Novak as he was a bit slower than Nadal to reach his prime level. He was still a solid top 5 player until 2011 which hurts his H2H numbers against Nadal.
 
mavsman149 said:
Nadal was pretty dominant against Djokovic pre 2011, unfortunately that is indeed a reflection of Novak as he was a bit slower than Nadal to reach his prime level. He was still a solid top 5 player until 2011 which hurts his H2H numbers against Nadal.
Click to expand...
If Djoker had a little better luck and a few less grueling semi's I think he would have a win or two more imo. But djokovic has no one to blame but himself for not having one multiple major year in either 2012, 2013 or 2014.
 
swordtennis said:
If Djoker had a little better luck and a few less grueling semi's I think he would have a win or two more imo. But djokovic has no one to blame but himself for not having one multiple major year in either 2012, 2013 or 2014.
Click to expand...

100% agreed, it's extremely unlikely now, but he had a legitimate shot at the slam record. Especially if he had won a few Roland Garros back then, he was beating Rafa on clay just not there.
 
mavsman149 said:
Nadal was pretty dominant against Djokovic pre 2011, unfortunately that is indeed a reflection of Novak as he was a bit slower than Nadal to reach his prime level. He was still a solid top 5 player until 2011 which hurts his H2H numbers against Nadal.
Click to expand...
The claims he would be the major leader was a legit and possible claim right up until he lost US Open 2013. I think that is when it was over and done.
 
swordtennis said:
The claims he would be the major leader was a legit and possible claim right up until he lost US Open 2013. I think that is when it was over and done.
Click to expand...

While I agree that loss was disappointing, I have to disagree. After Roland Garros last year he had 12, if he had NOT gone into a huge slump after that there's a good chance he could've absolutely cleaned up this year and gotten the 2016 US Open, he'd be right in the major leader race then.
 
donquijote said:
Your logic is flawed.
Novak has 26-24 against Rafa. Also don't forget Davydenko.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of a statistical margin of error?

Nadal and Djoker's H2H is so close (2 match difference) that if you apply the statistical margin of error, they are essentially even matched in the H2H. If it stays this close, the H2H can't be used against Rafa. The fact that Rafa has a huge lead in the grand slam H2H with Djoker doesn't hurt him either

If Fed had the same margin of error with Nadal, the H2H could not be used against him (and also if the Grand Slam H2H were closer).
 
octogon said:
Ever heard of a statistical margin of error?

Nadal and Djoker's H2H is so close (2 match difference) that if you apply the statistical margin of error, they are essentially even matched in the H2H. If it stays this close, the H2H can't be used against Rafa. The fact that Rafa has a huge lead in the grand slam H2H with Djoker doesn't hurt him either

If Fed had the same margin of error with Nadal, the H2H could not be used against him (and also if the Grand Slam H2H were closer).
Click to expand...
Say what? Margin of errors are for samples of a larger population. Not for measures of the actual population.

Suppose I want to know whether people in the US prefer Coke or Pepsi. I poll 1000 people. The answers I find will have a MoE of about 3%.

But suppose I ask the same question in a class of 20 students and they all respond. Then there is no margin of errors. The whole population you are interested in voted.

There is no margin of error in a H2H. It is what it is. IMHO the H2h is not very useful.
 
GabeT said:
Say what? Margin of errors are for samples of a larger population. Not for measures of the actual population.

Suppose I want to know whether people in the US prefer Coke or Pepsi. I poll 1000 people. The answers I find will have a MoE of about 3%.

But suppose I ask the same question in a class of 20 students and they all respond. Then there is no margin of errors. The whole population you are interested in voted.

There is no margin of error in a H2H. It is what it is. IMHO the H2h is not very useful.
Click to expand...

My whole point is if a H2H is extremely close, then it doesn't tell you much, other than they were evenly matched over their careers. The reality is Novak is probably entering his post prime, so with the H2H that close, Nadal may finish his career leading the H2H, but it will always be close, imho.

If a H2H is lopsided, it tends to tell you that one player was better than the other.
 
tennis2017 said:
What drivel!! Nadal isn't at his best on grass so Federer and Djokovic wins over him aren't impressive then!!!!!!

Also three times Federer has failed to meet Nadal at USO!!! Where was he this year?
Click to expand...

Who did Nadal beat for his 2008 Wimbledon?
 
mavsman149 said:
Nadal was pretty dominant against Djokovic pre 2011, unfortunately that is indeed a reflection of Novak as he was a bit slower than Nadal to reach his prime level. He was still a solid top 5 player until 2011 which hurts his H2H numbers against Nadal.
Click to expand...

149, great post! Fully agreed :)
 
mavsman149 said:
While I agree that loss was disappointing, I have to disagree. After Roland Garros last year he had 12, if he had NOT gone into a huge slump after that there's a good chance he could've absolutely cleaned up this year and gotten the 2016 US Open, he'd be right in the major leader race then.
Click to expand...

Sword bhai, I have to agree with 149 here. After Roland Garros last year (2016), I thought all it was going to take was another year or 2 and Djokovic was going to be knocking on the door step of the slam record. But unfortunately, everything just unraveled after that and I'm still at a loss to understand what really happened? Can a Bollywood piece of trash derail a top player's momentum like this? Djokovic has a thing or two to learn from Federer and Nadal about single minded focus and determination.
 
swordtennis said:
The claims he would be the major leader was a legit and possible claim right up until he lost US Open 2013. I think that is when it was over and done.
Click to expand...

Sword bhai, don't forget that his all time great achievement (4 in a row) came well after that US Open loss. So I think he was in the chase until middle of last year.
 
mavsman149 said:
You think I'm a Fed fan? Your powers of observation must not be the greatest.....

Anyways 8 out of 10 of Rafa's Roland Garros at least one of Federer or Djokovic managed to reach Nadal and take their loss.
05 beat Fed SF
06 beat Djokovic in the QF and Fed in the F
07 beat Djokovic in the SF and Fed in the F
08 beat Djokovic in the SF and Fed in the F
10 Did not have to beat either Fed or Djokovic
11 beat Fed in the F (Djokovic lost SF to Fed)
12 beat Djokovic in the F (Federer lost SF to Djokovic)
13 beat Djokovic in the SF
14 beat Djokovic in the F
17 Did not have to beat either Fed or Djokovic

Federer reached Nadal at Roland Garros 5 times and Djokovic reached him 7 times.

Fed may have not taken the loss to Nadal at the USO this year or in 2013(?) but he has reached Nadal in many situations unfavorable to him where he is the significant underdog, Novak has as well.

For comparison Nadal has only reached Federer 3 times at his best slam (impressively taking the 08 trophy to his credit) and has only reached Novak once at his best major.
Click to expand...

AO only became Novak's best major since 2011. In 2012 Nadal reached him. In 2013 Nadal dnp. 2014 Novak failed to reach Nadal. 2015 and 2016 Nadal failed to reach Novak. 2017 Novak failed to reach Nadal.

So you see, since 2012 final, Nadal only lost before reaching Novak at the AO twice, which is in fact the exact same amount of times Novak lost before reaching Nadal...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Outbeyond
The Spirit of the Game: Nadal
Replies
33
Views
4K
Fedalfan
Fedalfan
Swissv2
Federer is the modern day Borg
Replies
2
Views
777
CyBorg
CyBorg
OddJack
Two Year Ranking System
Replies
16
Views
3K
Hypo Crisis
Hypo Crisis
PED
Fed in today's WSJ
Replies
18
Views
2K
PED
PED
PrinceMoron
The way Federer watches the ball onto the stringbed...
Replies
21
Views
5K
PrinceMoron
PrinceMoron
Back
Top