This slam won't count in my books
- Thread starter WhiskeyEE
- Start date
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Nadal has 16 majors. He won when Federer could not. Moving closer, and there's no reason to think he will not win another French Open, or just about any other major...as he proved this afternoon.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
He would have had NO chance vs Nadal. Federer has to be 100% or close to it to beat Nadal in a slam and vice versa. Did you actually watch Federer in this tournament? He was playing at about 70% of his abilities. Nadal would have straight-setted that Federer. At the AO when Federer was playing his best, the final vs Nadal went to five sets and at one point Nadal was up 3-1 in the fifth. Do you actually pay attention or do you watch tennis with a blindfold on?
Purplemonster
Hall of Fame
Put the crack pipe away.
tennis2017
Rookie
tennis2017
Rookie
It really is despicable that the moonballer will likely win USO and 4th YE#1 basically by default thanks to Fed getting injured.
And they called 04-07 weak
Federer Rafa what a great year to both congratulations
tennis2017
Rookie
Rafa feeling sad that this year's USO draw was too easy:
Rafa deep in thought about about his tactics for the final:
Rafa worried about what people think of him on TTW:
Legend
tennis2017
Rookie
Call it a draw 2 slams each the true legends of tennis Federer Nadal
MS_07
Semi-Pro
Yeah, until rafa reach SF i thought rafa's playing in his academy's court with juniors.
Not even the level of challengers tourney.
SF/F looked like a ATP250.
Tommy Haas
Hall of Fame
I was hoping to see Tiger's reaction when Nadal won. That would have been a dead give away if he was there truly as Rafa's friend or was forced to by Nike. I did notice Tiger wearing the obligatory Nike cap though. Unfortunately the camera didn't show him on screen when Rafa won, at least not the ESPN feed.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
I am sure your personal moral victory is really important to you to keep your sanity.
Unfortunately, for the real world.... 16 it is.
Good luck.
DMTNA
Rookie
Not in your book?
Well nobody cares about your sh*t book from a Federer fan boys.
The world has already counted 16. It's time to grow up kid. LOL
Too bad your idol couldn't beat the guy who is currently outside top 20. What's the excuse this time? Back injury? Sold the match? Doping? But but but...
Well it's same old same old... 
Well nobody cares about your sh*t book from a Federer fan boys.
The world has already counted 16. It's time to grow up kid. LOL
Too bad your idol couldn't beat the guy who is currently outside top 20. What's the excuse this time? Back injury? Sold the match? Doping? But but but...
Well it's same old same old... Sorry but this whole thread reeks of BS. Nadal won the US Open '17. Deal with it
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Agreed, Federer would not have a chance at all. Even Nadal's net game was solid--meaning he had complete control of the match.
Probably...one with a "RF" monogram....
masao
New User
2017 US OPEN Nadal draw
F Kevin Anderson 6-3 6-3 6-4
SF Juan Martin DelPotro 4-6 6-0 6-3 6-2
QF Andrey Rublev 6-1 6-2 6-2
R16 Alexandr Dolgopolov 6-2 6-4 6-1
R32 Leonardo Mayer 6-7(3) 6-3 6-1 6-4
R64 Taro Daniel 4-6 6-3 6-2 6-2
R128 Dusan Lajovic 7-6(6) 6-2 6-2
2007 Canada Masters Djokovic draw
F Roger Federer 7-6(2) 2-6 7-6(2)
SF Rafael Nadal 7-5 6-3
QF Andy Roddick 7-6(4) 6-4
R16 David Nalbandian 6-2 6-3
R32 Nicolas Kiefer 6-3 6-3
F Kevin Anderson 6-3 6-3 6-4
SF Juan Martin DelPotro 4-6 6-0 6-3 6-2
QF Andrey Rublev 6-1 6-2 6-2
R16 Alexandr Dolgopolov 6-2 6-4 6-1
R32 Leonardo Mayer 6-7(3) 6-3 6-1 6-4
R64 Taro Daniel 4-6 6-3 6-2 6-2
R128 Dusan Lajovic 7-6(6) 6-2 6-2
2007 Canada Masters Djokovic draw
F Roger Federer 7-6(2) 2-6 7-6(2)
SF Rafael Nadal 7-5 6-3
QF Andy Roddick 7-6(4) 6-4
R16 David Nalbandian 6-2 6-3
R32 Nicolas Kiefer 6-3 6-3
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Nadal beat Anderson just as bad at the 2015 AO in Anderson's best year (Anderson was ranked #14) one round before getting bagel'd and straight set'd by Berdych, his career turkey. How he performs against Anderson (or a barely moving DelPo or Rublev, etc.) is meaningless.
I don't think that's what he meant. We would have liked to see Nadal challenged more. He had only one proper rival in its way to the finals, and that rival was clearly spent after one set. The highest seed he played against was in the final (#28), a huge mismatch of two players at completely different levels. I believe this is statistically the easiest draw ever (anyone know?). Not even Agassi got one of this. No one should take away Nadal's win and his huge contribution to the sport. But all of this leaves a sensation of injustice and things poorly done (seeding). But he took the opportunity and delivered.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Not Nadal's fault that Federer wasn't good enough to get past the quarters.
octobrina10
Bionic Poster
This slam won't count in my books, Cilic was injured:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Pw0JAxp8Vio/maxresdefault.jpg
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/72/590x/Marin-Cilic-829290.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Pw0JAxp8Vio/maxresdefault.jpg
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/72/590x/Marin-Cilic-829290.jpg
Tennis_Hands
Banned
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Exactly. It just boggles the mind that so many Fed fans were in clueless denial about his back injury (and still seem to be). All these people have to be just bandwagoners who only began watching Fed in January of this year, and thus had no way to accurately read his body language/gait. They were so out of it they didn't clearly see he could not move to his FH corner, his serving motion was off (as were his serve speeds) and his topspin BH was completely gone. He was resorting to slices throughout Montreal and the USO. A hampered Fed would have lost in the semis to Nadal in straight sets.
The difference between Fed's form at IW and now is night and day.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Sampras after hearing his "fan" talking highly about Nadsy's net game:
To anyone knowing tennis and its history, they understand there's more than one kind of net game. Sampras knew that from personal experience. But please, continue the fail-a-thon of trying to belittle Nadal, who outplayed his opponents like the instructor to the student--and Federer would have been one of those students.
topspin007
New User
WHo did federer play at wimbledon? And why was he not in final at USO as didnt he play in same tournament as Nadal?
topspin007
New User
WHat brain?WhiskeyEE's brain is not the best...that's the only problem here. . .
Your information (and your English) is just fine - no need to apologize. . . : )
topspin007
New User
STrange that federer fans disputed Nadal was injured befkre AO 2014!! Hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems
topspin007
New User
MOno returnedNot in your book?
Well nobody cares about your sh*t book from a Federer fan boys.
The world has already counted 16. It's time to grow up kid. LOL
Too bad your idol couldn't beat the guy who is currently outside top 20. What's the excuse this time? Back injury? Sold the match? Doping? But but but...
Baby Djokovic defeated Federer in Usopen 2010?
vex
Legend
Ok so he beat Rafa more than a year ago when Rafa was neck deep in a slump playing like garbage. Point taken. Again Vegas don't lie: look at the spread on the match. No one had DelPo over Rafa
TenS_Ace
Professional
FIFY...This slam won't count in my books
Well the US Open sure did count in Rafa's books..the financial ones..to the tune of 3.7 million US $$...what's even harder to believe is Sloane Stephens got the same pay as Nadal
Almost all GOAT candidates have what I call at least one 'lucky slam' where all the breaks are theirs. Either they don't meet a seed, or the ones they meet are injured or mentally at Jupitor.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
nadal doesn't have a "net game". You seriously watched Pete and Pete's era of guys play?
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
because everyone knew Delpo would most likely be gassed as the match started. He was ill and had played two mentally and physically challenging matches coming in. He wouldn't have been the favorite regardless (no one really is vs. the Big 4), but it would have been a lot closer. And probably he would have been the favorite after winning the first then.
Look, I'm not saying he would necessarily have won, but everything in their match-up and prior history points to a closely fought match. The first set as well for that matter. If Delpo had been well enough to compete.
But hey, who am I arguing with. I've given you every single argument there is and yet you refuse to admit Delpo's lack of energy played any part in the outcome
Btw - Rafa seemed in a slump post Wimbledon this year too. Losing to Shapovalov and easy peasy to Nick. One key difference between this year and the last couple of years was that he didn't meet an opponent playing truly well who was good enough to challenge him. If he had, who knows. But Delpo wasn't it.
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I am happy that your understanding is such that you are able to appreciate any net game (starvation?).
When it comes to students and teachers, Nadsy has been Federer's pigeon for three years now, so I am not so sure about that.
a10best
Legend
Rafa is 5 years younger. Fed got a head start on the big 4 in slams by beating older Sampras (in semis?) and Agassi. Rafa arrived about 2 years before Djokovic and Murray and only has 3 slams less than Fed. Imagine if Rafa started before Fed?
Sorry my friend, H2H in slams and overall means a lot when it is close in slam count 19 and 16. H2H is still one-sided for Rafa. So much so, that Fed skipped the clay court season knowing he would lose. He could have at least played 1 or 2 clay tournaments. You gotta be logical in the argument. They are opposites and naturally I like Fed more.
In my book, Fed needs 2 more convincing slam wins against Rafa to be the GOAT.
Michal Jordan didn't get beat by anyone H2H. Neither did Mike Tyson, Mayweather, Anderson Silva or even Conor McGregor. Nobody has a H2H winning record against these greats of their sport but Rafa does against Fed.
Sampras H2H and slam count beats Agassi.
Serena H2H is very convincing against everybody except Henin. Henin beats her H2H in slams 4-3. Overall it is 8-6. However, the slam count is far in Serena's favor, so a GOAT debate there is ridiculous.
And being No. 1 means diddly squat in tennis. You don't even have to win slam be No. 1 ( Wozniacki, Safina, Jancowicz). If Fed wanted to be No. 1 he would not have skipped the clay court season.
a10best
Legend
Delpo played 5 sets against Thiem and then takes out Fed in 4 sets who looked extremely sharp and well-rested the previous two rounds. Fed simply looked his age in the Delpo match. Thiem was actually a tougher match for Delpo than Fed.because everyone knew Delpo would most likely be gassed as the match started. He was ill and had played two mentally and physically challenging matches coming in. He wouldn't have been the favorite regardless (no one really is vs. the Big 4), but it would have been a lot closer. And probably he would have been the favorite after winning the first then.
Look, I'm not saying he would necessarily have won, but everything in their match-up and prior history points to a closely fought match. The first set as well for that matter. If Delpo had been well enough to compete.
But hey, who am I arguing with. I've given you every single argument there is and yet you refuse to admit Delpo's lack of energy played any part in the outcome
Btw - Rafa seemed in a slump post Wimbledon this year too. Losing to Shapovalov and easy peasy to Nick. One key difference between this year and the last couple of years was that he didn't meet an opponent playing truly well who was good enough to challenge him. If he had, who knows. But Delpo wasn't it.
We can slice and dice and analyze all we want. Bottom line is Rafa beat his competition that was good enough to make the final. Rafa beat a hot big serving player quite easy.
Roger beat a blistering-footed Cilic at Wimbledon. Asterisk???? No. We count it as slam win. But we know that Cilic blew Fed off the court a couple years ago. There is a comeback we can say for each match.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
But Fed did not look sharp and well-rested in his previous two rounds. He looked OK and got the job done against two players basically incapable of hurting him or exposing his off-par movement. Against any legit top player he was always going to struggle because of his movement. Making out like Del Potro nailed an in-form Federer is plainly wrong for a start but to then use it as a reference point to Del Potros loss to Nadal is plainly stupid.
a10best
Legend
Nobody said Delpo played an in-form Fed. Rafa was not in-form either based on his recent Master's HC losses.
For those who say Rafa would've lost ot Sharapovalov, Kyrios, Cilic and so on is pure speculation. Did anyone speculate that Sasha Zverev would lose in 2nd round or that Cilic lose to the tiny guy?
Why is that people keep saying Fed lost to Delpo because he was not in form and he played badly in the previous rounds. He is 36.
Fed will be inconsistent based on his former standards. As will Serena from what we've seen of her the last few years. It is just simple aging. You & I both know they are not immortal and will play and move like they were 26-30 in their mid-to-late 30s. There will be ugly lapses from them especially when the court plays slow but both opponents had the same so-called disadvantage. We cannot use excuses of not in-form, injury, or whatever. Fed takes a loss like a man and moves on. This guy can lose and still be great unless it is to Seppi or some 100th ranked player.
Last edited:
vex
Legend
I guess you think you're arguing with a Rafa fanboy or something. Dunno why. I never said DelPo's energy wasn't a factor. But regardless, he was never going to be favored in a match with Nadal.because everyone knew Delpo would most likely be gassed as the match started. He was ill and had played two mentally and physically challenging matches coming in. He wouldn't have been the favorite regardless (no one really is vs. the Big 4), but it would have been a lot closer. And probably he would have been the favorite after winning the first then.
Look, I'm not saying he would necessarily have won, but everything in their match-up and prior history points to a closely fought match. The first set as well for that matter. If Delpo had been well enough to compete.
But hey, who am I arguing with. I've given you every single argument there is and yet you refuse to admit Delpo's lack of energy played any part in the outcome
Btw - Rafa seemed in a slump post Wimbledon this year too. Losing to Shapovalov and easy peasy to Nick. One key difference between this year and the last couple of years was that he didn't meet an opponent playing truly well who was good enough to challenge him. If he had, who knows. But Delpo wasn't it.
Ain't nobody gonna care. Nadal would have beaten anyone, including Federer. He's playing the best tennis. 16 majors, pal. Get used to it.
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
#16 doesn't count until TT forum recognizes it as legitimate.
Mazz Retic
Hall of Fame
Didn't play Federer, doesn't count.
Tommy Haas
Hall of Fame
Pete Sampras won Wimbledon 2000 without facing a top 20 player and no one is questioning the legitimacy of that win.
So Sampras really has 13 slams and Rafa 15. That's still 2 above Sampras, not 1 and solidifies Rafa number 2 spot of ATG.
So Sampras really has 13 slams and Rafa 15. That's still 2 above Sampras, not 1 and solidifies Rafa number 2 spot of ATG.
Similar threads
