Toni Nadal : ´ Djokovic is winning everything when Federer and Nadal are not at their best´

[The Dark Knight]

He beat Federer in Miami, when he was 16.

The only reason he wasn't challenging Federer on HC in a best of 5 was that Federer was basically beyond him at his peak.

Next.

I don't get your point ? So you are saying a 16 year old player is not a developing player? Are you serious ?

But I think an 18 year older Federer who beat Sampras but was utterly owned by Rafter ....well that's of course a developing player ?

Different rules for Fed huh?

Hypocrite . Next

 

[The Dark Knight]

The parallel you are trying to make shows how (little) much you know about the subject you are trying to discuss.

The fact that you cant answer the question shows what an unbelievable Fed error you are .

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't get your point ? So you are saying a 16 year old player is not a developing player? Are you serious ?

But I think an 18 year older Federer who beat Sampras but was utterly owned by Rafter ....well that's of course a developing player ?

Different rules for Fed huh?

Hypocrite . Next

You can "are you serious" all you want.

The fact is there, so the question is "why didn't Nadal challenge Federer on HC while Federer was at his peak".

Actually, he did.

And lost.

You have no leg to stand on in that comparison.

Federer was not winning Majors when he was 18.
Federer beat Sampras. The obvious fact will be that Sampras is not Rafter, but I don't know what is obvious with some posters anymore.

Next.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The fact that you cant answer the question shows what an unbelievable Fed error you are .

I can and I did.

Next.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I can and I did.

Next.

Really because I missed it ....so do you think Rafter is better than Federer?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Really because I missed it ....so do you think Rafter is better than Federer?

Was Federer winning Majors, when Rafter beat him?

If so, I appologize and will accept that your comparison is a good one.

 

[The Dark Knight]

You can "are you serious" all you want.

The fact is there, so the question is "why didn't Nadal challenge Federer on HC while Federer was at his peak".

Actually, he did.

And lost.

You have no leg to stand on in that comparison.

Federer was not winning Majors when he was 18.
Federer beat Sampras. The obvious fact will be that Sampras is not Rafter, but I don't know what is obvious with some posters anymore.

Next.

Yeah ok so 16 year old Nadal was not a developing player ....he was the same player at 16 as he was 10 years later ?

Brilliant .

If you are actually defending that position you are not worth my time .

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yeah ok so 16 year old Nadal was not a developing player ....he was the same player at 16 as he was 10 years later ?

Brilliant .

If you are actually defending that position you are not worth my time .

The truth is that everytime you had to face any sort of evidence you chickened out big time and abandoned ship, while it was sinking.

Same here with your continuing blabber, this time transforming into putting words in my mouth.

Next.

 

[The Dark Knight]

The truth is that everytime you had to face any sort of evidence you chickened out big time and abandoned ship, while it was sinking.

Same here with your continuing blabber, this time transforming into putting words in my mouth.

Next.

How old are you ? Seriously ?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You won't accept anything other than Federer is the greatest player of all time .

How you can actually say that a 16 year old Nadal was the same player he turned into 10 years later is beyond me .

I've seen biased Fed fans before but this is pathetic .

I don't think that Federer is the GOAT, because I don't believe in that concept.

Shows how much you know.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I don't think that Federer is the GOAT, because I don't believe in that concept.

Shows how much you know.

How old are you?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

How old are you ? Seriously ?

I don't think that this is the place for personal aquaintances, but thank you for your question.

I am male, by the way, so I cannot imagine that you might have a sustained interest.

 

[Omega_7000]

No one says that Federer is not one of the greatest and can beat anyone at any given time .

But the fact is that his domination really was at his height when Nadal and Joker were not around or were still developing .

All three of them are the greatest of all time .

If 2 are missing the one that is alone will beat everyone in the field .

Next ( how rude is that "next).

LMAO. Whats next?...Nadal's domination was during Federer and Djokovic's peak.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I don't think that this is the place for personal aquaintances, but thank you for your question.

I am male, by the way, so I cannot imagine that you might have a sustained interest.

I thought so ....I'm dealing with a kid here ....I'm guessing 13-16.

Waste

 

[The Dark Knight]

LMAO. Whats next?...Nadal's domination was during Federer and Djokovic's peak.

Not at all....I've said all three are the greatest of all time . I can't really say one is better than the other .

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I thought so ....I'm dealing with a kid here ....I'm guessing 13-16.

Waste

The thing is, when you cannot tell the difference between what your opponent is saying and what you think he is saying, there is a good chance that

a) he is not a kid or
b) you are less intelligent than a kid. In this case 13-16 y o by your own estimates

I am fine with either.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Not at all....I've said all three are the greatest of all time . I can't really say one is better than the other .

Greatest of all time means that only one can be such.

There are no 3 people that are the greatest of all time.

You need to go back to the basics of .... everything.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

LMAO. Whats next?...Nadal's domination was during Federer and Djokovic's peak.

their peaks barely look like random trash piles compared to the ultimate galactic domination of the ever-clean undoping golden bull.

 

[5555]

He beat Federer in Miami, when he was 16.

The only reason he wasn't challenging Federer on HC in a best of 5 was that Federer was basically beyond him at his peak.

Next.

Nadal reached his first semifinal at AO or USO in 2008. It's practically certain that Nadal was far from his prime on hard courts when Lex Luthor dominated in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007...

 

[The Dark Knight]

Greatest of all time means that only one can be such.

There are no 3 people that are the greatest of all time.

You need to go back to the basics of .... everything.

Well in this case it's a tie .

Federer may have 17 slams which is a definite plus ....but then again he has never missed a slam and he has also lost more slams than anyone else as well.
His one hit wonder at the FOnwas through the back door and a fluke.....not as solid as Nadals FO slams .
He also has a losing H2H

Nadal has not played in nearly as many slams and has 14 .....only 3 behind Federer and he has won twice on every surface . He also leads head to head against all of the big three .
The downsides are that he does have 3 less than Fed and most of his slams come on clay.

Joker only became a force recently and he is getting better everyday beating both Nadal and Federer.
His downside is that he doesn't have the FO.

All three are at this point are the greatest of all time and it's impossible to say who is THE greatest because their careers are not yet over .

You can argue who is in the lead at best ....but that's a silly debate because who cares and second it's impossible to really say .

I think the best answer is that right now it's a tie and let's wait until the finish line ....no point in discussing it now .

Trump may lead with the delegates but if he is boxed out at the end of this whole thing none of that matters ....we have to wait until the end

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Well in this case it's a tie .

Federer may have 17 slams which is a definite plus ....but then again he has never missed a slam and he has also lost more slams than anyone else as well.
His one hit wonder at the FOnwas through the back door and a fluke.....not as solid as Nadals FO slams .
He also has a losing H2H

Nadal has not played in nearly as many slams and has 14 .....only 3 behind Federer and he has won twice on every surface . He also leads head to head against all of the big three .
The downsides are that he does have 3 less than Fed and most of his slams come on clay.

Joker only became a force recently and he is getting better everyday beating both Nadal and Federer.
His downside is that he doesn't have the FO.

All three are at this point are the greatest of all time and it's impossible to say who is THE greatest because their careers are not yet over .

You can argue who is in the lead at best ....but that's a silly debate because who cares and second it's impossible to really say .

I think the best answer is that right now it's a tie and let's wait until the finish line ....no point in discussing it now .

Trump may lead with the delegates but if he is boxed out at the end of this whole thing none of that matters ....we have to wait until the end

The greatest of all time would mean that all the players are judged by the same criteria and their achievements are weighted, before making an agregate score (if you like) after which one has come on top.

It is one player, not many.

"Everyone has a claim" doesn't translate into "everyone is equally great".

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Well in this case it's a tie

You wish.

 

[The Dark Knight]

The greatest of all time would mean that all the players are judged by the same criteria and their achievements are weighted, before making an agregate score (if you like) after which one has come on top.

It is one player, not many.

"Everyone has a claim" doesn't translate into "everyone is equally great".

You can't base a scientific formula on a subjective opinion .

But one thing is for sure ....the race is still on and it's just too early to declare anyone the greatest .

For example ....Joker may have 20 slams on all surfaces when he is done ....so what good is it to declare Federer the goat at this point ?

Or someone may be caught using steroids ....

The one fact that cannot be denied is that their careers are simply not over yet and therefore since it's not concluded no final conclusions can be made .

You can get into a pointless argument of who is in the lead if you want ....

It just ain't over until it's over .

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You can't base a scientific formula on a subjective opinion .

But one thing is for sure ....the race is still on and it's just too early to declare anyone the greatest .

For example ....Joker may have 20 slams on all surfaces when he is done ....so what good is it to declare Federer the goat at this point ?

Or someone may be caught using steroids ....

The one fact that cannot be denied is that their careers are simply not over yet and therefore since it's not concluded no final conclusions can be made .

You can get into a pointless argument of who is in the lead if you want ....

It just ain't over until it's over .

That is why I don't subscribe to that theory.

Other than that, what you now are saying is not what you said in your previous post, but nice try.

Also, your limited perception of who deserves to be in this "discussion" makes your opinion less interesting for me.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Well who the hell are you ?

I don't even know why I bother ? I'm debating with a child .

What I said was not actually directed to you ....it was to the board at large .

All this "who is the goat" stuff is just idiotic ....there's just no way to tell as none of them are done yet .

But you my friend have only one agenda .....Fed is GOD to you and there shall be no other GODS before him .

It's like dealing with a radical jihadist .

Look,

I am sure that you have your problems, but try to restrain yourself.

Even when they are finished noone will ever know who is GOAT, and since you seem to not pay attention to what I am saying it is best that you just look what the others, who know their stuff, are saying. It is clear to me that currently you don't have the knowledge to discuss this matter so you are better advised from others.

As for the rest, I don't mind your opinion.

You are entitled to your paranoias.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't really care what you think....
Who died and made you judge ? In real life I probably could buy and sell you ...

the arguments you put forth would be funny if they wouldn't be so sad .

Next

You are funny.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Is 5555 Bhai a reporter? Always reporting

Reported. This is another evidence that people who lose arguments resort to personal attacks.

 

[InsideOut900]

Fast HC - 2010/2013 US Open. Nuff said.
Grass - 2008 Queen's + Nadal's 2007/2008/2010 runs top whatever
runs Djokovic had against 50-year old Federer.

I have to make some points because this is plain exaggeration based on poor arguments:
1)Queen's 2008 match should indicate the exact oposite. The peakest version of Nadal needed a lot of mental
toughness to beat that Djoker(down 4-1 in the 1st set,down in the TB,down 5-4 in the 2nd).
There are enough matches where Djoker played at a similar level or even better(Wimby11&14 finals,13 semi and Most of his 15 run),suggesting he
would do just well against any Nadal.
2)Beating prime Fed in Wimby is an indirect way of comparing them.
Nadal is a perfect match-up while Djokovic has a bad match-up(as
proved in 2011 when out of prime Fed challenged Djokovic more than prime Nadal).
3)Their peak runs in US Open(2010&2011) are of similar level.
As a proof,they won mirror matches.
4)Using the US13 final as argument is BS. Out of 6 finals Djoker played their that was by far the worst.Peak Nadal vs. garbage Djoker proves that Nadal is better,just as much as 2015 Nadal got demolished time and time again,thus being a worse player than Novak.
You could make a direct comparison with US Open 2015 or 2007 for this matter,which were hardly any worse.
5)Out of all US Opens since 2007 Djokovic would be favoured everytime apart from 10/13,it is simply that they never had the chance to meet,due to the draw or Nadal losing early.

 

[tennis_pro]

I have to make some points because this is plain exaggeration based on poor arguments:
1)Queen's 2008 match should indicate the exact oposite. The peakest version of Nadal needed a lot of mental
toughness to beat that Djoker(down 4-1 in the 1st set,down in the TB,down 5-4 in the 2nd).
There are enough matches where Djoker played at a similar level or even better(Wimby11&14 finals,13 semi and Most of his 15 run),suggesting he
would do just well against any Nadal.
2)Beating prime Fed in Wimby is an indirect way of comparing them.
Nadal is a perfect match-up while Djokovic has a bad match-up(as
proved in 2011 when out of prime Fed challenged Djokovic more than prime Nadal).
3)Their peak runs in US Open(2010&2011) are of similar level.
As a proof,they won mirror matches.
4)Using the US13 final as argument is BS. Out of 6 finals Djoker played their that was by far the worst.Peak Nadal vs. garbage Djoker proves that Nadal is better,just as much as 2015 Nadal got demolished time and time again,thus being a worse player than Novak.
You could make a direct comparison with US Open 2015 or 2007 for this matter,which were hardly any worse.
5)Out of all US Opens since 2007 Djokovic would be favoured everytime apart from 10/13,it is simply that they never had the chance to meet,due to the draw or Nadal losing early.

I disagree.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

@nowhereman The rivalry has appeared again.^

 

[nowhereman]

@nowhereman The rivalry has appeared again.^

t_p vs Fives or The Dark Knight vs Tennis_Hands? Cos' I'm seeing both rivalries in action here, especially the latter.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

t_p vs Fives or The Dark Knight vs Tennis_Hands? Cos' I'm seeing both rivalries in action here, especially the latter.

Oh I didn't see the latter one. Maybe we have another great rivalry emerging.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Oh I didn't see the latter one. Maybe we have another great rivalry emerging.

No, not really.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Guys & Girls, slow down please.

Uncle Toni is saying Djokovic is winning while the other 2 former No. 1's are not at their best. Well, can't really argue that. They're well off their peak/prime so we shouldn't begrudge Uncle Toni for stating the obvious.

Now, we just need to hammer any Federer/Nadal fanboys that try to downplay Djokovic's achievements simply because the other 2 tossers can't raise their game when faced against a Nole that has raised the game to unprecedented levels, as confirmed by the GOAT himself, Rod Laver!

- Britto Koorappa

 

[Omega_7000]

Djokovic did benefit from the next generation not being able to raise their game to the highest level due to a variety of reasons.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Omega_7000 ... I already ackowledged the fact that this is a weak era, so please don't rehash the same point over and over again. All I'm saying is that it isn't Djokovic's fault that these losers can't raise their game. Also, it's a strong possibility that they appear easy opponents perhaps because Djokovic's level is so high? After all, he made Federer look like a club player in the Australian Open this year. And no excuses from Federer, like mono or broken back this time. And don't even get me started on the way he's dominated against Nadal. The guy can barely win a set against Djokovic.

The bottomline is this ... that you fanboys come to grips with the fact that you're witnessing the GOAT in action, a fact confirmed by none other than the previous GOAT, Rod Laver!

- Britto Koorappa

Djokovic did benefit from the next generation not being able to raise their game to the highest level due to a variety of reasons.