Toni Nadal : Rafael Nadal will definitely win 19 slams thanks to Roland Garros

BlueClayGOAT

Semi-Pro
How about breaking it down by surface type, as on hard court, clay, grass?
Fed: 10, 1, 8 has a sample SD of 4.725816
Nadal: 4, 10, 2 has a sample SD of 4.163332

Next question.

I did consider that. But the prevailing conditions are different enough at the AO and the USO to not club them together under 'hardcourt'.
The widely held opinion is that the Decoturf at the USO typically plays faster than Plexicushion, and I'm pretty sure that the balls used at the USO are lighter which makes them zip through quicker.

But fair play to you if you want to club them, I'm not going to dispute that without concrete evidence of court speeds.
 

Alba Barragan

Professional
I'd definitely go with the second option. He's saying they'll get the chance to win other(s) non RG slam(s). I'd translate it as ""We'll reach Federer's 19 Grand Slams. I'm confident we'll win some other Roland Garros and some other slam".

Completely agree with you. I just felt the need translate it in that way as well 'cause I've spoken to quite a few Spanish speaking fans who understood Toni's comment as 'other players will fall', as in other players will fall in their performances, get injured and leave the field open enough for Rafa to win, which I find a bit of a stretch in interpretation, but it's still valid.
 

deacsyoga

Banned
Two years is a long time, and Nadal might well decline significantly by 2019. But if he only declines slightly, then I just don't see Thiem beating him at Roland Garros. At 24, Thiem probably only has marginal improvement left in him, and he's some way off right now. Zverev might improve quite a bit more, but I just don't think he's going to end up at his best on clay. I really don't envisage anyone except perhaps a resurgent Djokovic stopping Nadal for the next couple of years at RG if he maintains his form and fitness.

I really don't like Nadal at all. But that's orthogonal to the question of whether I think he'll win many more titles. Pessimistic anti-Nadalistas will likely come to the same conclusion here as optimistic members of the *************.

Do you think Thiem will ever win RG or any slam? I really like him so want him to but I am becoming increasingly skeptical. His choke at this US Open against Del Potro was pathetic and his RG semi performace was just abysmal. And he doesnt even have a Masters title which Zverev already has 2 of, including on clay. He is looking like he fall under another member of Generation Lost.
 

Sidespin

New User
Tony's quote:

"Vamos a llegar a los 19 Grand Slams de Federer. Confío en ganar algún Roland Garros más y algún otro caerá".

I'm a spanish speaker and to me it's clear that he's saying that other Majors will come, thus the figurative use of "caera" (english "fall" or "drop in") So he's saying that other Majors will drop in the Nadal bucket (my metaphor).

Tony has never insinuated that others have to fail or falter for Rafa to win, so it would be a stretch to think he would be implying that now with his statement.
 
Do you think Thiem will ever win RG or any slam? I really like him so want him to but I am becoming increasingly skeptical. His choke at this US Open against Del Potro was pathetic and his RG semi performace was just abysmal. And he doesnt even have a Masters title which Zverev already has 2 of, including on clay. He is looking like he fall under another member of Generation Lost.

Given that he's just 24, and players are breaking new ground into their early 30s these days, I'd say it's odds on he will one day win Roland Garros. But given that, at 24, he has yet to make the quarters of any other Slam, I'd probably bet against him winning any of the others.
 

Bertie B

Hall of Fame
Given that he's just 24, and players are breaking new ground into their early 30s these days, I'd say it's odds on he will one day win Roland Garros. But given that, at 24, he has yet to make the quarters of any other Slam, I'd probably bet against him winning any of the others.

Would you say, with his win over Djokovic at RG2017, and they way he played Del Potro at USO 2017 that he's playing like a person on the cusp of a breakthrough. Akin to Nadal at 2004/2005 AO, or Serena at 1998 RG vs Vicario?
 

deacsyoga

Banned
Would you say, with his win over Djokovic at RG2017, and they way he played Del Potro at USO 2017 that he's playing like a person on the cusp of a breakthrough. Akin to Nadal at 2004/2005 AO, or Serena at 1998 RG vs Vicario?

The problem is those players were teenagers at the time. Thiem is already 24. The game is getting older and everything but he should be further along than he is.
 

jussumman

Hall of Fame
Tio Toni is the man with the plan.

The Nadals are not playing for second place in "the history,no"

I almost feel for Fed, because his age means he's almost out of time to make his record safe. Health permitting, Nadal has a few more years of slam winning on the clock.

Djoker can still be a threat to Nadal outside of FO.

Even if Rafa surpassed Rog in the slam count that isn't the be all end all in the goat debate, but certainly time is on his side.
 
Last edited:

Bertie B

Hall of Fame
The problem is those players were teenagers at the time. Thiem is already 24. The game is getting older and everything but he should be further along than he is.

Current trends indicate he's on track to do great things.
 

Crisstti

Legend
You are one of the Rafa fans who only show up here when he is winning . Ain't that right ?

It ain't right. I was actually here when Nadal was out for 8 months and it looked like he might retire in 2012. Haven't been here much at all lately since I got bored with the idiocy of some posters and the uselessness of the mods. And due to the negaticity of posters such as yourself...

Yeah, I came back, probably momentarily, now out of exitement for Nadal's win indeed.

Tony's quote:

"Vamos a llegar a los 19 Grand Slams de Federer. Confío en ganar algún Roland Garros más y algún otro caerá".

I'm a spanish speaker and to me it's clear that he's saying that other Majors will come, thus the figurative use of "caera" (english "fall" or "drop in") So he's saying that other Majors will drop in the Nadal bucket (my metaphor).

Tony has never insinuated that others have to fail or falter for Rafa to win, so it would be a stretch to think he would be implying that now with his statement.

Yep, it's really very clear. While I believe for sure that some people, even Spanish speaking people, interpreted it as other players failing, that's so clearly out of the context of what Toni's even saying that I think it's basically a lack of reading comprehension on their part. Yes, it COULD be interpreted like that, but not when one reads the whole sentence imo. He's counting the slams they might get to equal Federer, just like many posters have been doing here.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
You can tell me another 100 times and it won't matter. Federer is currently the GOAT or the closest thing to it. He has the slam total, weeks @ #1 and a better slam diversity.

But unlike most stubborn Federer fans, I'm willing to reconsider things if Nadal can get to 19 and win more non-clay slams in the process.

cc0509 the GOAT poster as always.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Interesting goalpost shift. He's gone from being coompletely "helpless" indoors to being a top 10 player indoors. Okay...

It's just a condition, and it's never been held as a criteria for GOAT, aside from desperate Federer fans who see the slam record falling to Nadal, and want to give more importance to everything else Fed has done.

It's just making up nonsense. Olympic Singles Gold has been an important target for champions for many years now. THe fact that it's called the Golden Slam (4 Grand Slams + Olympic Singles gold) is an argument that Olympic singles is actually the most important tournament outside the slams in terms of legacy. Nadal has it. Fed desperately wanted it, but never will. Hole in his resume. Federer can't be GOAT without Olympic singles gold.

I'm not stupid enough to really claim that, but i do believe if Roger had Olympic Singles Gold and Rafa didn't, Federer fans would be touting that as a big "hole" in Rafa's resume.

At the end of the day it's about the slams, baby. Not WTF's or Masters (where Nadal holds the record) or even Olympics. The slams is the number every single casual fan will remember when GOAT is talked about.
Partly agree that WTF isn't really a factor, more of a tiebreaker if they are equal in other categories. And weeks at no.1 is a legit criterion for deciding the GOAT. If Nadal matched Fed on slams, continued to own the H2H and was at least in the same ballpark as Fed on weeks at no.1, I would say he has a great case. But as things stand, he is far behind. I put no.1 right behind slams as it is at least the next best measure of domination, if not as good a measure. Most would agree. Let's see what the future holds though. No need to decide anything while they are still active. Commentators as well as our dearest 90s clay billed the AO final as the match that would decide the GOAT race and we know now that it has done no such thing. Fed won against expectations there but Nadal has ensured status quo remains.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Take Away all his clay slams and Rafa with 6 slams is an ALL-TIME GREAT PLAYER!!!

I don't think Federer fans realise how insulting they are being towards greats of the game by continuing to play this card, and I wouldn't be surprised if more former legends started jumping back on Rafa's bandwagon for GOAT because of it. One more non-Clay slam and Rafa has matched John McEnroe's entire slam career. Acting as if that's a pitiful total, because he's the GOD OF CLAY and could win 13 on clay is basically spitting in the face of legends.Telling people like McEnroe that his career was worthless, and not worthy of legendary status.

This "too much clay" stuff is no longer a good look after this US Open win. He's won enough slams off clay for it not to be a factor. But people have been parroting that argument for so long that it's hard to let go. It's now a losing argument.
It's like the weak era theory. You guys kept crying weak era even as Fed actually won 7 of his 19 slams from 2008 onwards. At some point, pulling that card loses merit. With multiple slams at W and USO plus an AO, can't harp too much on Nadal's slam split. Mind you, I do think Fed is more versatile but we are talking greatest of all time, not most versatile of all time.
 
Oh, but the reply to my post wasn't meant as a joke. It was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent a perfectly viable and simple way to answer something everyone was discussing.

X: *makes an assertion A*
Y: *shows that the assertion A is demonstrably false using a certain method M*
X: But Method M cannot prove assertion B, haha lol you're an idiot who doesn't understand tennis.
Y: of course it doesn't, it only holds for assertion A. Can't you read?
X: You're lecturing from a high horse and you can't take a joke.

Somehow, you seem to think Y is the villain in that conversation. Inexplicable.
you've proven one thing here:​

If words were birds.........you'd be covered in white.​


try again, poseur ....
 
You persist in being rude to me instead of addressing the discussion.
BlueClayGOAT said:
you're an idiot who doesn't understand tennis.

your watered down community college logic class tripe's not flying here "FanboyMadridReferenceTROLL" username...further, you who claim "Cincy=real slam; USO/AO=not" ??..

..the day I haven't forgotten more tennis than a trolling fanboy will be the day pigs fly..​

a little advice here: re-read your post below (and more to the point, it's uppity, preachy, PRETENTIOUS tenor)..​

All of us are really embarrassing ourselves here.

Do all of you realize that this question of better slam spread is not a subjective opinion? There is a simple statistical measure called standard deviation to find out which spread of data is more uniform in distribution. A lower value of S.D. indicates a tighter distribution around the mean, while higher S.D. values indicate large variation in the data points.
This is basic high school math. Come on, people.

Fed's data set of 8,5,5,1 has a S.D. value of 2.487468.
Rafa's data set of 10,3,2,1 has a S.D. value of 3.5355.

Fed's slam wins spread is more uniform than Rafa's by a significant margin.

Next question.
^ don't be "that guy." . . NOBODY likes "that guy."
BlueClayGOAT said:
"I MUST RESPOND!!....!!"
 

BlueClayGOAT

Semi-Pro
your watered down community college logic class tripe's not flying here "FanboyMadridReferenceTROLL" username...further, you who claim "Cincy=real slam; USO/AO=not" ??..

..the day I haven't forgotten more tennis than a trolling fanboy will be the day pigs fly..​

a little advice here: re-read your post below (and more to the point, it's uppity, preachy, PRETENTIOUS tenor)..​


^ don't be "that guy." . . NOBODY likes "that guy."

You're still not addressing the issue, you're just calling me names. Which is to be expected, I guess, it's an anonymous message board on the internet. Abuse is part of the deal.
That still doesn't mean I was wrong.

I'm not sure why you think I claim Cincy = Real Slam. The TTW legend who started that is alive and well and still with us on this website.

You quoted my message completely out of context. In that conversation, X is you, calling me, Y, an idiot.

I'm going to do something nice here, because I believe in moving the discussion forward instead of getting stuck in trading random insults.
I'll concede I was arrogant in the way I phrased that message. You're right about that part. Apologies tendered, I did not mean to hurt anyone.

I'm not sure why you applied the community college label- not that there's anything wrong with being in community college. But I'll let that pass, without demanding any apology for the insults you heaped on me. Consider it a gesture of good faith.

Now let's move on.
 
Last edited:

bitcoinoperated

Hall of Fame
Toni, talk to me when you are a real coach, you never even played College level tennis, never close to Challenger level. LOL.

Toni is more about moral support, don't ever call him a tennis coach. He hit the lottery having Nadal as a nephew.

It is telling the change to Nadal's strokes once Moya was involved...
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Time and talent are on Nadal's side; he is only 31, which is young in tennis age these days. Providing he stays fit and healthy, if he plays until age 35, he could win quite a few more slams before he hangs up his racquet. Had he not suffered so many injury setbacks, he could easily have won more than 20 slams by now. He has said he is not in a hurry to retire.

Just stay fit Rafa, the rest will follow.
 

Crisstti

Legend
Time and talent are on Nadal's side; he is only 31, which is young in tennis age these days. Providing he stays fit and healthy, if he plays until age 35, he could win quite a few more slams before he hangs up his racquet. Had he not suffered so many injury setbacks, he could easily have won more than 20 slams by now. He has said he is not in a hurry to retire.

Just stay fit Rafa, the rest will follow.
Well, that's no small ask tbh. I have no expectations that he'll stay injury free. I just hope he doesn't have too many injury issues.
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
People will be calling Nadal GOAT from when he gets within 1 or 2 of Federer, never mind tying or passing him.

People will always put GSs first. If Nadal passes Fed, he'll be the goat in the general public's eye - then and only then.
Only a small tennis minority puts Stefi ahead of Serena, the general public thinks 23 > 22.
 
lol what does that have to do with what we were discussing?.

Way more Federer fans on this forum. It's pretty obvious.

Way more Federer fans outside of this forum as well.

It is pretty obvious.


---------------------------------------------

" It is not cheating (arguable at best). It is merely breaking the rules "

:cool:
 

Crisstti

Legend
Way more Federer fans outside of this forum as well.

It is pretty obvious.


---------------------------------------------

" It is not cheating (arguable at best). It is merely breaking the rules "

:cool:
Yawn. Who the hell cares. What a pointless argument. Lots of idiotic Fed fans on this forum. I sure hope that's not representative lol
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal getting a clean sweep at the French this year really clouded things for people. I don't think he'll win more than 1. 2 more years of development for Zverev and Thiem should be enough especially if he got both guys in his draw.

The hard path would be something like Novak in quarters, Zverev in semi and Thiem in final I wouldn't bet on Nadal in that case.
Djokovic has a 1:6 h2h against Rafa at RG and only beat a less than 100% Rafa. Rafa has given Thiem one breadstick and a bagel on clay and the only time Sasha has played Rafa on clay, in MC, he went home with 2 breadsticks.
 

albertobra

Hall of Fame
For me it is just as simple as It can get.

GOAT is who won more majors.

If It is equal, next up is Master 1000.

And so on.

H2H or time as #1 are side arguments.

What counts are the trophies.
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
All of us are really embarrassing ourselves here.

Do all of you realize that this question of better slam spread is not a subjective opinion? There is a simple statistical measure called standard deviation to find out which spread of data is more uniform in distribution. A lower value of S.D. indicates a tighter distribution around the mean, while higher S.D. values indicate large variation in the data points.
This is basic high school math. Come on, people.

Fed's data set of 8,5,5,1 has a S.D. value of 2.487468.
Rafa's data set of 10,3,2,1 has a S.D. value of 3.5355.

Fed's slam wins spread is more uniform than Rafa's by a significant margin.

Next question.

Wouldn't the lower Standard Deviation suggest a better spread, though?

The SD for Sampras's GS spread is 3.10, which is higher than Federer.

IF someone won 20 Grand Slams, with a split of 5,5,5,5, then they would have a Standard Deviation of 0, and that split would be the most complete.
 

deacsyoga

Banned
and he would have had them if not for nadal

In fairness Nadal wins a lot more titles at other slams if he didnt have the two hard court GOATs and the grass GOAT in his way. Despite being supposably useless indoors, he even has a bunch of WTF titles without Djokovic and Federer. So if one is going to go there with Federer at RG, you would have to for Nadal elsewhere.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal getting a clean sweep at the French this year really clouded things for people. I don't think he'll win more than 1. 2 more years of development for Zverev and Thiem should be enough especially if he got both guys in his draw.

The hard path would be something like Novak in quarters, Zverev in semi and Thiem in final I wouldn't bet on Nadal in that case.
You might be disappointed if you think Djokovic is your saviour. Rafa crushed him twice to win 2 of his 3 USO titles and 6 times to win 6 of his 10 RG titles. Delpo was seen as the saviour for Fedfans in respect of stopping Nadal but even that doesn't seem to be working out. After Delpo beat Fed, he went on to lose badly to Rafa in the SF.
 
Top