objectivity
Banned
huh??? when did i do that?
Weak clay field? No way
- Thread starter objectivity
- Start date
huh??? when did i do that?
I agree. It just means that majority of scientists are more likely to be right. But I won't exclude other theories. Because many times proved that crazy ideas in science were good ones.
Actually guys who believed in god created the branches of science in the first place.
And there are some scientists that don't agree with majority. Some take the middle ground, like theistic evolution. Majority of scientists agree based on facts about the big bang theory. I guess even those who disagree, accept it as general consensus as perception.
But isn't this the same as goat thing? Majority accepts Fed as the goat based on facts. That is the general consensus and perception. On the evidence we know, as you said it.
Just because I can't disprove weak era theory, it doesn't make it true. There is no scientific evidence that can prove a weak era theory. So, why do people use it?
Bender
G.O.A.T.
While Nadal may have one, perhaps two guys who are contending for RG, it's worth remembering that Federer too pretty much only had Nadal who was giving him any competition on grass.
Djokovic may be a hard courter with no clay slams, but Roddick too is a hard courter with no Wimbledon titles to his name either. If anything, Djokovic is a superior opponent for Nadal than Roddick was for Federer since Djokovic was actually able to demonstrate that he is able to beat / demolish Nadal on clay, as evidenced by 2011. Roddick came close in 2009 at Wimbledon, but if I remember correctly hasn't, and never will record a single win over Federer on grass.
As people from both the Federer and Nadal camps both point out, this weak era BS can go both ways.
Djokovic may be a hard courter with no clay slams, but Roddick too is a hard courter with no Wimbledon titles to his name either. If anything, Djokovic is a superior opponent for Nadal than Roddick was for Federer since Djokovic was actually able to demonstrate that he is able to beat / demolish Nadal on clay, as evidenced by 2011. Roddick came close in 2009 at Wimbledon, but if I remember correctly hasn't, and never will record a single win over Federer on grass.
As people from both the Federer and Nadal camps both point out, this weak era BS can go both ways.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
sorry i mistook you for another poster. My bad.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
The nadal fan base had a biass too. It the dynamic duo...
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's because both come from the same era, virtually the same competition.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
That's the point. The competition was very weak. It could mean that Nadal was Clay GOAT, but where's the fun in accepting that ?
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Neither Federer nor Djokovic are clay-courters in quintessential terms.
But the thing is this. If we remove Nadal, there is only Djokovic one contender for clay. And old Fed to some extent, he had a fluke run in 2011, but in 2009 his clay game declined a lot, I don't count him as a clay contender for past 4 years.
But if we remove Fed, they were plenty contenders for titles in his prime. Nadal, Roddick, even Murray, Nole (07,08 uso, AO), Safin, Roddick, old Agassi, Hewitt, Ferrero. Even some dangerous floaters, Gonzo, Davy, Nalby, Jouzny, Ferrer...
This just proves Feds level was out of this world. At first Hewitt, Nalby, Safin were beating young Fed, but in 2003, Fed developed and his level was crazy. Not just his tennis, his fitness. He was a winning machine playing over 90 matches. Also his mentality, winning tons of close matches.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Mustard
Bionic Poster
So who are these "quintessential clay-courters"?
Yeah, but this the irony is that Nadal fans started to use this weak era theory against Fed. It is just coming back to bite them
.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yeah, but this the irony is that Nadal fans started to use this weak era theory against Fed. It is just coming back to bite them
Sorry, I never have.
You never said it but you support their fallacy.
I never said you did. But some fans opened so called Pandora's box and this are the consequences
.
llodra_fan
Professional
See, you gave the proof right there ! You've tried to defend Nadal from the usual craps that are thrown in this forum. But you didn't do that for Federer, Djokovic etc. rather, you tried to prove "objectively" that Federer is not as good as people make it out to be. I'm not saying that you need to write about every players to be considered "objective". But, partial truth is worse than a lie.
Yes, nobody can change the hard facts. However, anyone can selectively present some facts and interpret in the way he/she wants.
Btw, I'm a scientist too, if that matters.
President
Legend
What do you mean by this? Both of them are very good on clay, they move perfectly on it and their strokes are very effective on the surface (unlike someone like Sampras, for example). In fact, both of them spent most of their formative years on clay. Federer won his first Masters series title on clay!
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Actually i disagree on the part where fed had a fluke run in 2011. Are you kidding me? his level was even better than his 2006 one. had he had the right mentality he could have even defeated nadal. he had the right game plan but he was weak between the ears. No one and i mean NO ONE defeated djokovic up to that point. federer def the unbeatable serb which makes his 2011 run IMO his greatest run at RG ever. even better than when he actually won the title.
Really, you are a scientist? This is so cool. Because by reading this forum, I wouldn't say a lot of scientists come here. So, it's good to have you.
Yeah, to me it matters, since those kind of debates are about logic and facts. What scientists do actually.
Only one tiny problem. I trust you. But anyone can say their are scientists
. But, in a few of your posts, it will be much easier to spot.
If you really are, I will be watching you and hearing your opinions
.From 2009 and 2013, it was one "fluke" run to me. Fed doesn't play that good on average on clay. Fed hasn't won a clay tournament for what, 4 years?
Ok, blue clay, but Nole and Rafa lost. If he had to play them, I doubt it.
That's what I'm saying it was a fluke run, because it was so rare.
And Nole had a walkover wasn't in his usual match form. He only played one great match vs Nole. Vs Rafa, yes he had a good start, But Rafa wasn't at his best either. He barely lost to Isner. He didn't win a set vs Nole. And was mentally down because of Nole.
Fed had one run, Nole and a good start vs Rafa. I call it a fluke. I don't see Fed as a clay threat in the last 4 years.
Crisstti
Legend
So what?, because they're goo everywhere that somehow means they're lesser on clay?.
So, you are still going to use circular logic as argument? And not only this, but using double standards for Fed and Rafa?
So, now you are saying Fed weak era champ is tough competiton for Rafa on clay?
Either you are biased, or you don't understand this circular logic, or you are just trolling. I hope it's the last one, at least this is ok for me
Yes, Fed is tough competition on clay. He's a 5 time finalist.
Don't try to twist what I have said about his competition. He would have in all likelihood won less had he had tougher competition, but he would still have won a lot and been an all time great, just like he is now.
Crisstti
Legend
I don't know, I think you're contradicting yourself. How was he not a threat in 2011?, it was the closest he's been to beating Rafa there. Yeah, Rafa wasn't at his best, but still, Fed didn't do worse than he had before.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Sure -- Fed beat everyone as well on everything other than clay. He could be GOAT on those surfaces, but competition very weak no :twisted: Funny no ones seen you defend Fed against that meme ?
LazyNinja19
Banned
In the thread about the Top Clay courters of all time,
Fed fans say - "Federer is one of the Top 10 greatest on Clay, because if not for Rafa, he would have won RG more times. He still had 5 finals."
In this forum, Fed fans say - "Fed is even not a good claycourter....Rafa had weak clay court era"
LOL! They contradict themselves, just to put Rafa down. I'm amazed.
Fed fans say - "Federer is one of the Top 10 greatest on Clay, because if not for Rafa, he would have won RG more times. He still had 5 finals."
In this forum, Fed fans say - "Fed is even not a good claycourter....Rafa had weak clay court era"
LOL! They contradict themselves, just to put Rafa down. I'm amazed.
In the thread about the Top Clay courters of all time,
Fed fans say - "Federer is one of the Top 10 greatest on Clay, because if not for Rafa, he would have won RG more times. He still had 5 finals."
In this forum, Fed fans say - "Fed is even not a good claycourter....Rafa had weak clay court era"
LOL! They contradict themselves, just to put Rafa down. I'm amazed.
I use this to illustrate the fallacy of some Rafa fans. Saying Fed is a weak era champ and he is tough competition on clay for Rafa.
I don't believe this, but just using their words, to illustrate how silly this argument is
.That's my point. When Rafa wins 8 RG titles, he is the clay goat. But when Fed wins 17 majors, he had weak competition, while he won his 17 in an era of a clay goat.
To illustrate the logic. Either both are goat or neither. Can't have it both ways.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
More proof that you have NFI what you're on about.
Djokovic's defence on every surface is incredible. His ability to retrieve and turn defence into offence off both wings makes him deadly on clay.
Federer hits with the second highest amount of topspin, second only to Nadal. That is essential for clay courters to be able to hit a good amount topspin and Federer does it better than almost anyone.
When Fed was at his best on clay only Nadal could beat him. Fed also has many victories over these "clay courters": Kuerten, Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero, Moya, Ferrer and even Nadal twice.
So saying they're not clay courters in quintessential terms is a load of hogwash. Those two are both great clay court players and if not for Nadal both would have multiple RG titles by now. Just because they don't only excel on clay doesn't mean they aren't two of the all time greats on clay.
LazyNinja19
Banned
I use this to illustrate the fallacy of some Rafa fans. Saying Fed is a weak era champ and he is tough competition on clay for Rafa.
I don't believe this, but just using their words, to illustrate how silly this argument is
I find it ridiculous too, when people say Fed had weak era. It seems weak, because Fed dominated everyone. Regardless of the opponent, winning each & every match in slams, over & over again, is in itself an incredible challenge.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Fed's game on clay is ok, but not his mental approach. He does not like to grind point after point. He likes to pull the trigger more often than not, and on clay that is not the percentage play. And his b/h is definitely a liability there.
Djokovic when in Djesus mode failed to beat Fed on clay. Both are good on clay, but hardly competition for Rafa. Rafa could beat them on one leg -- come to think of it, that's what his fans claim he-of-the-bad-knees did :twisted:
Interesting of you mentioning this. Fed changed his strategy in 2011. He said he was willing to play longer points vs Nole.
And Fed had much more of success in 2011-2012. Oh, the irony. Fed learns to the right strategy but now is past his prime and injured to implement it.
come on. You guys hype Nadal competition but disparage Federer. Isn't that contracting yourself since Fed/Nadal won their slams against the same field? Hard court is most competitive surface because most players adept to this surface. Since Roger dominated the hard court against the weak field(according to you guys), then what does that say about Nadal dominated the clay field?
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Yes - deadly enough to lose 5 in-a-row against Rafa.
The only thing that matters is Fed lost in straight sets to broken-hip Guga when in his prime. Even Nadal managed that only once against Fed in 5 attempts. Fed is barely a top-10 clay courter.
Sure - then Roddick would have been an all-time great on hards and grass if it were not for Federer.
And if Federer had won multiple titles on Clay you would have no problems in agreeing it was the worst clay era of all-time.
I agree with this. And this weak era is coming from us guys, who probably most of us don't even know how to hold a racket
.It's not respectful to players. I think those guys are a lot better than we think.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
thank you!
he practically more or less dominated everybody and beat everybody in big matches including djoko and murray.
yes nadal has been his nightmare. but even in a different era this would not change. fed can handle a lot of tough opponents as evidenced by his victories over nole and andy past his prime. but nadal would be his nightmare match-up in any era
Going off topic here.
Let's say Nadal matches Feds achievements. Do you think the fans will accept them as equals and become friends? Or will those arguments become worse?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I will sincerely proclaim nadal the GOAT if that happens. sorry but the H2H is just too lopsided to ignore.
they played against the exact same field so no weak era here. but nadal dominated federer too much for federer to have any hope of remaining goat
Crisstti
Legend
Hey, I at least don't even call Rafa the clay goat. Even though he has better numbers there than Fed has on any surface and has beaten better opposition also
But Fed dominated the field more, being nr.1 for a lot more time. It evens out.
Crisstti
Legend
There is no goat. There are just goat candidates
Rafa has a good case right now, even if he didn't win another slam, and if he wins 18, Fed still would have a case.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Don't know about the trolls in this place, but if Nadal gets 2 more non-Clay Slams he would have eclipsed Federer in my eyes. For a lot of people I guess the stylistic differences in the two, and the emotional investment fans have made in one or the other means that the twain can never meet.
Nadal is on course to get more than 17 -- of course one can never rule out another injury :twisted:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
There is no goat. There are just goat candidates
Rafa has a good case right now, even if he didn't win another slam, and if he wins 18, Fed still would have a case.
But let's say both have an equal case. You think fans will accept them as equals and become friends or will it they drift further apart?
I mean Sampras fans now have accepted Fed and moved on. I don't see any Pete vs Roger debates anymore.
Few fans like 90's clay is not giving up that easy even though defending Sampras is constant struggle.
Crisstti
Legend
I don't know what fans would do
In any case, I'm not even saying they have an equal case per se, just that you cannot really make a conclusive case for either. Nor for other goat candidates.
Similar threads
