What more does Rafa have to do?

Sunny Ali said:
Machan Aditya ... I don't mean in a tennis match. I mean a real fight. You think Rafa can beat Sunny? Come on man, he won't stand a f*ucking chance! Take a look-

sunny%20deol_main.jpg
Click to expand...
Legs too small, won't hold up all those muscles long.
 
RF-18 said:
He needs concentrated dominance and not sporadic success.
Click to expand...

talking in your language, he just spanked your favorite player.
like really bad, in spite of balls, weather, heavy clay.

oh, I forgot, your favorite dominated so concentrated that you guys already celebrated the 18th.
so I guess 17 > 20?
 
BackhandDTL said:
So Lendl > Borg? Lendl had way more more weeks at #1 than Borg. The priority is peaking in the slams, that defines greatness.

The context for weeks #1 needs to be understood here. Fed accumulated all those weeks in an era with Roddick, old Agassi, Philippousis, Hewitt, while Djokovic accumulated most of those weeks in 2015-16, during his prime, when Nadal was nowhere to be seen and Federer was 35. Weeks #1 should only be resorted to if slams are tied and if masters are tied. There is too much arbitrary timing involved for this measurement.

Why doesn’t Federer get penalized for his poor clay Masters record? 1/3? Because there are other masters for him to save face. Similarly, If the WTF were held on any other surface, or if they managed to change it up even a few times (not even clay, fast HC would do) surely Nadal would grab a couple titles there.

The point is that weeks and WTF are too arbitrary to be involved in GOAT arguments unless slams and masters are tied.
Click to expand...

your trolling skills are pathetic.
 
BackhandDTL said:
I mean those two are HC legends. Djokovic the HC goat, Fed a distant second.

But yeah, penalize Nadal for not winning a tournament on a slow indoor HC. I’m not penalizing Fed for his poor outdoor clay court in 30 degree Celsius record. We know that’s not his surface.
Click to expand...

oh, it's so generous of you to not penalize Fed.
I guess now Fed can finally retire and they can enjoy some quality family life with Mirka
 
Sunny Ali said:
You're an awesome guy Machan! (y) Same here, B'order' was awesome! :) But I find it difficult to believe a tennis player can take down someone who specifically builds his physique for movies.

@sureshs @blablavla @Sudacafan @stringertom @Raul_SJ @RaulRamirez @octobrina10 @Backspin1183 @JoelDali @Genious at Work @Azure @Lleytonstation @DSH @clayqueen @Beckerserve @vernonbc @beast of mallorca @MichaelNadal @topher @weakera @StrongRule and anyone else reading this ... don't bring your bias here but honest opinion please. Look at the picture of Sunny that I posted a few posts back. Aditya thinks Rafa can take Sunny down in a physical fight. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
Rafa would destroy him. Lights out. One top spin forehand and grunt is all he needs. Wait? Is it on clay or what?
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Weeks at no 1 is a little flawed as the points awarded do not correctly reflect the importance of achievements. Absolutely nobody thinks that two masters equal a slam or that two runner ups are worth more than one win. Hell, you could win four 500er and get the same number of points than winning a slam. Let’s assume player a reaches all four slam finals of a season losing them all, while player b wins two slams and looses in the first round at the other two. Would any sane person put player a over player b?? The ranking points and through them weeks at no 1 are there to get the seeds for the slams and do not reflect the actual importance of the tournaments. If they did, the points awarded to slams would be astronomical and mess up the whole system.
Click to expand...

nice attempt at logic, except that I would like to see a #1 that made it to #1 by winning 500 titles.
 
FrontHeadlock said:
I mean, Caroline Wozniacki in 2011 was basically that person. She won 2 masters yes, but look at her results.
Click to expand...

no, Caroline plays in WTA, they have different rules for ranking.

if you don't know what you are talking about, the rules of ATP Ranking for top players are following:

4 GS are mandatory, even if a player doesn't play, it will stay with 0 points
10 or 11 M1000 are mandatory, even if a player doesn't play, it will stay with 0 points
then you have 4 best other slots, which have some additional criteria, but that's not the point

so, a player can win 20 tournaments of 500 series within 1 calendar year, and will have precisely 2000 points in ranking, because only 4 tournaments will count.
That is good enough to reach top 10.

Now please show us a player from ATP Tour that climbed to #1 position in ATP ranking by playing and winning exclusively ATP 500 events.
Or by reaching 4 GS finals, and losing all of them which will result 4000 points.
 
BackhandDTL said:
Caroline Wozniacki is the goat?
Click to expand...

it just shows how pathetic are you and your trolling skills.

BackhandDTL said:
What will Fred have once Djokovic overtakes him at Weeks #1? His Halle titles?
Click to expand...

Fed will have approximately 1 Bio in networth, an amazing career, Mirka and the kids, to name only a small part of what Fed will have after retirement.
What will you have after Novak overtakes him at weeks #1 and Halle titles? you will finally find meaning in life? by celebrating someone else achievements? and by hating someone else?
 
blablavla said:
no, Caroline plays in WTA, they have different rules for ranking.

if you don't know what you are talking about, the rules of ATP Ranking for top players are following:

4 GS are mandatory, even if a player doesn't play, it will stay with 0 points
10 or 11 M1000 are mandatory, even if a player doesn't play, it will stay with 0 points
then you have 4 best other slots, which have some additional criteria, but that's not the point

so, a player can win 20 tournaments of 500 series within 1 calendar year, and will have precisely 2000 points in ranking, because only 4 tournaments will count.
That is good enough to reach top 10.

Now please show us a player from ATP Tour that climbed to #1 position in ATP ranking by playing and winning exclusively ATP 500 events.
Or by reaching 4 GS finals, and losing all of them which will result 4000 points.
Click to expand...

Take a deep breath, and realize that i was not speaking literally.

Yes I know you need results at other events. The point, of course, is that you can be #1 with very mediocre results at the majors and big results at other tournaments like 500s. It depends on the relative points of other players as well.
 
blablavla said:
it just shows how pathetic are you and your trolling skills.



Fed will have approximately 1 Bio in networth, an amazing career, Mirka and the kids, to name only a small part of what Fed will have after retirement.
What will you have after Novak overtakes him at weeks #1 and Halle titles? you will finally find meaning in life? by celebrating someone else achievements? and by hating someone else?
Click to expand...

We are talking about the goat debate. But it Looks like your panties are already in a twist.
 
blablavla said:
nice attempt at logic, except that I would like to see a #1 that made it to #1 by winning 500 titles.
Click to expand...
Not the point whether somebody got to No.1 by winning 500er or not, it just shows that ranking points are arbitrary and therefore rankings are flawed. I don’t think my post was so hard to understand. Let us take 2013 for instance. Imagine Djokovic looses the AO final against Murray but instead plays and wins two more 500er and maybe performs a little better at masters. He could very well end the year at No.1 despite winning zero slams to Rafas 2. No sane person would say that he was the best player of the season.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Not the point whether somebody got to No.1 by winning 500er or not, it just shows that ranking points are arbitrary and therefore rankings are flawed. I don’t think my post was so hard to understand. Let us take 2013 for instance. Imagine Djokovic looses the AO final against Murray but instead plays and wins two more 500er and maybe performs a little better at masters. He could very well end the year at No.1 despite winning zero slams to Rafas 2. No sane person would say that he was the best player of the season.
Click to expand...

that's the whole thing.
there is real world and there is would coulda shoulda.

in real word the ATP ranking system works quite nicely and representatively.
in the woulda coulda shoulda reality... well, you know better.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Not the point whether somebody got to No.1 by winning 500er or not, it just shows that ranking points are arbitrary and therefore rankings are flawed. I don’t think my post was so hard to understand. Let us take 2013 for instance. Imagine Djokovic looses the AO final against Murray but instead plays and wins two more 500er and maybe performs a little better at masters. He could very well end the year at No.1 despite winning zero slams to Rafas 2. No sane person would say that he was the best player of the season.
Click to expand...

On point. He doesn’t have any counter though, he will probably start calling you names.
 
From a Federer fan perspective, I'll have to be really honest here - the person he's trying to hold off is not Federer, it's actually Djokovic (a lot of Fedheads are gonna want me dead for saying this but the more I look at it, the more it looks like this is going to be the case going forward).

With Nadal, Rafa can say he holds the edge over Fed in Masters, Olympics, H2H, win %, beating Fedovic to win 14/20 slams, similar longevity, winning multiple slams on each surface, and that he got the better of Fed at every major they've played at. It's also worth noting that Fed is essentially a middle-aged man now............so Rafa will obviously have a lot more chances at winning more slams and getting his 6th YEN1, while Novak on the other hand is younger than him.

With Djokovic, all those arguments go out the door so it's a MUST for him to stay ahead of the Serb in the slams category
 
Last edited:
Nothing, really. The only thing his comeback since 2017 was missing is a win over Djokovic in a slam. He finally got it.

After last year I was hoping for a 5th USO title. Now I doubt he is going to get it. (after he skipped it this year)
 
FrontHeadlock said:
Take a deep breath, and realize that i was not speaking literally.

Yes I know you need results at other events. The point, of course, is that you can be #1 with very mediocre results at the majors and big results at other tournaments like 500s. It depends on the relative points of other players as well.
Click to expand...

bla bla bla bla bla.

can you bring me a real world example when someone climbed to #1 by failing miserably in GS and M1000 but having some excellent results in "Mickey Mouse" tournaments?
if not, then your whole point belongs to the woulda coulda shoulda trash bin.
 
blablavla said:
talking in your language, he just spanked your favorite player.
like really bad, in spite of balls, weather, heavy clay.

oh, I forgot, your favorite dominated so concentrated that you guys already celebrated the 18th.
so I guess 17 > 20?
Click to expand...

NCYGS, #1 records etc.
 
TMF said:
WTF is considered the 5th biggest tournament of they year and weeks #1 defines the player being an all around best player on the tour.

Slam is the the most important criteria but there are many more important criteria in evaluation the player's ATG.
Click to expand...
Yes it is an important ping pong tournament isn't it?
 
Lleytonstation said:
Rafa would destroy him. Lights out. One top spin forehand and grunt is all he needs. Wait? Is it on clay or what?
Click to expand...

LOL, Lleyton! First time I'm hearing someone's strength depends on the surface he's fighting on! :D :-D Perhaps why Tyson lost to Buster so unexpectedly :)
 
TMF said:
WTF is considered the 5th biggest tournament of they year and weeks #1 defines the player being an all around best player on the tour.

Slam is the the most important criteria but there are many more important criteria in evaluation the player's ATG.
Click to expand...

Where's your list???

I even made a thread and tagged you in it but you haven't the balls to respond...

Is it no longer your desktop background???
 
TMF said:
You basically saying that slam count is the be-all and end-all debate in GOAT which I disagree. That's the lazy approach. You can't sweep every other achievements under the rug. To measure the player's ATG, one should factor their entire career achievements, not just the slam alone.

Every player has equal opportunity to play on the tour so there's no excuse. The fact that Federer is ahead of Nadal because he's a better player on all surfaces combined, more versatility, more consistent are the reason why he has more weeks #1 and many more tennis records/streaks.



As I've mentioned so many times before, a player's placement on ATG is base on the established criteria by the tennis experts. Notice it covers the player's career in performances, results, level of dominant, consistency, longevity, and off court contribution to tennis.

PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)
Click to expand...

ok:

* Number of Major Titles won- Tied
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events - Fed 31 major finals to Rafa 28 (about even since Rafa is 5 years younger) Fed 20/31, Rafa 20/28.. Rafa has a better strike rate... Fed has 5+ titles at 3/4 majors, Nadal the only player with multiple majors on each surface
* Player Ranking - Fed clearly holds the advantage with weeks, but YE#1 is equal
* Performance at ATP/WTA events - Fed has 6 YEC but Rafa has 7 more Masters titles and Olympic singles gold...
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events - Rafa has clear advantage with 4 Davis Cup titles
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks) - Too many for each to go through I'd hazard a guess and say it's about even
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis) - H2H goes to Rafa particularly at majors, Rafa has built an Academy... Igia Swiatek has just won a major at age 19 having trained at that Academy... BOTH have inspired many and draw massive crowds and ratings...Rafa has beat Fed at his pet slam, Fed has not beaten Rafa at his... Rafa also has better H2H at majors vs Djokovic

Seems to me like each of them has a fair argument...
 
TMF said:
WTF is considered the 5th biggest tournament of they year and weeks #1 defines the player being an all around best player on the tour.

Slam is the the most important criteria but there are many more important criteria in evaluation the player's ATG.
Click to expand...

The holiday consolation tournament is a joke and nothing but an exhibition.
 
sureshs said:
20 Slams
Olympics singles gold
Fed H2H 24-16

He needs to:

Win one more AO thus winning each Slam at least twice which Fed and Djokovic has not been able to do
Make the H2H against Djokovic better which is currently 27-29
Click to expand...
Nope. He's done more than enough to cement himself top dog of the Homogenization era, where he should remain unless Nole surpasses him. Fed's DONE
 
Neither Djokovic nor Roger are going to win RG ever again as long as Nadal stays healthy, which means a single AO title for Rafa puts him above them. It's actually Nadal's fault, he should have had at least 3 AO titles by now and then he could have focused on winning another Wimbledon title which obviously would...but I digress
 
blablavla said:
bla bla bla bla bla.

can you bring me a real world example when someone climbed to #1 by failing miserably in GS and M1000 but having some excellent results in "Mickey Mouse" tournaments?
if not, then your whole point belongs to the woulda coulda shoulda trash bin.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are looking for but Marcelo Rios never won a GS and still became No. 1. The biggest tournament he ever won was Indian Wells.

Also Becker won Wimbledon, US Open and Paris Bercy in 1989, reached the semis in RG and the WTF final yet never became No. 1 that year while Lendl finished 1st.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Should Rafa retire after winning 2014 AO?
2
Replies
57
Views
5K
tex123
T
F
How much does Fed's H2H against the Big 4 matter?
2
Replies
71
Views
6K
monfed
monfed
FedererDropShot
  • Poll Poll
Can Murray do what Federer could not do?
Replies
48
Views
6K
Prisoner of Birth
P
V
What would a player need to do to be GOAT?
Replies
14
Views
1K
AAAA
AAAA
hipolymer
Do you think Rafa would give up a slam to not have played the AO final last year against Fed?
Replies
41
Views
3K
chjtennis
chjtennis
Back
Top