Who is better, Nadal on hardcourt or Federer on clay?

[fed_rulz]

If Nadal is only 3-4 on the all time clay list according to you then Federer isnt even in the top 30 considering the huge chasm between Nadal and Federer on clay. So thanks for admitting Federer isnt even a top 30 clay courter all time. The only way for Federer to even make the top 10 or top 15 all time on clay as Federer fans want is to concede Nadal as the hands down clay court GOAT considering the enormous disparity between the two on the surface.

logic has never been your friend, has it? please have the mods unban your davey25 acct, and post from there. the village idiot role suits davey better.

before you can muster a come back, please explain why if nadal drops down two places in the all-time list, why Federer would drop 15-20 places? the chasm b/n Federer and Nadal stays the same....

 

[TMF]

Quoted for the win. Can't be the goat on clay in weak clay era.

Well, that is your main argument against Federer which according to you hurts his status overall. Of course, this is idiotic and expected from you, but at least now you can concede that Nadal would rank 3-4 in the all-time clay court list at best. He dominated clay only because of the weak competition.

Hohoho...NadalAgassi contradict himself again(nothing new).

He also said Fed can't be a hc GOAT b/c of weak competition(compare to previous era). But now he praise Nadal on hc b/c of such great hc players he had to faced.

hohoho.......

 

[Crazy man]

Hohoho...NadalAgassi contradict himself again(nothing new).

He also said Fed can't be a hc GOAT b/c of weak competition(compare to previous era). But now he praise Nadal on hc b/c of such great hc players he had to faced.

hohoho.......

I'm not going to laugh at the premise of your post. I'm going to laugh at how ******** your speech is. Hohohohoho.

 

[Crazy man]

logic has never been your friend, has it? please have the mods unban your davey25 acct, and post from there. the village idiot role suits davey better.

before you can muster a come back, please explain why if nadal drops down two places in the all-time list, why Federer would drop 15-20 places? the chasm b/n Federer and Nadal stays the same....

Weren't you the guy who claimed Sampras wouldn't be a slam winner of today and was the luckiest doube-digit slam winner ever? I lol'd.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Of course this place is Federer Palace so even if you started a poll "who is better on clay- Federer or Nadal" Federer would win with atleast 70% of the votes.

Wrong
10chx

 

[fed_rulz]

Weren't you the guy who claimed Sampras wouldn't be a slam winner of today and was the luckiest doube-digit slam winner ever? I lol'd.

so what if you "lol'd"? is that supposed to mean something? why don't you, for a change, refute my posts with any kind of reasoning, as opposed to just "lol" ing? In particular, explain why Sampras would do well today on slower surfaces, when he had a lot of trouble performing on them in his peak/prime. also, explain why Sampras shouldn't be considered lucky if his biggest "rival" was a meth-head and was absent for a considerable portion of Sampras' slam winning time?

 

[TMF]

I'm not going to laugh at the premise of your post. I'm going to laugh at how ******** your speech is. Hohohohoho.

hahahahaha....

 

[fed_rulz]

I'm not going to laugh at the premise of your post. I'm going to laugh at how ******** your speech is. Hohohohoho.

didn't know you could actually "hear" TMF's posts....

 

[TMF]

so what if you "lol'd"? is that supposed to mean something? why don't you, for a change, refute my posts with any kind of reasoning, as opposed to just "lol" ing? In particular, explain why Sampras would do well today on slower surfaces, when he had a lot of trouble performing on them in his peak/prime. also, explain why Sampras shouldn't be considered lucky if his biggest "rival" was a meth-head and was absent for a considerable portion of Sampras' slam winning time?

Weren't crazy man(the name speak for itself) once said players have success going against Roger's fh? Suggesting they wouldn't mind go either side of Fed's bh or fh.

hohohohoho....

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Hohoho...NadalAgassi contradict himself again(nothing new).

He also said Fed can't be a hc GOAT b/c of weak competition(compare to previous era). But now he praise Nadal on hc b/c of such great hc players he had to faced.

hohoho.......

Very true.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

If Nadal is only 3-4 on the all time clay list according to you then Federer isnt even in the top 30 considering the huge chasm between Nadal and Federer on clay. So thanks for admitting Federer isnt even a top 30 clay courter all time. The only way for Federer to even make the top 10 or top 15 all time on clay as Federer fans want is to concede Nadal as the hands down clay court GOAT considering the enormous disparity between the two on the surface.

I only brought up the weak clay court field as it is a counterbalance if one uses the competition excuse to Federer fans whining he should be awarded imaginary French Open titles he couldnt win only since he lost to Nadal. If one uses the Nadal excuse (and it is Federer fans using this excuse, Nadal fans need no excuse for his clay achievements obviously) then one must also consider the lack of depth in the clay court field today.

As for Nadal losing in hard court slams to Gonzalez or Youzhny, yes a 20 year old Nadal lost to people like that in hard court slams. A 21 year old Federer was losing to giants such as Max Mirnyi and a pre prime Nalbandian in hard court slams. Federer the so called hard court GOAT. Amazing that ****s think so highly of Nadal they apparently expect so much more from him on his worst surface than they do of their hero on his best.

Boy you're an angry whiner.

 

[Crazy man]

so what if you "lol'd"? is that supposed to mean something? why don't you, for a change, refute my posts with any kind of reasoning, as opposed to just "lol" ing? In particular, explain why Sampras would do well today on slower surfaces, when he had a lot of trouble performing on them in his peak/prime. also, explain why Sampras shouldn't be considered lucky if his biggest "rival" was a meth-head and was absent for a considerable portion of Sampras' slam winning time?

You clearly never watched Sampras to ever come out with such a ******** statement. You can have your opinion, but at the end of the day Sampras will be remembered as a great player as long as tennis exists. You can't say that about anyone outside 4 or 5 players this era.


I don't even understand TMF's last post. He might want to speak in a consistent tense. He's got the grammatical flaws I had at age 5!

 

[NadalAgassi]

You clearly never watched Sampras to ever come out with such a ******** statement. You can have your opinion, but at the end of the day Sampras will be remembered as a great player as long as tennis exists. You can't say that about anyone outside 4 or 5 players this era.


I don't even understand TMF's last post. He might want to speak in a consistent tense. He's got the grammatical flaws I had at age 5!

TMF is still struggling in 5th grade. He is trying to pass it for the thirteenth time or so. Dont be too hard on him.

 

[Crazy man]

TMF is still struggling in 5th grade. He is trying to pass it for the thirteenth time or so. Dont be too hard on him.

I'm convinced I was smarter than TMF is now when I was a sperm cell.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I'm convinced I was smarter than TMF is now when I was a sperm cell.

It is a pretty safe bet that you are correct.

 

[billnepill]

Of course, NadalAgassi ignored to address the contradiction in his ramblings. At least the other trolls don't pretend to have something b/n the ears..

 

[NadalAgassi]

If I responded to every stupid ******* post in this forum I would be on here all day . Some people like yourself are pointless to explain things too repeatedly as even simple things you dont have the brain capacity to grasp, even if explained to 10 times.

You have already determined by your own logic Federer is barely a top 30 clay courter all time, or worse (as that is all he would be if Nadal is somehow only 3rd or 4th), so there is nothing more to discuss.

 

[billnepill]

If I responded to every stupid ******* post in this forum I would be on here all day . Some people like yourself are pointless to explain things too repeatedly as even simple things you dont have the brain capacity to grasp, even if explained to 10 times.

What did you explain? Tell me - how would you rank Nadal in your clay GOAT list?

 

[FedExpress 333]

Nadal is either the 1st or 2nd clay GOAT, I do not think anyone can refute that, but Federer is better on clay then Nadal is on hard.

 

[billnepill]

Nadal is either the 1st or 2nd clay GOAT, I do not think anyone can refute that, but Federer is better on clay then Nadal is on hard.

no no, sure, for me Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever.

However, I want to know NadalAgassi's opinion on the matter, so I am waiting...

 

[FedExpress 333]

no no, sure, for me Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever.

However, I want to know NadalAgassi's opinion on the matter, so I am waiting...

im pretty sure nadal agassi thinks nadal is the clay GOAT too.

 

[billnepill]

im pretty sure nadal agassi thinks nadal is the clay GOAT too.

I think that too.. then why doesn't he respond?

 

[FedExpress 333]

IDK, maybe he burnt his fingers and can not type.

 

[fed_rulz]

You clearly never watched Sampras to ever come out with such a ******** statement. You can have your opinion, but at the end of the day Sampras will be remembered as a great player as long as tennis exists. You can't say that about anyone outside 4 or 5 players this era.


I don't even understand TMF's last post. He might want to speak in a consistent tense. He's got the grammatical flaws I had at age 5!

oh really? what a cop-out ... care to tell me what Pete's record is on slower, high bouncing surfaces? these moronic pete-**** claims never get old... keep it coming

 

[TMF]

Of course, NadalAgassi ignored to address the contradiction in his ramblings. At least the other trolls don't pretend to have something b/n the ears..

Do you know why he's ignoring? That's b/c there's no answer for contradiction. Even if he tries to address it, he'll just shoot himself in the foot as usual(nothing new). It only add more to his stupidity.

As for crazy man(name say it all), I went through many of his posts and the guy is nothing but a troll. Ignorant fool who thinks he knows more tennis than anyone on this board.

 

[TMF]

im pretty sure nadal agassi thinks nadal is the clay GOAT too.

How dare he say that ?

According to NadalAgassi, the clay field is the weakest in men's history. That doesn't add up.

 

[Crazy man]

As for crazy man(name say it all), I went through many of his posts and the guy is nothing but a troll. Ignorant fool who thinks he knows more tennis than anyone on this board.

I'm pretty sure I know a lot more about the technical side of tennis (mechanics/kinetics) than you do. You would probably have to use a search engine to find out the difference between an eastern and semi-western grip.



And no I don't go around acting like some smart-ass who thinks he's right 24/7. I just don't call Sampras a fluke 14 slam winner nor do I go around saying Roddick (although he's my joint favourite player) is better than Laver. You probably don't even realise how good a mover Laver was, or how clean a hitter he was to even say that.






Do you act like this in real life?

 

[Raz11]

Federer on clay imo. Why? 1 French Open and 4 Runners up and the 2nd best CC player this era behind Nadal. Who is also the reason why he only has 1 French Open.

Nadal does have 2 HC slams but there are 2 HC Slams a year giving Nadal more opportunities to win. I mean if Federer was to win every French Open and Nadal was to win every AO and US, Nadal would still have twice as many HC Slams but that wouldn't mean he would be the better on hard than Federer on clay. A better comparison would be Federer's performance at the French against Nadal's performance at US.

Federer - French Open
1 French Open/4 RU

Nadal - US Open
1 US Open/1 RU.

 

[TMF]

I'm pretty sure I know a lot more about the technical side of tennis (mechanics/kinetics) than you do. You would probably have to use a search engine to find out the difference between an eastern and semi-western grip.

And no I don't go around acting like some smart-ass who thinks he's right 24/7. I just don't call Sampras a fluke 14 slam winner nor do I go around saying Roddick (although he's my joint favourite player) is better than Laver. You probably don't even realise how good a mover Laver was, or how clean a hitter he was to even say that.

Do you act like this in real life?

When it comes to tennis, I enjoy watching a great match and discuss tennis, nothing more, nothing less. If you believe you have more tennis knowledge than me then that's your opinion, not my business. If someone said Roddick > Laver or Sampras's 14 slams is a fluke , then address that poster, why brought it up?

Unlike you, I don't go around judging a person's intelligence based on his/her fluent in English when you don't even know English is not his/her native language. That's like saying Roddick is more smarter than Davydenko or Nadal.

 

[dh003i]

The without Nadal reasoning is the dumbest argument imaginable. Federer fans are all but ready to act like Federer is a 5 time or 6 time French Open Champion due to a fantasy World without Nadal. Heck why not just say he is equally great to Nadal on clay since he wins the same number of French Opens without Nadal as Nadal, that makes perfect sense after all, LOL!

The fact is Nadal was there, and Federer wasnt ever able to beat him at Roland Garros, so he deserves only 1 French Open as he has. Anyway Federer fans are always ready to cry about Nadal being in his way at Roland Garros, but wont even acknowledge how poor the rest of the field is on clay and that aiding Federer to make the French Open final every year with practically no competition. Nadal on hard courts (his worst surface like clay is for Federer) has to face 5 or 6 great hard court players. Federer on clay has to face Nadal and a bunch of clay court nobodies (other than Djokovic once). Despite that Nadal still had won the Australian Open, U.S Open, and Olympic singles gold on hard courts all by 24.

If we accept your logic, what you are really saying is that Federer faced much tougher hard court competition than Nadal faced clay-court competition and thus that Federer's achievements on HC are clearly more impressive than Nadal's on CC. A separate point from this thread's original post, but worth mentioning.

 

[dh003i]

I only brought up the weak clay court field as it is a counterbalance if one uses the competition excuse to Federer fans whining he should be awarded imaginary French Open titles

But you brought it up, and you have to accept the consequences of it if you are going to stand by it. You have to take the good with the bad. The good -- from your pov -- if that Federer's clay ranking is decreased. The bad is that so is Nadal's, and that Nadal's clay-court accomplishments wouldn't be as impressive as Federer's HC accomplishments. The other good is that Nadal's HC achievements become more impressive...again, from your pov.

Now, is it known as a fact that had Nadal not been there, Federer would have won all of those FOs? No. It does seem likely though. It also seems almost certain that Federer would have had the opportunity to have done far better absent Nadal on clay than Nadal would absent Federer on hard-court.

To be fair, you could argue that neither of them would be as good on their weakest surfaces, or overall, if not for the other. Federer is probably a better clay-court player in the absolute sense -- and a better player everywhere -- for having to deal with a great player who's game matched up well against his. Nadal is probably a better player for having to try to outrank a player who's game just naturally translated better against the rest of the field overall.

e.g., it is conceivable, although unlikely, that had Federer not lost to Nadal at the FO SF in 2005, he would have won the 2005 FO (likely...but even if not, his likely competition at the final was a cheater so a loss wouldn't even count...thankfully, we didn't have to deal with the fallout of having a fraudulent FO winner) but then not made another FO final thereafter because he wouldn't have had to elevate his claycourt game.

 

[dh003i]

Federer on clay imo. Why? 1 French Open and 4 Runners up and the 2nd best CC player this era behind Nadal. Who is also the reason why he only has 1 French Open.

Nadal does have 2 HC slams but there are 2 HC Slams a year giving Nadal more opportunities to win. I mean if Federer was to win every French Open and Nadal was to win every AO and US, Nadal would still have twice as many HC Slams but that wouldn't mean he would be the better on hard than Federer on clay. A better comparison would be Federer's performance at the French against Nadal's performance at US.

Federer - French Open
1 French Open/4 RU

Nadal - US Open
1 US Open/1 RU.

I don't expect this reasonable analysis to penetrate some of the posters here. After all, Nadal has more Claycourt titles than Federer (and Sampras) have grasscourt titles, so Nadal is better on his best surface...nevermind the number of opportunities there are. Nadal is also a better claycourt player than Federer is an "indoor HC" player, nevermind the number of tournaments.

 

[NadalAgassi]

But you brought it up, and you have to accept the consequences of it if you are going to stand by it. You have to take the good with the bad. The good -- from your pov -- if that Federer's clay ranking is decreased. The bad is that so is Nadal's, and that Nadal's clay-court accomplishments wouldn't be as impressive as Federer's HC accomplishments.

What a pile of BS. Federer faces only one good clay courter is the super weak clay field- Nadal, and gets dominated by him. This alone suggests he wouldnt fare nearly as well in a much stronger clay court field, along with that in 2004 he couldnt even beat grandpas from the previous clay court era like Kuerten and Costa who were close to retirement, let alone awarding him fantasy French Opens he wasnt good enough to win since he lost to Nadal. Nadal on the other hand has completely dominated everyone for years, so there is no indication to suggest he would struggle even against much stronger clay competition. Also the only one guy close to Nadal in clay court achievements also dominated a weak clay era (Borg) while those who had much stronger overall competition won much less than Nadal (and still mostly much more than Federer in this shallow clay era).

Also I was not decreasing Federer's clay court ranking (except by the fantasy method a ******* brought up, so I went along with from a different angle). Federer's actual clay court achievements alone dont put him anywhere near the top 10 clay courters all time, except by the method started by a ******* of awarding him fantasy French Opens since Nadal was the one to beat him, which is of course complete nonsense. Federer is barely a top 10 clay courter since 1978 (the year major hard court events began) based on his achievments, while Nadal is at about the same place amongst hard courters in the Open Era.

Any rational person (aka excluding nearly all Federer fans on Planet TW) would see I only brought up the weak clay court field as a counterpoint to the stupid ******* analogy of him deserving phantom French Open titles since only Nadal beat him. Of course the realistic stance is that neither of those things matter, Federer's achievements on clay are what they are irregardless of the Nadal excuse or the overall really weak clay era. That is alot of finals, but only 1 French Open title, and only 1 title at the 3 biggest clay court events- Roland Garros, Monte Carlo, Rome. Achievements that considering Nadal at only 25 has already won the Australian Open, U.S Open, and Olympic Gold on hard courts, put Nadal on hard courts very much in consideration atleast vs Federer on clay. The end.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I don't expect this reasonable analysis to penetrate some of the posters here. After all, Nadal has more Claycourt titles than Federer (and Sampras) have grasscourt titles, so Nadal is better on his best surface...nevermind the number of opportunities there are. Nadal is also a better claycourt player than Federer is an "indoor HC" player, nevermind the number of tournaments.

Which is true, Nadal is far and away better on clay than Federer is on any surface. Federer does not dominate any surface to the extent Nadal does clay. The only major event 30 year old Federer has any major titles as only 25 year old Nadal does French Opens is at Wimbledon, and even there he has alot of trouble with Nadal and Roddick than Nadal has with anyone at Roland Garros.
That is without even mentioning Nadal has 7 Monte Carlo titles.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

What a pile of BS. Federer faces only one good clay courter is the super weak clay field- Nadal, and gets dominated by him. This alone suggests he wouldnt fare nearly as well in a much stronger clay court field, along with that in 2004 he couldnt even beat grandpas from the previous clay court era like Kuerten and Costa who were close to retirement, let alone awarding him fantasy French Opens he wasnt good enough to win since he lost to Nadal. Nadal on the other hand has completely dominated everyone for years, so there is no indication to suggest he would struggle even against much stronger clay competition. Also the only one guy close to Nadal in clay court achievements also dominated a weak clay era (Borg) while those who had much stronger overall competition won much less than Nadal (and still mostly much more than Federer in this shallow clay era).

Also I was not decreasing Federer's clay court ranking (except by the fantasy method a ******* brought up, so I went along with from a different angle). Federer's actual clay court achievements alone dont put him anywhere near the top 10 clay courters all time, except by the method started by a ******* of awarding him fantasy French Opens since Nadal was the one to beat him, which is of course complete nonsense. Federer is barely a top 10 clay courter since 1978 (the year major hard court events began) based on his achievments, while Nadal is at about the same place amongst hard courters in the Open Era.

Any rational person (aka excluding nearly all Federer fans on Planet TW) would see I only brought up the weak clay court field as a counterpoint to the stupid ******* analogy of him deserving phantom French Open titles since only Nadal beat him. Of course the realistic stance is that neither of those things matter, Federer's achievements on clay are what they are irregardless of the Nadal excuse or the overall really weak clay era. That is alot of finals, but only 1 French Open title, and only 1 title at the 3 biggest clay court events- Roland Garros, Monte Carlo, Rome. Achievements that considering Nadal at only 25 has already won the Australian Open, U.S Open, and Olympic Gold on hard courts, put him very much in consideration atleast vs Federer on hard courts. The end.

1. If Federer played in a weak clay court era and had inflated states due to the era, so did Nadal.
2. If the Era was so weak, who would have beat Federer in 05, 06, 07, 08, and 11?
3. If Nadal is the best to ever play on the red dirt, how do you knock someone for losing to the best?
4. Since Federer wouldn't have fared as well versus a stronger CC field, what proof do you have that Nadal wouldn't have had less spectacular results versus a weaker field also? Nadal in a weak field couldn't even break borgs streak of 4 consecutive FO titles. Are we to assume since Bord played in an Era that you would call stronger he is a better clay courter?
5. Federer had 6 HC slams and three WTF including 3 consecutive USOs and 3 AOs. How in the world does Nadal's USO, AO, and Olympics win put him
"very much in consideration vs. Federer on hard courts?"

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Which is true, Nadal is far and away better on clay than Federer is on any surface. Federer does not dominate any surface to the extent Nadal does clay. The only major event 30 year old Federer has any major titles as only 25 year old Nadal does French Opens is at Wimbledon, and even there he has alot of trouble with Nadal and Roddick than Nadal has with anyone at Roland Garros.
That is without even mentioning Nadal has 7 Monte Carlo titles.

He dominates due to a weak field. You said if yourself.

 

[TopFH]

What a pile of BS. Federer faces only one good clay courter is the super weak clay field- Nadal, and gets dominated by him. This alone suggests he wouldnt fare nearly as well in a much stronger clay court field, along with that in 2004 he couldnt even beat grandpas from the previous clay court era like Kuerten and Costa who were close to retirement, let alone awarding him fantasy French Opens he wasnt good enough to win since he lost to Nadal. Nadal on the other hand has completely dominated everyone for years, so there is no indication to suggest he would struggle even against much stronger clay competition. Also the only one guy close to Nadal in clay court achievements also dominated a weak clay era (Borg) while those who had much stronger overall competition won much less than Nadal (and still mostly much more than Federer in this shallow clay era).

Also I was not decreasing Federer's clay court ranking (except by the fantasy method a ******* brought up, so I went along with from a different angle). Federer's actual clay court achievements alone dont put him anywhere near the top 10 clay courters all time, except by the method started by a ******* of awarding him fantasy French Opens since Nadal was the one to beat him, which is of course complete nonsense. Federer is barely a top 10 clay courter since 1978 (the year major hard court events began) based on his achievments, while Nadal is at about the same place amongst hard courters in the Open Era.

Any rational person (aka excluding nearly all Federer fans on Planet TW) would see I only brought up the weak clay court field as a counterpoint to the stupid ******* analogy of him deserving phantom French Open titles since only Nadal beat him. Of course the realistic stance is that neither of those things matter, Federer's achievements on clay are what they are irregardless of the Nadal excuse or the overall really weak clay era. That is alot of finals, but only 1 French Open title, and only 1 title at the 3 biggest clay court events- Roland Garros, Monte Carlo, Rome. Achievements that considering Nadal at only 25 has already won the Australian Open, U.S Open, and Olympic Gold on hard courts, put him very much in consideration atleast vs Federer on hard courts. The end.

Why do you exclude Madrid and Hamburg?

 

[NadalAgassi]

Why do you exclude Madrid and Hamburg?

Since Monte Carlo and Rome >>> Madrid and Hamburg in the history of the game. Dont tell me you didnt know that, LOL!

 

[Raz11]

Any rational person (aka excluding nearly all Federer fans on Planet TW) would see I only brought up the weak clay court field as a counterpoint to the stupid ******* analogy of him deserving phantom French Open titles since only Nadal beat him. Of course the realistic stance is that neither of those things matter, Federer's achievements on clay are what they are irregardless of the Nadal excuse or the overall really weak clay era. That is alot of finals, but only 1 French Open title, and only 1 title at the 3 biggest clay court events- Roland Garros, Monte Carlo, Rome. Achievements that considering Nadal at only 25 has already won the Australian Open, U.S Open, and Olympic Gold on hard courts, put Nadal on hard courts very much in consideration atleast vs Federer on clay. The end.

Phantom French Open? People only bring this up because Federer's accomplishment at the French Open doesn't reflect Federer's true capabilities on clay. Federer was just as dominant as Nadal during his prime years. They both were dominating the field just as great as each other but in the end only one of them can win the French Open and that was Nadal. I mean he shares the open record of the most consecutive French finals with Nadal, Lendl and Borg as well where plenty of multiple French Open champions have failed to achieve. When looking at some of the best Clay court players in history, Federer definitely has a good case for top 10 because of his dominance against the field outside of Nadal for a number of years regardless of whether it is a weak era or not. Number of French Opens isn't the sole indicator of being a great clay court player.

 

[billnepill]

Lol at NadalAgassi for refusing to answer the question how he would rank Nadal as a claycourter! :lol:
You can't say the pathetic clay competition hurts Federer and not nadal. What is even more revealing is your claim that the hc field is far better than the clay field. Cause you are a bit daft , let me clarify - you are basically saying federer's accomplishments should be more valued not only because of the numbers, but because he won against tougher hc field than nadal respectively on clay.

According to your logic nadal should be ranked outside top 3 of alltime clay champions or even outside top 5 as you rank federer low in the goat list even though he faced better competition to win his hc slams than nadal to win his clay ones. Again, according to you.
Thanks for playing though :lol:

 

[billnepill]

Having won 60% of his slams in such a bad field, nadal's place in the all-time greatest list should be reconsidered as well thanks to NadalAgassi, the most reasonable poster in TT :lol:

 

[tennis_pro]

Having won 60% of his slams in such a bad field, nadal's place in the all-time greatest list should be reconsidered as well thanks to NadalAgassi, the most reasonable poster in TT :lol:

That brings Nadal to Courier's league. Heck, Courier won all of his 4 majors in the golden era of tennis so Nadal's not even there yet

 

[devila]

if only nadal had destroyed an injured djoker, after serving with a 40-15 advantage at the us open, and then time travelled to the year 2004 to win the olympics, and "beat" roddick, safin and hewitt, he would be a big hero...

 

[als47]

I only brought up the weak clay court field as it is a

It doesn't matter why you brought it up. Each piece of evidence introduced has to be applied to each potential hypothesis. That's how evidence works.

So you've brought into evidence "the weak clay court field." The weak clay court field means, to you, that Federer isn't much of a clay courter. OK. So the weak clay court field, plus Federer, aren't very good clay courters. This means that we do not have a frame of reference from which to judge the skill of the person who dominates that weak field; that person could be an entirely average clay courter, because he has no competition. A strong clay court field may knock that person out of contention entirely.

Therefore, what you have introduced along with this piece of evidence (the weakness of the clay court field) is this: that Nadal and Federer are better than a bunch of sucky clay courters. And in denigrating Fed's clay court skills, one further states that Nadal is only better than a bunch of sucky clay courters and one sort of okay one. So Nadal may, in fact, be only a somewhat good clay courter in the scheme of clay courters of all time. It's just that he's been extremely lucky to contend with such a weak field. He may be better than that, but he may not be. And in the end, we have absolutely no way to tell.

Is that a conclusion that we're comfortable with?

 

[tennis_pro]

if only nadal had destroyed an injured djoker, after serving with a 40-15 advantage at the us open, and then time travelled to the year 2004 to win the olympics, and "beat" roddick, safin and hewitt, he would be a big hero...

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

This is great. 15 of Federer's slams are against a strong field including a lot of "great" hard courters according to NadalAgassi. I guess that Federer only has 15 total slams minus the one tainted French. Nadal only has 4 slams then. Djoker nearly equalled him in one season.

This NadalAgassi "weak" stuff will last just as long as the Cincinnati real slam business.

 

[fed_rulz]

wow, it's super fun to see Davey getting pwned and manhandled like he is in this thread . keep it coming...

 

[celoft]

It's not even close, actually.

 

[TMF]

Since Monte Carlo and Rome >>> Madrid and Hamburg in the history of the game. Dont tell me you didnt know that, LOL!

That is like saying Murray's win in Shanghai doesn't count b/c the event is not as attractive/popular as IW. :roll:

They are all MS event. Discredit Fed's wins is nothing more than you playing the double standard.

 

[zagor]

Federer faces only one good clay courter is the super weak clay field- Nadal, and gets dominated by him.

But that's the thing, Nadal is not a merely good clay courter, he's an amazing one(even the best ever on that surface according to many) so Fed is left facing an overall mediocre CC field plus one CC juggernaut which translated to him reaching many CC finals only to lose to Nadal.

In a deeper CC field but without anyone as untouchable and consistent(extremely important factor) on that surface as Nadal IMO Fed would have reached say 2-3 FO finals (in years his CC form was at its best) and managed to grab one like Kafelnikov and Agassi similarly did in the 90s.

On topic it's close but I'd pick Nadal.