Would nadal be the GOAT if he solves the Djokovic enigma?

N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Why didn't you answer the questions? I'll repeat them for you: How many titles has Nadal ever defended off of clay? How many titles has he won off of clay?

He missed out on his best chance to defend a big title off of clay when he had to miss Wimbledon 2009 with an injury. He would have been the heavy favorite to win that year. He had already overtaken Federer on grass, in fact the last time Federer did better than Nadal at Wimbledon is way back in 2007, and Federer was only getting older and weaker vs Nadal at that point.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
Why didn't you answer the questions? I'll repeat them for you: How many titles has Nadal ever defended off of clay? How many titles has he won off of clay?

LOL is that your only argument? Titles defended :lol:
How many has Djokovic defended on or off clay? Does not defending a title mean you never won it in the first place? If a player wins 5 US Opens in 11 years without defending it, does that mean he isn't one of the greatest US Open players in history? :lol:
 

Clarky21

Banned
LOL is that your only argument? Titles defended :lol:
How many has Djokovic defended on or off clay? Does not defending a title mean you never won it in the first place? If a player wins 5 US Opens in 11 years without defending it, does that mean he isn't one of the greatest US Open players in history? :lol:

Nadal not once in his entire career has been able to defend a single title off of clay tells me that he is a dirt baller. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
Nadal not once in his entire career has been able to defend a single title off of clay tells me that he is a dirt baller. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Are you saying this is relevant in some way? What is the point you are trying to make? Are you saying he's not capable of winning more Australian Opens and US Opens because he's never defended a hardcourt title? What exactly is your problem mentally?
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
Nadal also has the surface record of 81 wins in a row. And if he wins another 2 Roland Garros titles he overtakes Sampras' record of winning a slam title 7 times, by winning Roland Garros 8 times. And then there's the singles gold medal which Federer doesn't look likely to win. And yes the masters titles which could reach 25-30 by the end of Nadal's career. And the only player to win 3 slams in a calendar year on completely different surfaces (clay, grass, hard). And 102 weeks ranked number one and maybe more to come. Lots of things in Nadal's favor if he reaches 16 slams, certainly enough factors to put him ahead of Federer in history.

Yeah, Federer doesn't really have any stats or records like that.





*pause for laughter*
 

Clarky21

Banned
Are you saying this is relevant in some way? What is the point you are trying to make? Are you saying he's not capable of winning more Australian Opens and US Opens because he's never defended a hardcourt title? What exactly is your problem mentally?

I think it is relevant when people start throwing around this goat nonsense about Nadal. And honestly,I don't see him winning anymore slams,and if by some miracle he did it would not be a hard court slam.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I think it is relevant when people start throwing around this goat nonsense about Nadal. And honestly,I don't see him winning anymore slams,and if by some miracle he did it would not be a hard court slam.

You're way, way too hard on Nadal man. If Novak goes out, Nadal is the 2nd favorite at any and every slam. Djokovic isn't always going to be there.
 

Clarky21

Banned
You're way, way too hard on Nadal man. If Novak goes out, Nadal is the 2nd favorite at any and every slam. Djokovic isn't always going to be there.

He is not the second favorite for any hard court slams. That would be Federer followed by Murray or Delpo.

Besides that,who in the world is going to beat Djokovic?
 
Just winning the most slams is not the only criteria for being GOAT . It is just made so on this forum by the ****s since this is Federer Palace. However an example of this is Margaret Court who has the most womens slams with 24 but who very few believes is the GOAT. Another is Roy Emerson who won 12 and absolutely nobody believed is the GOAT.
Of course if Nadal reached 16 slams, heck even 14-15, he would be clearly ahead of Federer who is his b1tch over the years, who will have far fewer Masters titles, who doesnt have as complete a career, etc...However being superior to Federer doesnt neccessarily make you the GOAT. Whether Nadal would do enough to be superior to Laver, Sampras, and Borg if he reached 16 would depend on alot of other factors.
You just contradicted yourself as usual which once more shows you have no clue what you're talking about. You say it's not only about slams and then in the next line say it's about only about slams, H2H and Masters. If it's not only about slams, what about weeks #1? WTF? Titles? etc etc etc. Damn idiots.
 

Xizel

Professional
He is not the second favorite for any hard court slams. That would be Federer followed by Murray or Delpo.

Besides that,who in the world is going to beat Djokovic?

Being a Federer fan that I am, I won't argue for Nadal at that standing, but Murray? I'd give it to a double digit ranked guy to win a Slam before Murray, ALWAYS. Del Potro hasn't hit the same jackpot he did in 2009 and even if he did, Nadal is still a big threat. The fact that Nadal has already won both hard court Slams can almost immediately put those two to rest right on the spot with their personal characteristics as of this moment.
 

Clarky21

Banned
Being a Federer fan that I am, I won't argue for Nadal at that standing, but Murray? I'd give it to a double digit ranked guy to win a Slam before Murray, ALWAYS. Del Potro hasn't hit the same jackpot he did in 2009 and even if he did, Nadal is still a big threat. The fact that Nadal has already won both hard court Slams can almost immediately put those two to rest right on the spot.

I'm going on who is a better hard court player,and it ain't Nadal. He is inferior to both Delpo and Murray on hard courts,so that is why I put both of them ahead of him for hard court tournaments. I think both Delpo and Murray will make it further than Nadal at the USO this year,too.
 

TennisFan3

Talk Tennis Guru
Being a Federer fan that I am, I won't argue for Nadal at that standing, but Murray? I'd give it to a double digit ranked guy to win a Slam before Murray, ALWAYS. Del Potro hasn't hit the same jackpot he did in 2009 and even if he did, Nadal is still a big threat. The fact that Nadal has already won both hard court Slams can almost immediately put those two to rest right on the spot with their personal characteristics as of this moment.

Clarky21 is right. W.r.t form, I think Nadal is the 5th favorite for the UsOpen, behind Djokovic, Federer, Del Potro, Murray in that order..
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Clarky21 is right. W.r.t form, I think Nadal is the 5th favorite for the UsOpen, behind Djokovic, Federer, Del Potro, Murray in that order..

Still, hardcourt, brick, or ice, Murray isn't more of a favorite than Nadal at any slam IMO. We're talking about a guy who has 10, a winning H2H against Murray, and in the last 2 slams, won 1, and made the final of the other.
 
C

celoft

Guest
If Novak goes out, Nadal is the 2nd favorite at any and every slam. Djokovic isn't always going to be there.

On natural surfaces, yeah. If someone beats Nole at either RG or Wimbledon, Nadal becomes the favorite to win it. At the HC slams(since 2008 ) Nadal can lose to the likes of Ferrer, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga and only has 2 finals at HC slams compared with the 11 finals at slams played on natural surfaces. So even reaching the final of a HC slam with Nole out of the final is not as likely as at RG/Wimbledon.
 

JustBob

Hall of Fame
Nadal will not solve the Djokovic enigma unless he hires a hitman and kills him. He will not catch Sampras in slams, let alone Federer, and will never be "GOAT".

I like Rafa but his most rabid supporters seriously need to come of of the Land of Delusions...
 

Crisstti

Legend
Nadal is 25 which is oldish for a grinder with his style to win 6 or more slams from now on. Don't see him winning more than 12 or 13 tops. For him to win 16 or more he had to win more slams during his prime years, when slams were easier for him to win without Nole 2.0 dominating. 2009 was a wasted year of his prime, for example.... He only won 1 slam instead of 3 like he did in 2010... Also despite 2008 being his best year he only won 2 slams instead of 3... 2008 and 2009 were years where he was at his best ever and still he didn't win 3 slams in either year. Now with Nole 2.0, slams will be very hard to win for him.

OK, I see what you mean. I agree 2009 was in big part wasted, mainly because of physical problems.

Nadal's style has evolved though, so it's less demanding on the body than it used to be. I'm thinking he could become more of an agressive player than he has if he feels he needs to.

Yeah because he's a claycourt specialist, right? Because we are in 2006, yeah?

That's what some people keep trying to convince themselves of...

Nadal won the 2008 Olympics on fast hardcourt, the 2009 Australian Open, 2010 US Open, Indian Wells twice, Canada Masters twice....what the heck more do you want? :lol:

It’s really just a fallacy. Before, he was just a clay court specialist because he hadn’t won any slams in a non clay surface. And he wasn’t going to. When he did, then he’s still a clay court specialist because he hasn’t defended those titles. If he does, the they’ll say that’s meaningless, and it proves nothing if he cannot defend them more than once. Etc.

LOL is that your only argument? Titles defended :lol:
How many has Djokovic defended on or off clay? Does not defending a title mean you never won it in the first place? If a player wins 5 US Opens in 11 years without defending it, does that mean he isn't one of the greatest US Open players in history? :lol:

Exactly. It’s really very irrelevant data.

On natural surfaces, yeah. If someone beats Nole at either RG or Wimbledon, Nadal becomes the favorite to win it. At the HC slams(since 2008 ) Nadal can lose to the likes of Ferrer, Murray, Del Potro, Tsonga and only has 2 finals at HC slams compared with the 11 finals at slams played on natural surfaces. So even reaching the final of a HC slam with Nole out of the final is not as likely as at RG/Wimbledon.

Agree, it’s not as likely. It’s very possible though.
 

Clarky21

Banned
OK, I see what you mean. I agree 2009 was in big part wasted, mainly because of physical problems.

Nadal's style has evolved though, so it's less demanding on the body than it used to be. I'm thinking he could become more of an agressive player than he has if he feels he needs to.



That's what some people keep trying to convince themselves of...



It’s really just a fallacy. Before, he was just a clay court specialist because he hadn’t won any slams in a non clay surface. And he wasn’t going to. When he did, then he’s still a clay court specialist because he hasn’t defended those titles. If he does, the they’ll say that’s meaningless, and it proves nothing if he cannot defend them more than once. Etc.
Exactly. It’s really very irrelevant data.



Agree, it’s not as likely. It’s very possible though.



It does say a lot about him if he cannot not defend one single solitary title off of clay in all the years he has been on tour. Come on,you know that,but people who argue it are just doing it to defend him from this glaring hole in his resume. He has also never won the WTF,and I for one don't think he ever will. How will explain away that one if he fails to win it?
 

Crisstti

Legend
It does say a lot about him if he cannot not defend one single solitary title off of clay in all the years he has been on tour. Come on,you know that,but people who argue it are just doing it to defend him from this glaring hole in his resume. He has also never won the WTF,and I for one don't think he ever will. How will explain away that one if he fails to win it?

It does not say anything about him, other maybe than that he's better at clay. Which isn't the same as saying he's a clay court specialist.

The important thing is, he's won those titles. And against very tough opponents as well. That he hasn't won two of them in a row is very much irrelevant.

About the WTF, I don't see what would I have to try to explain if he doesn't win it. If he can't manage to win it, then he can't. We will see.
If he does win it though, I'm guessing you'll say it's irrelevant, unless he defends it the year after?.
 
Last edited:

Talker

Hall of Fame
It does say a lot about him if he cannot not defend one single solitary title off of clay in all the years he has been on tour. Come on,you know that,but people who argue it are just doing it to defend him from this glaring hole in his resume. He has also never won the WTF,and I for one don't think he ever will. How will explain away that one if he fails to win it?

He's short on the WTF's, that comes right after slams so is a good tournament.
He needs his dominant years to be better and many more weeks at #1.

In all these years he's made the finals at AO just once and the same for the USO so that really hurts.

Outside of clay:
AO 1-0
USO 1-0
Wimbledon 2-3

Put it together and you have 4-3 record outside of clay.
All of this while Fed was playing against the same field.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
I'm going on who is a better hard court player,and it ain't Nadal. He is inferior to both Delpo and Murray on hard courts,so that is why I put both of them ahead of him for hard court tournaments. I think both Delpo and Murray will make it further than Nadal at the USO this year,too.

LOL, Murray couldn't even beat Nadal at the WORLD TOUR FINALS after Nadal had an extremely hectic year winning 3 slams. And the WTF is indoor low-bouncing hardcourt. Nadal STILL beat Murray :lol: Nadal is better on hardcourts than Murray, no doubt about that. And you would be a fool to rely on Del Potro to win any slam. Nadal had the easiest victory over Murray at Indian Wells a couple of years ago 6-1 6-2 :lol:
 

Clarky21

Banned
LOL, Murray couldn't even beat Nadal at the WORLD TOUR FINALS after Nadal had an extremely hectic year winning 3 slams. And the WTF is indoor low-bouncing hardcourt. Nadal STILL beat Murray :lol: Nadal is better on hardcourts than Murray, no doubt about that. And you would be a fool to rely on Del Potro to win any slam. Nadal had the easiest victory over Murray at Indian Wells a couple of years ago 6-1 6-2 :lol:



Murray is a lot better on hard courts than Nadal. He has a game that is suited to it,not to mention a world class backhand that he can use to direct the ball anywhere he wants to flat and with pace. That is something Nadal definitely lacks. Not to mention his tendency spin the ball into the service boxes like he is dirtballing. Nadal is not a natural hard court player,and it takes him going into goat mode to win anything on hard courts,as proven by his number of titles on them.

And getting back to Murray,didn't you see him dismantle Nadal at the 2008 USO? Or how about when he demolished Nadal at the AO 2010? I guess those two beatdowns,in slams no less,don't count?

Oh,and that loss at IW was mainly due to the gale force winds that were affecting Murray's game badly. His serve especially.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
Murray is a lot better on hard courts than Nadal. He has a game that is suited to it,not to mention a world class backhand that he can use to direct the ball anywhere he wants to flat and with pace. That is something Nadal definitely lacks. Not to mention his tendency spin the ball into the service boxes like he is dirtballing. Nadal is not a natural hard court player,and it takes him going into goat mode to win anything on hard courts,as proven by his number of titles on them.

And getting back to Murray,didn't you see him dismantle Nadal at the 2008 USO? Or how about when he demolished Nadal at the AO 2010? I guess those two beatdowns,in slams no less,don't count?

Oh,and that loss at IW was mainly due to the gale force winds that were affecting Murray's game badly. His serve especially.

Nadal had an awful 2009, so it wasn't a surprise to see him losing early in 2010. He said himself that his self-believe didn't return until Monte Carlo 2010.

Exactly, Nadal beat Murray in horrific winds at Indian Wells AND indoors at the World Tour Finals. Highly impressive versatility shown by Nadal that Murray doesn't have.
 

Clarky21

Banned
Nadal had an awful 2009, so it wasn't a surprise to see him losing early in 2010. He said himself that his self-believe didn't return until Monte Carlo 2010.

Exactly, Nadal beat Murray in horrific winds at Indian Wells AND indoors at the World Tour Finals. Highly impressive versatility shown by Nadal that Murray doesn't have.

Nadal did not play badly at the AO 2010 at all. He was just soundly outplayed in that quarterfinal by Andy,and he would have lost no matter what he did. Murray has always given Nadal problems,and you saw what he is capable of if he would get his head on straight in the first set in their Wimbledon semi this year. Nadal would have lost that match if Andy wasn't a mental midget who went awol over one missed forehand.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
Nadal did not play badly at the AO 2010 at all. He was just soundly outplayed in that quarterfinal by Andy,and he would have lost no matter what he did. Murray has always given Nadal problems,and you saw what he is capable of if he would get his head on straight in the first set in their Wimbledon semi this year. Nadal would have lost that match if Andy wasn't a mental midget who went awol over one missed forehand.

Wrong. At 2010 Australian Open, Nadal played a great first set PHYSICALLY but was soundly outplayed mentally by Murray. Nadal was nervous on all the big points and that was the case until he hit the clay.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Of course right now roger is the goat easily. but if nadal would make the adjustment to overcome novak, would he be the GOAT?

You could argue that federer was never really able to dominate nadal. with nadal now it's the same. Novak hands him his ass regularly.
However if he would really solve the puzzle and turns it around against novak you could argue that he would have done what federer was never able to do. To me if nadal overcomes novak and wins about 5 more slams he is the goat even if fed has one or two more majors.

On the other hand if novak continues to dominate him he is of course way out of the GOAT discussion, probably even top5 discussion. So it's absolutely crucial to overcome novak for him. If we have that standard for roger (someone who has a losing record against his main rival can't be GOAT) we need to have the same standard for rafa.

To me it is like that: if rafa doesn't overcome novak (yes the beat the gluten eating baby novak but I'm talking about prime novak here) roger remains the GOAT no matter how his h2h against nadal is. but if nadal is able to overcome the new king he is the GOAT even when fed has a slam or two more than him.

However right now I don't see how nadal should overcome the king. novak is owning him in so many ways that nadal doesn't even know where to start to find a way.

Nadal would not be the GOAT even if he solved his Djokovic problem. He needs to win the Grand Slam, and as much as I appreciate Nadal, I do not see that happening.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
Nadal would not be the GOAT even if he solved his Djokovic problem. He needs to win the Grand Slam, and as much as I appreciate Nadal, I do not see that happening.

Nah, he needs 17 slams, it will seal the deal (or 16 slams to make it a tie). He already has done things Federer hasn't done, including winning RG, Wimbeldon, US Open in same calendar year, winning singles gold medal, winning 81 straight matches on a surface, multiple davis cups (ignore if you want), and i think he's won 3 different events 6 times each (and on track to make it 7 or 8 roland garros titles, it would overtake Sampras' record of winning a particular slam 7 times). And the big thing Federer has over Nadal - weeks ranked number one - Rafa has 102 weeks and probably a lot more to come unless Djokovic can win everything again next year. edit: Nadal has the record for Masters shields in a career.
 
Last edited:

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
Nah, he needs 17 slams, it will seal the deal (or 16 slams to make it a tie). He already has done things Federer hasn't done, including winning RG, Wimbeldon, US Open in same calendar year, winning singles gold medal, winning 81 straight matches on a surface, multiple davis cups (ignore if you want), and i think he's won 3 different events 6 times each (and on track to make it 7 or 8 roland garros titles, it would overtake Sampras' record of winning a particular slam 7 times). And the big thing Federer has over Nadal - weeks ranked number one - Rafa has 102 weeks and probably a lot more to come unless Djokovic can win everything again next year.

~ a post outlining Federer's stats and records ~

Yeah, I'm not even going to bother with actually writing them.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
~ a post outlining Federer's stats and records ~

Yeah, I'm not even going to bother with actually writing them.

A lot of Federer's records are based on him being 30. Nadal's are more the short-term records, the records you do when you are in your prime. Oh I forgot the Masters shields record, Nadal has the all-time record already, and that is huge because Federer's slam record is considered the jewel of the GOAT crown. Total Masters shields must count for a lot too then. And Nadal is on target for 25-30 of them.
 

Clarky21

Banned
A lot of Federer's records are based on him being 30. Nadal's are more the short-term records, the records you do when you are in your prime. Oh I forgot the Masters shields record, Nadal has the all-time record already, and that is huge because Federer's slam record is considered the jewel of the GOAT crown. Total Masters shields must count for a lot too then. And Nadal is on target for 25-30 of them.

Dude,Nadal is not in his prime he's past it. If you want to see prime Nadal,go watch replays of his matches from spring/summer 2008.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
Dude,Nadal is not in his prime he's past it. If you want to see prime Nadal,go watch replays of his matches from spring/summer 2008.

Dud, Nadal is in his hardcourt prime. Won the US Open last year, and made his first World Tour Finals final. Made both the Indian Wells and Miami final in the same year for the first time in his career, and was just a tie-breaker away from winning Miami (a title he's never won). You are delusional if you don't think Nadal is in his hardcourt prime. And the hardcourt prime is the most valuable prime, because 2 of the 4 slams are on hardcourt. Plus he's clearly still capable of winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon, with only one player considered more of a favorite than him at Wimbledon.
 
Nadal is still at his peakiest prime as the results show. Those are actual facts. Fool mouthed idiots can go on and on about how he's declined, I'm sure they believe it, but it has nothing to do with the actual truth.
 
Dud, Nadal is in his hardcourt prime. Won the US Open last year, and made his first World Tour Finals final. Made both the Indian Wells and Miami final in the same year for the first time in his career, and was just a tie-breaker away from winning Miami (a title he's never won). You are delusional if you don't think Nadal is in his hardcourt prime. And the hardcourt prime is the most valuable prime, because 2 of the 4 slams are on hardcourt. Plus he's clearly still capable of winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon, with only one player considered more of a favorite than him at Wimbledon.

Wow, a good and factual post from you? Who woulda thunk it?
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is still at his peakiest prime as the results show. Those are actual facts. Fool mouthed idiots can go on and on about how he's declined, I'm sure they believe it, but it has nothing to do with the actual truth.
Yep. Nadal is obviously at his best and is being beaten by Djokovic who, in their respective peaks is simply the better player of the two. He does everything better than Nadal except for the forehand but even there Peak Novak isn't too far behind. He's just a better version of Nadal.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
Yep. Nadal is obviously at his best and is being beaten by Djokovic who, in their respective peaks is simply the better player of the two. He does everything better than Nadal except for the forehand but even there Peak Novak isn't too far behind. He's just a better version of Nadal.

Nadal is in his prime, but he definitely isn't playing his best, with double-faults in clutch moments of grand slam finals.
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is in his prime, but he definitely isn't playing his best, with double-faults in clutch moments of grand slam finals.
That's okay. Novak has his moments too. They all do. That doesn't mean Peak Novak isn't a better player than Peak Nadal.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
That's okay. Novak has his moments too. They all do. That doesn't mean Peak Novak isn't a better player than Peak Nadal.

Until peak Djokovic plays peak Nadal you can only theorize. But Nadal didn't play well in the Wimbledon final, we can all agree on that, yet he still breadsticked Djokovic and broke him in the 4th set. And I agree that Nadal is in his prime years still, just playing a bit inconsistently.
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
A lot of Federer's records are based on him being 30. Nadal's are more the short-term records, the records you do when you are in your prime. Oh I forgot the Masters shields record, Nadal has the all-time record already, and that is huge because Federer's slam record is considered the jewel of the GOAT crown. Total Masters shields must count for a lot too then. And Nadal is on target for 25-30 of them.

How about counting the WTF then? That is way more prestigious than a Masters title. Fed has 5. Nadal has as many as me.
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
A lot of Federer's records are based on him being 30. Nadal's are more the short-term records, the records you do when you are in your prime. Oh I forgot the Masters shields record, Nadal has the all-time record already, and that is huge because Federer's slam record is considered the jewel of the GOAT crown. Total Masters shields must count for a lot too then. And Nadal is on target for 25-30 of them.

oh.. and... Nadal better start racking up slams or he is going to be behind Fed in the slams vs age thread. Remember, the man won 11 slams in 4 years? He wasn't 30 when he did that.
 

RAFA2005RG

Banned
How about counting the WTF then? That is way more prestigious than a Masters title. Fed has 5. Nadal has as many as me.

Nadal showed enough last year to indicate he will likely win the WTF, maybe even more than once. Made the final, beat Djokovic and Murray, took a set from Federer. Nadal always gets what he wants, always finds a way eventually.
 

8PAQ

Banned
oh.. and... Nadal better start racking up slams or he is going to be behind Fed in the slams vs age thread. Remember, the man won 11 slams in 4 years? He wasn't 30 when he did that.

Nadal doesn't have to win any slams until 2012 FO to keep up with Fed at same age.
 

8PAQ

Banned
Dude,Nadal is not in his prime he's past it. If you want to see prime Nadal,go watch replays of his matches from spring/summer 2008.

Hey Clarky, I keep wandering who is your favourite player? How about last year? Who do you want to win USO or any other big tournament?
 
A

aprilfool

Guest
Two minor details

Most consecutives weeks at Number One: Federer
Most consecutive weeks at Number Two: Nadal (during same period)

Speaks volumes, without even getting into the ridiculous numerous records Federer attained during his reign, some of which will never be broken (consecutive semis, for instance)

If Nadal winds up with sixteen or less slams, he should be regarded as the second best "in the history". No shame in that! :)
 

mandy01

G.O.A.T.
Until peak Djokovic plays peak Nadal
There's no question of until. Peak Djokovic has already played Peak Nadal this year and beaten him five times. Case closed. As for Nadal's play in the Wimbledon final. He was quite obviously excellent and just beaten by the better player. As for that breadstick- Again, irrelevant to overall match. Not to mention the score was that way only because Novak's level dropped.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
There's no question of until. Peak Djokovic has already played Peak Nadal this year and beaten him five times. Case closed. As for Nadal's play in the Wimbledon final. He was quite obviously excellent and just beaten by the better player. As for that breadstick- Again, irrelevant to overall match. Not to mention the score was that way only because Novak's level dropped.

Nadal was just lucky that djoker's level dropped in the 3rd. If djoker had played anywhere close to the level he had in the 2nd, he'd have easily won in straights
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nadal is in his prime, but he definitely isn't playing his best, with double-faults in clutch moments of grand slam finals.

now stop whining and crying that novak is owning your precious boy Rafa at his peak

Try to remember -> he did the same in the 4th set TB vs fed in 2008 wimbledon and in the 2nd set TB vs murray in 2010 ( both years he won wimbledon )
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
I will consider Nadal GOAT if he surpasses Sampras' slam record and comes within 1 or 2 of however many slams Federer ends up racking up.

Nadal has been so dominant over Federer in head-to-head that I would be willing to overlook a little shortage in slam count.
 
Top