He wouldn't miss grand slams though.
Tennis 2017
- Thread starter The Man Himself
- Start date
- Status
He wouldn't miss grand slams though.
Losing in 5 sets is getting spanked? OK then. Nadal has 'spanked' Federer 23 times out of 37 by that logic. Also 'spanked' Federer on his surface, Grass, in Wimbledon final. Federer probably won't even be able to dream beating Nadal at RG. It will turn into nightmare.
If Nadal is 1-2 slams behind Federer when they retire, then Nadal will be GOAT for me. As it stands at 18-15, nothing is conclusive. Just simply more slams don't put Federer at top. At the time when he was piling on slams before Nadal-Novak, the field was easier too than it has been in last decade.
He's under no obligation to play on Clay with his career winding down. Still pretty embarrassing for Rafa to lose to someone in his mid 30s, not once but three times.
Federer is 35 and about to retire, so yes its a bit odd for a 31 year old Rafa to lose.
The slam record is gone. Stick a fork in it.
Federer regularly got spanked by a teenage Nadal
That's fair.
We're not in the mid 2000s anymore. He's nearing retirement and playing a reduced schedule.
How is it embarssing? Nadal is 31 you know not 23.
Embarsssing to lose to one of the greatest players ever. Ok.
Nope, he is the GOAT, only injuries have stopped him from having 20+ GS
Novak is why I said 4th or 5th. As of now though I rate Rafa above him.
Greatest player of the 1990s. Retired as the winningest player in grand slam history. Was world number 1 for 6 years.
I'd say fair enough to that, considering this makes #15 for Rafa. I know Sampras never won a French, but he was as dominant on hard and grass as Rafa is on clay.
Right...
For me it's clearly
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3,4,5 is between Laver, Nole and Borg. I think the top 2 are pretty clearly on their own though
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3,4,5 is between Laver, Nole and Borg. I think the top 2 are pretty clearly on their own though
Unbelievable achievement by Rafa. Can't believe I've seen someone win this tournament 10 times... great stuff.
Lovely touch by the tournament organisers to have Uncle Tony there with him.
Lovely touch by the tournament organisers to have Uncle Tony there with him.
You rapidly lose your pace and explosiveness once you get into your mid 30s compared with your 20s. 35 year olds shouldn't be winning tournaments any more. Its actually pretty rare that they do.
Nadal has had lot more injuries in his career so even at 31 his body has taken lot more toll. Federer has been having a losing record vs Nadal-Djokovic for a long time now and that time Fed fans excuse it on age. Mind you that's been going when Fed was around 30.
I am personally not fan of one player. I like Fed equally and Djokovic too. The greatest debate to me is not settled though and perhaps like football it is better to enjoy the best era of tennis with players who only come once in couple of generations than to get too much into ' the greatest' debate.
Given he already has skipped them to "fully recover".......I'm pretty certain he will. Most likely Wimbledon, using your own ammo against you, ducking an old as hell Federer, though not really, just skipping the natural slam, because well you know, he'll stand no chance of winning it probably.
Perhaps we should award him those extra 5 slams as a consolation for his injuries. And while we're at it, we should award Borg another 10 for not playing the Aussie.
Nadal still missing a WTF title. Indoor hard courts are comfortably his worst surface, but would be a shame if he doesn't manage to get one. Hopefully this year could be it.
Yeah. An argument I will give Fed fans here is that on surfaces/conditions (grass & indoor ) where Fed is better, lesser tournaments are played. The great achievement of Nadal though is how he improved on Grass step by step and then beating Federer in Wimbledon in final. Federer that time was only 27 so age was not factor. Federer though never had chance vs Nadal on clay. He won a set couple of times but that's about it. One final was quite embarrassing, Nadal winning 6-3, 6-1, 6-0 or something like it.
When has he missed a grandslam due to resting? He had a wrist injury last year and missed Wimbledon. The same injury that kept him out of the French.
He only tends to skip the end of season tournaments.
Nadal shits on Sampras not even a contest for me.
Right now I'd have it as Federer followed by Nadal, with Laver as a floating option which I can't decide on until all their careers are done and dusted.
Right now I'd have it as Federer followed by Nadal, with Laver as a floating option which I can't decide on until all their careers are done and dusted.
He gets injuries precisely because of his play style, so he has to take the good with the bad. You can't just say "...if he didn't get injured...", because that's all part of his style. Federer is the GOAT, followed by Nadal.
Rankings tomorrow will be:
1. Murray
2. Rafa
3. Stan
4. Djok
5. Federer
1. Murray
2. Rafa
3. Stan
4. Djok
5. Federer
It took Djokovic probably also juicing out of his skin to break Nadal's will on clay in all fairness. He's the greatest single court player ever undoubtably, well him and Borg are insanely ahead of the rest of the pack, like Federer probably the third greatest clay player largely by default but not statistically(though may W-L might back it up?). Borg being 2 and 2/3 on Grass when both surfaces were at their peaks will always keep him in the discussion, it was insane to manage that change up so quickly for so long. Though both Nadal/Fed more or less managed it too for 5 years in a row...(all finals with the exception of one year out from Rafa).
Pretty sure he's had problems with his knee since an early age, rather than being a result of his playing style.
I think Djokovic has a better career W-L than Fed on clay
They have one slam difference so its extremely close imo. Wimbledon is and will always be the most iconic tournament in Tennis, so whoever wins it the most will be held in the highest esteem in terms of all time discussions.
He's more likely to throw away the grass season than the hard courts. He reached 2 finals from 3 major HC tournaments this year so he has no reason to duck it at all.
Also, what a win!! 90 percent of players don't get to 10 Slams in total, let alone 10 at a single tournament. The great domination of any tournament ever
Back to World Number 2 as well and with little to no points to defend for the rest of the season, could even go further ahead.Part of my reasoning for Sampras over the likes of Laver, Borg, etc. is that when he retired he was already considered to have surpassed them.
With the likes of Nadal, I would see Nadal dominating Sampras on clay, but Sampras having the edge on the other two surfaces.
A Nadal who himself was returning from countless injuries was "embarrassed" by losing to Federer in serve bot mode? Sure
Lets be honest, both Nadal and Federer have gotten lucky that Djoko and Murray are so off form this season but there's nothing embarrassing losing to Federer at Australia.
Hypothetical match up in all 4 slams I'd back Nadal to win on all surfaces bar grass but still be competitive.
Slam count is one thing but it's about who has superior playing style and attributes.. Laver was so complete whereas Sampras one dimensional imo.
Iconic or not, it's the surface which gives players the least preparation time. It's a season that lasts barely a month so I really don't know why that should hold more value than any other tournament.
Ah, decimating another Swiss in the final 
Must have been an all too familiar feeling as he's favourite RG clay pigeon failed to turn up for the tourney this year.
Must have been an all too familiar feeling as he's favourite RG clay pigeon failed to turn up for the tourney this year.It simply does. There's always been a pecking order and Wimbledon has been at the top.
Yep, agreed on the last bit. Pete would obviously win on grass and probably on hard courts, and Rafa would smash him on clay.
I don't even get this either, considering those wins came on Federer's favoured surface (doesn't devalue the win, just not sure how it's "embarrassing")
Anyways, Federer is still the #1, no question about that. I don't see Nadal catching up
And even if he does with the help of let's say 3 more French titles (assuming Federer doesn't win anymore), the fact that his stats are very clay heavy and his absence of a year end championship, will still put Federer ahead imo
Absolutely.
Agree to disagree then because I've never gotten the hype of Wimbledon. I don't value any single Slam more than others no matter what the Brits might think about their beloved Wimbledon.
I think 99% of the players would rather win Wimbledon (or Roland Garros) than the US or Australian Open. For me, Wimbledon is the most iconic one, closely followed by RG. US Open and Australian Open are a long way off those two.
Slams are not equal in perception. The French is probably third in the pecking order.
Wimbledon is a great tournament but it is ridiculous to suggest that it should matter more when judging players, that is just making up new rules for a game just because you want one particular outcome
- Status