*** Official Tennis Thread ****

[VictorJustice]

Q: You recently said that Rafael Nadal was the No. 1 player in the history of tennis, Federer before, because of the quality opponents who made him and face. L'Equipe conducted a survey of 16,500 users whether they agreed with you, they said no to 61%. How do you explain that?

That does not surprise me. It is natural to think that that was the world number one for the longest (302 weeks in this case for Federer, considered by many as being the best player in history, ed), record for grand slams ( 17, note), is the best. But it is nowhere written in the history of the sport's greatest player must meet this definition. Rod Laver won four Grand Slams in the same year, in 1962 and another four in 1969, and eleven in all charts. Roy Emerson won twelve from 1963 to 1968. Nobody thinks as far as Emerson is better than Laver. Then Pete Sampras broke the record of Emerson (with 14 grand slam titles, ed) and told him that it was the greatest. Even knowing that he never won once at Roland Garros. Is it better than Borg who won six times in Paris, and 5 Wimbledon?

What Roger does is amazing. But Nadal, he did something that I thought impossible for him. He dominated Roger on any surface, perhaps less in indoor, beat him 23 times out of 33 games, including 6 of 8 Finals Grand Slams, it's about. These statistics are comparable to those that I had to face Sampras (20-14 for Sampras, ed.) And there was never any discussion about knowing who was the number one of us. He beat me in all the great moments. Users can say what they want ...

Q: Maybe because Roger Federer has all shots in tennis racket, it is stylish ...?

People see Federer actually a player class, top in all compartments of the game moves very well, he is able to beat players from the baseline, coming to the net ... When you look at Nadal, he beats all players on a single way. And it has one of the best hands in history. When playing forward, tell me the last time you saw him miss a flight? Never or almost. Spectators enjoy watching Federer play, he almost effortlessly slice, soft, short strokes, deep, touching, amortized Nadal knows ... But also do! It may even counteract a damped by another, no problem. Only the first service Federer is better than Nadal. The second ball moves a lot of the latter, it is difficult to be aggressive on it.

See also his Olympic gold medal, four Davis Cup, its dominance in direct confrontation with other players in the top 100. It lacks the Masters, yet. On his best surface, grass, Federer is seven wins in Grand Slam (Wimbledon, ed), Nadal on clay is nine (Roland Garros, ed.) And that during the reign of Federer! All persons should think about this before saying that Federer is the greatest player in history.

Q: When you look at the current tennis, which player do you feel closest to? Have you found your heir?

Each athlete brings something when he arrives in his sport. When I arrived on the circuit, there were people who had a big forehand as Ivan Lendl, and other large services as Becker (he could also speak backhand volley and Stefan Edberg, ed) . In short, a big blow as their main weapon. Me, I was good and aggressive on both sides, I took the ball early. And now everyone is doing it! Federer came up with every shot in the game, the performing excellently. Nadal then appeared, with amazing physics, and effects, as the lift, which have changed the codes of tennis. So, when I look at the game today, it plays so differently it is difficult for me to find someone who looks like me to compare. Maybe Djokovic who thinks the way I thought. He knows how to take time for opponents, it may be the best defender in the world, much more than me also! He knows how to control the point with management, space and responsiveness. But this is different than "play like me."

Agassi thinks Nadal is the GOAT. Translation from French by the way, hence the crappiness.

[Dominik]

Agassi thinks Nadal is the GOAT. Translation from French by the way, hence the crappiness.

Agassi is entitled to his opinion and he may be right. How do you define the GOAT anyway? Would Nadal have dominated at RG and Wimbledon in the 70s and early 80s with a small wooden racket like Borg? Would Federer have won 17 slams in the 90s?

Speaking of Agassi, he could have had a career like Sampras'. Wasted so many opportunities. He turned pro in 1986 but played his first Australian Open in 1995... and ended up winning it. Turned out to be his best slam in the end winning it 4 times. He was a better player than Jim Courier who won it in 1992-1993.

Skipped Wimbledon from 1988-1990 (all because of their strict dress code) and won it in 1992. Went AWOL in 1997 and it took him 2 years to win another slam. Look at some of the slam winners during that period: Patrick Rafter US Open '97-98 and Petr Korda AO '98. That lapse was costly.

He finished his career with 8 slams but with his talent could have easily won another 6-7. Skipping the Australian Open from 1987-1995 was stupid.

[DanTD]

Glad someone made finally made a tennis thread, huge fan. Been watching Queens the last couple of days.

Agassi is entitled to his opinion and he may be right. How do you define the GOAT anyway? Would Nadal have dominated at RG and Wimbledon in the 70s and early 80s with a small wooden racket like Borg? Would Federer have won 17 slams in the 90s?

Speaking of Agassi, he could have had a career like Sampras'. Wasted so many opportunities. He turned pro in 1986 but played his first Australian Open in 1995... and ended up winning it. Turned out to be his best slam in the end winning it 4 times. He was a better player than Jim Courier who won it in 1992-1993.

Skipped Wimbledon from 1988-1990 (all because of their strict dress code) and won it in 1992. Went AWOL in 1997 and it took him 2 years to win another slam. Look at some of the slam winners during that period: Patrick Rafter US Open '97-98 and Petr Korda AO '98. That lapse was costly.

He finished his career with 8 slams but with his talent could have easily won another 6-7. Skipping the Australian Open from 1987-1995 was stupid.

Nadal will go down as one of the greatest of all times, but the title of 'GOAT' must be reserved for Federer. I think Federer absolute domination for the amount of time he did, his graceful style of play, his consistency across all surfaces and his longevity. Nadal and Novak (particularly Nadal) will not be playing the level of tennis that Federer is when they reach his age in fact I'm not convinced Nadal will even still be playing.

EDIT: I think Federer could win Wimbledon because I believe he can still comfortably beat Novak and Murray although he'll struggle against Nadal however I believe Nadal will have another earlyish exit this year in Wimbledon.

[VictorJustice]

I'm not making predictions regarding Nadal's longevity, five years ago everyone expected him to be completely done by this time.

He is the only player in history to win at least one Grand Slam a year for ten years straight, by the way. That already is some ballin' longevity.

[anibani]

EDIT: I think Federer could win Wimbledon because I believe he can still comfortably beat Novak and Murray although he'll struggle against Nadal however I believe Nadal will have another earlyish exit this year in Wimbledon.

lets hope so...

[BDPfit]

Federer obviously has a lot more confidence against Nadal indoors because the conditions don't help him. So it makes you wonder what their H2H might look like if they didn't play half of their matches on clay and faced each other more often on faster courts. I'd say it'd be pretty even.

A huge factor in Fed's favor that makes h2h somewhat deceiving is that Federer has consistently advanced in clay court tournaments to eventually meet with Nadal. Whereas Nadal would pretty routinely bow out early in the US Open and other non clay tournies, so he never got to face Federer

[gswarrior510]

Now let's look at Nadal's titles...

2005: French (over Puerta)
2006: French (over Fed)
2007: French (over Fed)
2008: French (over Fed)
2008: Wimbledon (over Fed)
2009: AO (over Fed)
2010: French (over Soderling)
2010: Wimbledon (over Berdych)
2011: French (over Fed)
2012: French (over Djoker)
2013: French (over Ferrer)
2013: US Open (over Djoker)
2014: French (over Djoker)

Am I supposed to be impressed with Grand Slam wins over Puerta, Soderling, Berdych and Ferrer? 4 guys who have only been to Grand Slam finals a combined total of 5 times?

lol wtf, you cant say that his victory over Puetra isnt impressive..He played Ferrer in 1/4 and he beat Federer in semi-final.

2010 french open Soderling beat Federer and Melzer (who Nadal played in semi finals) beat Djoker.

2010 wimbledon Berdych beat Federer and Nadal beat Murray in semi-finals

2013 french open Nadal beat Djoker in semifinal


so your argument is absolutely has no case here.

2005: French (over Fed)
2006: French (over Fed)
2007: French (over Fed)
2008: French (over Fed)
2008: Wimbledon (over Fed)
2009: AO (over Fed)
2010: French (over Soderling)
2010: Wimbledon (over Murray)
2011: French (over Fed)
2012: French (over Djoker)
2013: French (over Djoker)
2013: US Open (over Djoker)
2014: French (over Djoker)


fixed that for you.

[BDPfit]

Agassi is entitled to his opinion and he may be right. How do you define the GOAT anyway? Would Nadal have dominated at RG and Wimbledon in the 70s and early 80s with a small wooden racket like Borg? Would Federer have won 17 slams in the 90s?

That's why it's pointless to compare generations directly. Why would anyone make the argument that Nadal wouldn't have been effective with a small wooden racquet? It's an impossible and ridiculous argument because it's just not how the game is played now... Why not just void all tennis players' records post-1970? Nadal plays under the same rules and technology as everyone else in modern tennis.

The only logical way to compare players is to access the dominance they displayed during their era, and measure the strength of the competition during their era.

That's why I don't like the fast courts vs slow courts argument. The fact is, the courts were slowed and every player on tour knew this. In order to be successful you have to make your game effective under those conditions. Just like racquet technology evolved; you don't see people playing with wooden racquets and then complaining that other players have an advantage.

[BDPfit]

Does anyone think Murray has a chance at Wimby? He looked awful in RG but he sucks at clay anyway.

I can kinda root for him now that he's not such a whiny b*tch

[gswarrior510]

Does anyone think Murray has a chance at Wimby? He looked awful in RG but he sucks at clay anyway.

I can kinda root for him now that he's not such a whiny b*tch

he's so ****ing ugly, i cant root for him. I despise looking at him and his stereotypical british appearance.

but yeah he has a good chance. Djok>Nadal>Murray probably for Wimbledon.

[Dominik]

That's why I don't like the fast courts vs slow courts argument. The fact is, the courts were slowed and every player on tour knew this. In order to be successful you have to make your game effective under those conditions. Just like racquet technology evolved; you don't see people playing with wooden racquets and then complaining that other players have an advantage.

That's one of the reasons why I rank Federer higher than Nadal. He was successful on every surface. He didn't lose before the semis in a slam for 6 years.

And in the H2H discussion he's also punished for his consistency across all surfaces. If he'd never made all those French Open finals and clay Masters finals, his record against Nadal wouldn't be as poor as it is. If Nadal had appeared in more finals at the year-end championships, Paris Indoor, US Open, Cincy, etc., courts that don't suit his game, then during 2005-2012 he'd have been on the receiving end of some heavy defeats. Federer couldn't even the score there because Nadal's indoor record is so poor.

So if Federer likewise went missing during the clay season, he'd have avoided many of those losses too. Half of their matches have been on clay where Nadal has only lost twice. A surface they play on for barely a third of the season. See the problem? I'm pretty confident if half of their matches were indoors and at the US Open, Nadal would have lost 80-90% of them.

The reality is Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are slow court players so of course they've benefited from the trend to slow the surfaces and balls down to make points longer to please the fans. If organizers reversed it tomorrow you'd see a lot of different names in finals.

[BDPfit]

That's one of the reasons why I rank Federer higher than Nadal. He was successful on every surface. He didn't lose before the semis in a slam for 6 years.

And in the H2H discussion he's also punished for his consistency across all surfaces. If he'd never made all those French Open finals and clay Masters finals, his record against Nadal wouldn't be as poor as it is. If Nadal had appeared in more finals at the year-end championships, Paris Indoor, US Open, Cincy, etc., courts that don't suit his game, then during 2005-2012 he'd have been on the receiving end of some heavy defeats. Federer couldn't even the score there because Nadal's indoor record is so poor.

So if Federer likewise went missing during the clay season, he'd have avoided many of those losses too. Half of their matches have been on clay where Nadal has only lost twice. A surface they play on for barely a third of the season. See the problem? I'm pretty confident if half of their matches were indoors and at the US Open, Nadal would have lost 80-90% of them.

The reality is Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are slow court players so of course they've benefited from the trend to slow the surfaces and balls down to make points longer to please the fans. If organizers reversed it tomorrow you'd see a lot of different names in finals.

Yeah, not sure if you saw my previous post recognizing what you just said. Fed definitely gets shafted in the h2h record because nadal consistently loses early in indoor or fast court tournies, thus avoiding Fed.

You wonder if a guy like Isner would have been extremely successful in the 90s. Would have been pretty tough to get shots past him at net with him doing serve and volley on a fast court

[Tuga88]

Lastly, my take on GOAT is that it should be broken down by surface/slam rather than just total slams and H2H.

Who was the best player at the Australian Open? Federer. 4-1.
Who was the best player at the French Open? Nadal. 9-1.
Who was the best player at Wimbledon? Federer. 7-2.
Who was the best player at the US Open? Federer. 5-2.
Finally, who was the best player at the end of year ATP championships? Federer. 6-0.

That's 4 out of 5 for Federer.

The reason I find this slightly inaccurate is that at the beginning Nadal was still improving/learning how to play on different surfaces yet he had to face a prime Federer, so of course Federer is going to beat him. Federer was good on any surface while Nadal was a clay court specialist and had to improve to get dominant on the other surfaces. He worked so hard he managed to go to Federer's favourite tournament/surface and beat him in his prime. Federer could not do the same to Nadal.

Yes, Nadal normally doesn't do well at the ATP Tour finals (he got to the final last year though) but this is also because it's best of 3 sets, we all know Rafa is at his best/hardest to beat in best of 5 sets. People act like Federer started declining as soon as Nadal beat him at Wimbledon but he was at his prime for a few good years after that, I mean he was world number 2 for a long time and was still beating mostly everyone except Nadal.

Nadal just improved so much that Federer couldn't beat him anymore but that doesn't mean he was no longer in his prime. The fact is if I have a prime Federer vs a prime Nadal in a grand slam over 5 sets I'm picking Rafa every time because 9 times out of 10 he is going to beat Federer.

[Dominik]

Yeah, not sure if you saw my previous post recognizing what you just said. Fed definitely gets shafted in the h2h record because nadal consistently loses early in indoor or fast court tournies, thus avoiding Fed.

Exactly. Half of the H2H was on Nadal's best surface.

If Federer either sucked on clay like Sampras and therefore wasn't making finals to face Nadal or simply tanked in the previous round to avoid him, 10-23 would be 8-10.

Even if you throw in those 13 losses on clay, I could see another 10 wins or so coming at the US Open 2005-2009 which he almost won 5 times in that period, Cincinnati which he won 5 times from 2005-2012, and the year-end championships which they could have played a few more times from 2005-2012, had Nadal played well in Federer's best events.

Nadal also picked up 5 cheap wins over him over the past year in the middle of one of his best seasons and Federer's worst. The age difference there is obviously more of an issue than it used to be now that Federer is well into his 30s.

Obviously it's tough to discuss this stuff without sounding like a butthurt fan, but I followed the sport long enough to know the H2H isn't entirely fair to Federer due to his consistency across all surfaces and Nadal's lack thereof.

[Dominik]

The fact is if I have a prime Federer vs a prime Nadal in a grand slam over 5 sets I'm picking Rafa every time because 9 times out of 10 he is going to beat Federer.

US Open? Wimbledon?

Assuming they're both in their prime, best of 5 sets, I'm only picking him 9 times out of 10 at the French and maybe give him a slight edge in Australia.

There is only a narrow window in their rivalry to make these comparisons because like you said, pre-2007 Nadal was still learning how to play well on other surfaces and post-2009 the age difference favors Nadal. Most tennis players peak around their mid 20s. They don't improve after 28-29.

[Tuga88]

US Open? Wimbledon?

Assuming they're both in their prime, best of 5 sets, I'm only picking him 9 times out of 10 at the French and maybe give him a slight edge in Australia.

There is only a narrow window in their rivalry to make these comparisons because like you said, pre-2007 Nadal was still learning how to play well on other surfaces and post-2009 the age difference favors Nadal. Most tennis players peak around their mid 20s. They don't improve after 28-29.

Wimbledon for sure I'm picking Nadal. 2008 for me both were in their prime and Nadal beat him. I'm not sure if they've ever played each other at the US Open but Nadal beat him in the Australian Open final 09 and while Federer does lead Nadal 4-1 on indoor hard courts (how many of these were best of 5?), Nadal leads him 7-2 on outdoor hard courts. I just think that in any grand slam Nadal has that edge over Federer. Federer is more suited to beating all types of opponents on any surface but a fit and healthy prime Nadal...I can't see him getting beat by anyone either. If Federer had managed to beat Nadal at the French though....he'd be the GOAT for sure. But like Agassi said, there's something very impressive in adapting your game to the required level to beat a prime Federer on his best surface/favourite tournament.

I always argue against Federer which is annoying because I think the guy is amazing and definitely unbelievable to watch, he makes tennis look its best for sure. If any of you have the chance to see him live don't pass it up, it is something truly special.

[VictorJustice]

That slam comparison isn't really accurate because by that logic someone with 10 Roland Garros titles, 5 Wimbledon titles, 2 AO titles and 2 USO titles would be ranked below someone with 0/6/3/3.

Peak versus peak I would take Nadal at every single slam, he simply has Federer's number. Only indoors Federer has the edge.

[Dominik]

The 2008 Wimbledon final went for nearly 5 hours and finish 9-7 in the 5th. Toss of a coin kind of result. Federer blinked and Nadal won.

They haven't played at the US Open but I highly doubt Nadal would have beaten him there before 2010. Ditto for Cincinnati Masters. 2009 and 2012 Wimbledon would have been interesting. Several Masters finals up until 2007 used to be best of 5 sets and they played a 5 hour final in Rome once which Nadal won in a 5th set tiebreak.

[Dominik]

Peak versus peak I would take Nadal at every single slam, he simply has Federer's number. Only indoors Federer has the edge.

Given their 5 year age difference, what year did they both play at their peak?

They never played at the US Open because Nadal never made it past the semis until 2010 but suddenly he's the favorite there against the guy who won it convincingly in his prime 5 years in a row?

So Federer only has the edge indoors because Nadal's indoor record is abysmal for a No. 1 ranked player with 0 titles?

I'd say he has the edge on fast hardcourts and on grass. It's no coincidence that Nadal started making finals there when they slowed that event down as well. In Federer's prime I say he would have smoked him but we'll never know because he never made a final with Roger on the other side of the net (2004-2009). He had at least 5 years to do that — never did.

[VictorJustice]

Maybe prime is a better term than peak. Up until 2012 Federer was in his prime, with the worse results compared to his peak years coming more from increased opposition than him losing a step. So 2005-2012 it was prime versus prime on clay and 2008-2012 prime versus prime on every surface.

I'd say out of ten matches Nadal would win 9/10 at RG, 7/10 at the AO and 6/10 at the other two.

[Tuga88]

Given their 5 year age difference, what year did they both play at their peak?

They never played at the US Open because Nadal never made it past the semis until 2010 but suddenly he's the favorite there against the guy who won it convincingly in his prime 5 years in a row?

So Federer only has the edge indoors because Nadal's indoor record is abysmal for a No. 1 ranked player with 0 titles?

It might seem like Nadal never played Federer at the US Open purely because he wasn't doing well but that's far from the case brah.

Taken from wikipedia:

"Despite Nadal's success on hard courts, some analysts have criticized his lack of consistency in reaching tournament finals (especially the U.S.Open finals) for skewing the overall head-to-head results. However, on five occasions at the US Open (in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013), the two players were only one match away from doing battle against each other; twice it was Nadal who failed to set up the meeting, whereas Federer has lost three times before reaching another long-awaited clash with Nadal. The three times that Nadal did make the US Open final, Federer was not there to oppose him."

[oe7Leo]

The reason I like Nadal so much is how he improved and adapted his game.

His game is/will always be suited best for clay. He won 3 French Opens to start his career. Everyone called him a clay court specialist.

He made 2 consecutive Wimbledon finals, losing in 4 sets and 5 sets in 2006, 2007. 2007 Federer was a beast, 25yrs old, in his absolute prime, and Nadal took him to 5 sets on GRASS, as a 21yo.

Then comes the breakthrough, 2008 Wimbledon. Yes, GOAT match, yes it was incredibly close, you could say it was a coin toss, but it was the turning point. 22yo Nadal was better, not by much, but you could tell he was just a sliver better.

So, now what do all the nay-sayers say. Well, of course, they say that Nadal is great on clay, and he's good on grass, but he hasn't even made it to a SF in AO/UO, so his hardcourt is very weak. And they are right. Nadal hasn't had success on hardcourts.

But then you see Nadal change his game, he adapts. He makes it to the 2009 AO, and again, a very tough, very close final with Federer. 5 setter again, and Nadal prevails.

But that's not enough, he's never made it to a US Open final is the chant. Again, Nadal adapts his game. For the 2010 season, he worked on his serve until he could hit 130mph+. He flattened out his forehand, the famous inside-out forehand he uses so much. He worked and worked, and for me the biggest breakthrough of his career was winning the 2010 US Open.

Not only that, but he beat Novak Djokovic in the final. Djokovic was at his prime at this point. Without doubt, because we would see him absolutely dominate the 2011 season. He had one of the best seasons ever, and won 3 grand slams that year, 2 of which were over Nadal.

So, now we have Nadal completing the career grand slam at the 2010 US Open. He has come full circle from someone who is a "clay court specialist", to someone that won Wimbledon twice, and AO and UO once.

2011 he makes the finals of Wimbledon, and UO, only to face a beastly Djokovic at his best, full of confidence. 2012 he makes the AO final, again facing Djokovic. A 5 setter, longest hardcourt match in AO history, and loses by a sliver against prime Djoko. Djoko is doing to him what Nadal had been doing to Fed

At this point it looks like Djoker has Nadal's number, and if Nadal was more like Federer, who just sticks to his same game (as he's said himself, he only works on his strengths), then I believe Nadal would never have beat Djoker again

But, he changes his game, changes his style. Attacks Djoker's weak points. And at the 2012 French Open he beats him, again close, but he was better. Then his early exit from Wimbledon, followed by a lengthy absence d/t knee problems.

He bows out of 2013 Wimbledon in the 1st rd, a very poor performance, and of course everyone remarks that Nadal can only succeed on clay.

Then, he starts to play an amazing hardcourt season. Goes undefeated right up to the UO. And, for the 2nd time in his career, wins, against Djoker again. Now he has 2 UO along with 2 Wimbledon victories.

He follows this up with making it to the AO final and loses to Wawrinka. Say what you will about MTOs, and tactics etc etc, but if you think he faked that bc he thought he was going to lose to Wawrinka, a guy he has beat consistently over his career, then you're fooling yourself. Nadal even took the 3rd set, playing at maybe 70% after taking painkillers. If Nadal had won, he would've been the 1st man in Open history to have 2 or more titles at every single GS.

After that brutal loss, he comes back to win his 9th FO. Again, no one really gives him credit. It's come to be expected. Not even Federer in his prime could have won 9/10 titles on his fav surface. Nor Sampras.

In fact, the only person I think could've gone 9/10 was Bjorn Borg.

Nadal has improved and adapted and worked on his weaknesses to win on surfaces he didn't have success on naturally. He worked to beat players that had his number (Fed early on, and Djoker from 2011 on).

He is mentally the strongest player in the game, and at this level, mental toughness determines champions. The guy that drops his level, for even 1 game, will lose.

If Nadal wins 1 more Wimby and 1 more AO, i think everyone would have to concede that he isn't a 1-trick pony, but the most versatile player ever, and the undisputed GOAT. (I already think he's GOAT, but I concede that statistically his GS #s aren't enough yet)

[BDPfit]

^ if he wins 1 more Aussie Open he's the greatest IMO. 2 or more title at every slam? That's an insane accomplishment to go along with him being the only player to win at least one slam for 10 (maybe more?) years in a row.

It really is pretty remarkable how he was able to adapt throughout his career. I think just about EVERYONE thought he was done after losing to Djoko and his knee injury last year. For him to turn it around and beat Novak multiple times, while making Novak appear intimadated in big moments... Just incredible.

On a side note, that was just UGLY how Novak double faulted to lose the French. Nadal's mental toughness is so far beyond Novak's it's laughable.

[nvrstopworking]

lol wtf, you cant say that his victory over Puetra isnt impressive..He played Ferrer in 1/4 and he beat Federer in semi-final.

2010 french open Soderling beat Federer and Melzer (who Nadal played in semi finals) beat Djoker.

2010 wimbledon Berdych beat Federer and Nadal beat Murray in semi-finals

2013 french open Nadal beat Djoker in semifinal


so your argument is absolutely has no case here.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Puerta, Berdych, Soderling and Ferrer did next to nothing before or since then and haven't won a single slam between them?

Given their 5 year age difference, what year did they both play at their peak?

They never played at the US Open because Nadal never made it past the semis until 2010 but suddenly he's the favorite there against the guy who won it convincingly in his prime 5 years in a row?

So Federer only has the edge indoors because Nadal's indoor record is abysmal for a No. 1 ranked player with 0 titles?

I'd say he has the edge on fast hardcourts and on grass. It's no coincidence that Nadal started making finals there when they slowed that event down as well. In Federer's prime I say he would have smoked him but we'll never know because he never made a final with Roger on the other side of the net (2004-2009). He had at least 5 years to do that — never did.

Yep.

Again... Nadal's been a beast on clay his entire career... no question. But his resume away from that surface is FAR less impressive. Good, but not GOAT-worthy. And yes, his indoor record is laughably bad as well.

[sammy21]

Nadal's mental toughness is the best I've ever seen no doubt.

BUT

The time he takes between points, the illegal coaching from Toni and the perfectly timed "medical timeouts" (all of which multiple players have complained about) have turned me against him.

Also, all bias aside, watching him bores me. Watching baseliners, in general, whack the ball back and forth for 20-30 strokes gets old quick. Fed will always be the goat in my eyes.

[BDPfit]

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Puerta, Berdych, Soderling and Ferrer did next to nothing before or since then and haven't won a single slam between them?

His point was that Nadal beat Federer, Murray, and Djoko in the semis before the finals in which he faced the weaker competition

[gswarrior510]

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Puerta, Berdych, Soderling and Ferrer did next to nothing before or since then and haven't won a single slam between them?

.

lol my argument isnt about them, so funny how you keep dodging the players he played in semi-finals...

[nvrstopworking]

lol my argument isnt about them, so funny how you keep dodging the players he played in semi-finals...

Great. So he beat guys like Murray and Djoker on the way to titles.

We gonna pretend that Fed hasn't done that the last 5-7 years?


Not sure why people don't want to give guys like Rafter, Roddick, Agassi and Hewitt their due. All were #1 for significant stretches of time and all of them won at least one slam. It wasn't like Roger was playing against juniors from 2000-2006.

And from 2006-2009 (arguably Fed's peak) he went to 15 of 16 Grand Slam finals (winning 9). If not for Nadal's dominance at the French Fed. could have probably done the calendar slam TWICE (2006 and 2007).

THAT's GOAT.

[BDPfit]

Great. So he beat guys like Murray and Djoker on the way to titles.

We gonna pretend that Fed hasn't done that the last 5-7 years?


Not sure why people don't want to give guys like Rafter, Roddick, Agassi and Hewitt their due. All were #1 for significant stretches of time and all of them won at least one slam. It wasn't like Roger was playing against juniors from 2000-2006.

And from 2006-2009 (arguably Fed's peak) he went to 15 of 16 Grand Slam finals (winning 9). If not for Nadal's dominance at the French Fed. could have probably done the calendar slam TWICE (2006 and 2007).

THAT's GOAT.

Someone has done the calendar slam twice already. Laver I think?

And dude c'mon let's be serious Rafter and Hewitt aren't even close to top competition in today's era. Agassi was old. Andy would be a Berdych/Tsonga replica at best, and I like Andy.

"Great. So he beat guys like Murray and Djoker on the way to titles." Lmao what kind of statement is this? "Great. So he beat the top ranked players in one of, if not THE strongest era of modern tennis on the way to titles." Like how you left out that half of the semi victories were against Roger too...

[Dominik]

And from 2006-2009 (arguably Fed's peak) he went to 15 of 16 Grand Slam finals (winning 9). If not for Nadal's dominance at the French Fed. could have probably done the calendar slam TWICE (2006 and 2007).

I'm surprised more people can't see the obvious: that despite Nadal's talent he's dominated in one of the weakest clay eras.

Where are the clay specialists? If he doesn't get Novak in the semis or final, who's going to challenge him? We'll leave Federer out of this since he's easy prey for Nadal in his twilight years.

His competition:

Ferrer. 0 slams. 0 clay Masters titles. 2 clay Masters finals (lost to Nadal).
Murray. Reached the French Open semis once. 0 clay Masters titles. 0 clay Masters finals.
Berdych. Reached the French Open semis once. 0 clay Masters titles. 0 clay Masters final (lost to Federer).
Del Potro. Reached the French Open semis once. 0 clay Masters titles. 0 clay Masters finals.
Wawrinka. Reached the French Open quarters once. 1 clay Masters title (2014).

Pretty average bunch of claycourters. The only guy to beat him in 10 years at RG retired a couple of years ago.