Monte Carlo Masters 2018

[brokenshoelace]

Roger and Rafa are co-GOATs of this era, with Novak, and, given that they're still active players, I don't know how you can't see that it's all still in play. In fact, you do, given how you try to remind Roger not to get complacent when you see Rafa play this well. So, if your contention is that Roger is the GOAT for now, I'm fine with that.

Roger has just had a much better career than Nadal. And that says a lot.

And yeah, sure, we're going to argue about "much," but it's relative. 4 slams is not a small difference, and when you factor in dominance, longevity (which Rafa might still accomplish to be fair, as he's had longevity himself), consecutive weeks/years at world number 1, and the multiple WTF titles, I'd say there's a clear edge. Co-GOATs is simply unfair to Roger because it puts them on equal footing, which they're not.

 

[mrzz]

No, this isn't a myth. Thiem beat Nadal in one match last year, which was, conveniently, a good one for him to lose. Next match, he blew Thiem out of the water, as he did on Friday. Wawrinka is supposed to be one who has enough upper-body strength and power to hit through Nadal with his one-hander. He won 6 games in last year's final at RG. Dimitrov only lasted part of one set yesterday, and he's only ever beat Rafa ever right before Nadal closed down his year due to injury in late 2016. I don't think I need to mention Roger v. Rafa on clay. And Kuerten, who also happened to be a great clay player, is not on the slate to play this year.

The point is not about the players, but the shot. Nadal has dominated on clay against everyone, no matter if they had one handed or two handed back hands. Only Djokovic, for a limited period of time (2011-2016), had success against Nadal on clay. Outside those years, he had zero wins against Nadal on clay. He has the same 2 handed bh all the time...

Last year Thiem had three very competitive matches against Nadal. It doesn't go down to an odd exceptional match and you know that.

This year, in MC, the only set that Nadal had real trouble in was the first against Dimitrov, who handed it to him in a plate by making two DF's at 4-4. He won all other sets against all other players in an easier fashion... and that include a lot of two handed back hands.

My point is: just a few guys had wins against Nadal on clay. If you break it down between two handed and one handed back hand, you may get more two handed back hands, but probably in the same proportion (or worst) that people use those shots. What I say that is a myth is that Nadal is specially dominant against players using this shot. He is dominant on clay against everyone.

 

[Andy22]

Roger has just had a much better career than Nadal. And that says a lot.

And yeah, sure, we're going to argue about "much," but it's relative. 4 slams is not a small difference, and when you factor in dominance, longevity (which Rafa might still accomplish to be fair, as he's had longevity himself), consecutive weeks/years at world number 1, and the multiple WTF titles, I'd say there's a clear edge. Co-GOATs is simply unfair to Roger because it puts them on equal footing, which they're not.

I thinks its fair to federer to call nadal co-goat with the fact that federer played way more tennis than Nadal, and had No Strong grass court specialist in his prime. While nadal had Coria, Ferrer, wawrinka djokovic, federer, plus can be more than one goat.

 

[DarthFed]

I thinks its fair to federer to call nadal co-goat with the fact that federer played way more tennis than Nadal, and had No Strong grass court specialist in his prime. While nadal had Coria, Ferrer, wawrinka djokovic, federer, plus can be more than one goat.

Haha, just silly... Ferrer and Coria? And out of the other 3 only Stan counts clay as his best surface. I'd also say the most neutralizing and fair surface is hard courts and that has had the most competition.

 

[lob]

Of course he's one of the greatest, you just have the tendency to say he and Fed are Co-Goats and I will always call you out on that.

This debate has become a joke no? I mean Moxie and Darth could have had this exact same debate the day after Roger won AO. There is almost no new information except that Nadal is physically fit.

I don't expect any Roger fan to concede the 'joint goat' to Rafa won if he 4 more RG + another USO and Roger hung his racquet after winning another Wimbledon. Nor do I expect a Rafa fan to concede to Roger the 'sole goat' status if he won nothing more except Basel and Rafa stops after one more RG. Or whatever...

Love is blind.

 

[DarthFed]

Rafael nadal + federer are co-goats seeing as, Nadal is going to over take fed in the next 3 years so we might as well start calling him co-goat now.

No he isn't, as long as Fed doesn't go weak he will keep the far lesser talent at bay in this chase. Fed being soft towards his kids is my only worry but Mirka will be there to remind him there is still work to be done.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This debate has become a joke no? I mean Moxie and Darth could have had this exact same debate the day after Roger won AO. There is almost no new information except that Nadal is physically fit.

I don't expect any Roger fan to concede the 'joint goat' to Rafa won if he 4 more RG + another USO and Roger hung his racquet after winning another Wimbledon. Nor do I expect a Rafa fan to concede to Roger the 'sole goat' status if he won nothing more except Basel and Rafa stops after one more RG. Or whatever...

Love is blind.

I'm a hardcore Nadal fan, and I'm saying it's a joke to call him co-GOAT. By saying that, you're placing him on equal footing as Federer from a historical perspective, which objectively, he simply isn't. It's one thing to say he's the same caliber, or use them as a tier of their own, which is fair, but to call Nadal co-GOAT is based on nothing concrete. He's factually less accomplished than Federer, is he not?

And by the same token, why not put Djokovic on the same footing as Nadal? Hell, the gap between Nadal and Djokovic in majors is the same as that between Federer and Nadal, and outside of majors, they are much closer in accomplishments than Nadal is to Federer. So why aren't we lumping the two together?

Historically, Federer > Nadal > Djokovic. It's pretty simple.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I haven't been too active lately so someone fill me in...is Nadal goat2 a troll account or a legit one?

 

[Carol]

I haven't been too active lately so someone fill me in...is Nadal goat2 a troll account or a legit one?

Funny because I always thought that you are a troll, word!

 

[mrzz]

Funny because I always thought that you are a troll, word!

Carol, with all due respect, apart from the fact Broken just called a troll a poster with which you surely share a lot of views, exactly what other trait of him made you think he was a troll?

 

[Carol]

Carol, with all due respect, apart from the fact Broken just called a troll a poster with which you surely share a lot of views, exactly what other trait of him made you think he was a troll?

Yep, his comments are too much controversial, I never finish to understand him but you probably do and share ...isn’t?

 

[mrzz]

Yep, his comments are too much controversial, I never finish to understand him but you probably do and share ...isn’t?

In general, yes. He is a very good tennis analyst, and his posts were in fact one of the reasons I decided to engage in the forums. But then I read some things he wrote about football, and...

oh, wait. You are right, he is a troll.

 

[El Dude]

LOL - Carol's giving broken crap because broken is the rare fan of Nadal who can be objective.

On a different note, I almost want to see Rafa break Roger's Slam title record, just to see Darth go apoplectic. Almost.

 

[Carol]

In general, yes. He is a very good tennis analyst, and his posts were in fact one of the reasons I decided to engage in the forums. But then I read some things he wrote about football, and...

oh, wait. You are right, he is a troll.

Nah, I don´t see he is a very good tennis analyst at all, his comments are very negative and contradictory and also his predictions which usually are wrong but I have not any doubt about you like his comments

 

[El Dude]

I'm a hardcore Nadal fan, and I'm saying it's a joke to call him co-GOAT. By saying that, you're placing him on equal footing as Federer from a historical perspective, which objectively, he simply isn't. It's one thing to say he's the same caliber, or use them as a tier of their own, which is fair, but to call Nadal co-GOAT is based on nothing concrete. He's factually less accomplished than Federer, is he not?

And by the same token, why not put Djokovic on the same footing as Nadal? Hell, the gap between Nadal and Djokovic in majors is the same as that between Federer and Nadal, and outside of majors, they are much closer in accomplishments than Nadal is to Federer. So why aren't we lumping the two together?

Historically, Federer > Nadal > Djokovic. It's pretty simple.

Good post, but let me somewhat veer into Devil's Advocate territory. By "historically" you seemingly emphasize accumulative accomplishments - I have no problem with that and, in the end, it is the only way we can really judge and compare players in terms of historical rankings, because the record is actually what happened without interpretation.

That said, that's the big picture, or "macro-level." From the "micro-level," or the ground floor so to speak, the three mentioned are much closer in terms of greatness. Sure, it plays out as you say in terms of accumulated records and therefore all-time rankings, but if we look at "greatness" as more of a qualitative thing, they are much closer. In fact, I would even call them "co-GOATs" in that measure alone - and yes, all three of them.

I am reminded of Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad. Rosewall's record is clearly far superior, especially when you take into account Pro Slams, but for a few years in the late 50s, Hoad was up there with Rosewall, Gonzales, and Laver as the best of the best, and some even said that he was the greatest of the bunch when he was playing his best and healthy. But in the end, Rosewall was the greater player - because greatness isn't only about how good you are in a given match, or even over a short period of time. It is the sum total of one's accomplishments.

But here's a question. In your mind, what would Rafa have to do to surpass Roger in terms of historical greatness? Would one more Slam than Roger be enough? What if all five (or more) of those needed Slams were RG only? Or would he need to narrow the gap of weeks at #1? Win at least one WTF? Etc. I'm guessing it isn't one thing in particular, just wondering what his resume would have to look like--relative to Roger's--for you to give him the historical edge.

 

[Carol]

Rafa speaking in four different languages during the Trophy Ceremony.

 

[mrzz]

Nah, I don´t see he is a very good tennis analyst at all, his comments are very negative and contradictory and also his predictions which usually are wrong but I have not any doubt about you like his comments

You mean just because he thinks Federer is the goat? Sorry, is not that simple. I like tennis way more than I root for Federer. I like to watch Nadal playing on whatever surface. I don't like the fact that Federer skip the clay season for a second time, and I really don't like it. Things are not black and white.

 

[Carol]

Wrong, I don't give a damn about who is the goat, I know Federer has 20 GS and for his fans he is the one , it's ok for me
I like tennis too and some players more than others. About Federer skipping the clay season I think is silly, I understand that he is almost 37 but he could play at least a couple of tournaments. Rafa doesn't have to prove anything else on clay, he has done more than enough but I wouldn't mind if he would skip one tournament before RG because I think he has something more to prove on grass. I hope he never skip any surfaces season (maybe Asia) only some tournaments until he will decide to retire.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But here's a question. In your mind, what would Rafa have to do to surpass Roger in terms of historical greatness? Would one more Slam than Roger be enough? What if all five (or more) of those needed Slams were RG only? Or would he need to narrow the gap of weeks at #1? Win at least one WTF? Etc. I'm guessing it isn't one thing in particular, just wondering what his resume would have to look like--relative to Roger's--for you to give him the historical edge.

Really good question. One I've been thinking about a lot lately and not just re: Fedal, but our perception of GOATs in general, in any sport. I'll make a thread about this. Not because I'm full of myself, but because I think it's worthy of a debate on its own.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Roger has just had a much better career than Nadal. And that says a lot.

And yeah, sure, we're going to argue about "much," but it's relative. 4 slams is not a small difference, and when you factor in dominance, longevity (which Rafa might still accomplish to be fair, as he's had longevity himself), consecutive weeks/years at world number 1, and the multiple WTF titles, I'd say there's a clear edge. Co-GOATs is simply unfair to Roger because it puts them on equal footing, which they're not.

Glad that you agree with this despite being a Nadalite. Let me tell you, I will gladly admit that surface GOAT is definitely Rafa, despite being a Feddie. The dominance of Roger on grass is nothing compared to the level of dominance of Rafa on Clay. I would even argue against any Feddie who claims otherwise. But, I believe lot more Feddies agree with that assessment, compared to few Nadalites who are able to embrace the fact that Roger is GOAT (as of now at least).