- Joined
- Jan 25, 2019
- Messages
- 76
- Reactions
- 7
- Points
- 8
Nadal fans are a disgrace
- Thread starter King Roger
- Start date
Carol
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 9,225
- Reactions
- 1,833
- Points
- 113
You know, you're just an eternal sh$thead. I never used the excuse for Nalbandian that he didn't train hard. Other people did. My argument regarding Nalbandian was that he did not work on his weaknesses (particularly his serving). There was no excuse for such a talented player to hit so many double faults and have such a low first-serve percentage. Nalbandian did train intensively, and that was on his baseline game; it showed because this part of his game was consistently excellent.
But did Nalbandian ever improve his serve the way Murray or Nadal did? No, and that is because he didn't work on it sufficiently.
As for your indoor argument, again, you are just a complete moron. Nalbandian embarrassed Nadal for two sets at Indian Wells in 2009 when Nadal was #1 and coming off his only Australian Open title. Nalbandian had 5 match points to win in straights. If he was not a great outdoors player, the match never would have gotten to that point.
Idiot - I never said that Nadal never should have won a Slam. I never even said that Nadal should not have won 5 Slams. I said that Nadal would not have 11 French Opens if Federer and Djokovic had played to their potential more often at that particular event. In 2005, 2006, and 2008 I think Nadal was clearly the better player than Federer at the French Open - yes, I said it. But I definitely think Federer could have and should have won in 2007 and 2011. In each of those Finals he played some fantastic stretches but just had a poor overall gameplan.
You are amazingly stupid for saying such a thing. Federer definitely could have beaten him in 2007 and 2011. Djokovic certainly could have won in 2012, 2013, and 2014. In 2014, he was up a set and had Nadal on the ropes at the end of the second and then choked like he did at the end of the 3rd set in the 2013 USO final.
Nadal outplayed Wawrinka. He did not overpower him. Poor word choice.
Djokovic does not dictate with his forehand as an offensive weapons nearly as much as he could at times. That has cost him against Wawrinka more than anybody else.
I actually have said that many times. Even you should know that.
I never said that Nadal wasn't talented. I simply said that against the most elite opponents he won a number of matches he should not have. (See above.)
I did not see either match so I will refrain from commenting. But you are just using one example when dozens of opposites could be cited. Did Nadal win because of offensive power when Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13 winners in Rome? Goodness gracious you selective clown. Go ahead and explain that one. Nadal killed it with offense that day, didn't he?
Stop setting up a straw man. I have never thought much of Berdych and have never used him in an argument involving Nadal. I consider him a female in a male body. If I were to go with the big hitters argument, I would refer to how Tsonga and Delpo have both whacked Nadal on different occasions on hardcourts.
Or perhaps you don't understand as much as you think you do. Seems more likely to me mikeyboy.
Oh wow.....what a brilliant tennis mind you are for realizing this. What a complex analyst and thinker you are.
Yes, because of the clear limitations to Nadal's offensive abilities. Agreed there.
Not in terms of playing style but his backhand is clearly more of a weapon and when he wants to Djokovic can be more effective with his forehand than Nadal. It's just a matter of flipping the switch.
Unlike your geeky a$$ I don't take the athleticism of most tennis players seriously. I grew up watching basketball and football primarily so I don't take the athleticism of the average tennis player seriously. Djokovic being able to move better than someone like Berdych or Raonic doesn't wow me that much.
Learn about sports in a broader context!
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2019
- Messages
- 76
- Reactions
- 7
- Points
- 8
'should've', 'could've' is the life you live. I can play that game too - 'Nadal should've won the AO final when he was up 4-2 in 5th set vs Federer but let it slip'... 'Nadal should've won the 2017 Wimbledon final when he was up in 5th yet let it slip' There is no point is debating a guy that is always one sided, always looking for pathetic excuses as to why players lost to Nadal. The guy won 17 slams, he is the reason these guys lost, his quality of tennis. Get this through your head.
NO, he outplayed him and overpowered him. Stan overpowered Djokovic in 2015 FO final and Nadal overpowered Stan in 2016 final, FACT. Nadal had Stan from side to side all match, pushing him back and hitting winners from all over the court, THIS IS OVERPOWERING TENNIS. FACT.
excuses and excuses is your middle name. Stan also beat Djokovic in US Open final. They have met in two finals and Stan has beaten him, it's a bad matchup. Stan makes Djokovic look limited, just as Djokovic makes Nadal look. The problem with Djokovic vs Stan is that Stan can tee off deep balls, something Djokovic is good at. Stan can muscle his way into bullying Djokovic and makes Djokovic play the most defensive tennis i have ever seen. Nadal can bully Stan because Nadal's ball is completely different, Nadal will use angles and spins + power and Stan struggles with this more, Nadal is able to move Stan and get him out of positions. Djokovic takes this away from Nadal with his movement and ability to counter heavy powerful strokes.
he beat them because of he has a remarkable game, when you make excuses for many players all the time, shows me you simply hate Nadal and will never give him respect he deserves. Only Federer and Djokovic are in his class, no-one else.
Djokovic, IMO, is the best tennis player of all time. He won 4 slams in a row and every masters tournament and has a winning record vs Rafa and Roger. To me, he is goat. If he has made Nadal look bad at times it has nothing to do with Nadal's limitations and all to do with Djokovic's game. Djokovic has also destroyed Federer at AO, straight setted Fed twice and a few years ago won first two sets 6-1,6-2 before Fed sneezed in a set. I guess Djokovic has also exposed the clear limitations in Federer's game AS-WELL.
Define athleticism. You have some turkeys in basketball who are just very tall and you have some fatso's in NFL who resemble elephant seals. In soccer, you have some pretty average dudes running from side to side, they have stamina. I play tennis competitively and athleticism is a huge advantage, the guys at the top of tennis are as athletic as athletes in other spots, just don't need to be 6'6 to play basketball or be 250 lbs to play NFL. Different sports require different qualities, i'm not sure Lebron James would be a great tennis player and neither would Messi. I would bet Nadal and Djokovic would be better at soccer than Messi at tennis!
Last edited:
DarthFed
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,724
- Reactions
- 3,477
- Points
- 113
Even with all the quality points it's clear the Fed hate still shines through. Rafa was up an early break in the 5th but Roger was brilliant the last 5 games. Nadal lost that set despite hitting close to 80% first serves and barely making any unforced errors. It was probably the best set he played all match. Wimbledon 2007? Remind me at which point Rafa was ahead in that match? That was a 6-2 final set. Clearly the 08 final was tighter when Roger played a pretty erratic at best match by any standard. Roger "sneezed in a set" in 2016. I guess that's your way of saying he was lucky.
Novak is GOAT despite being 5 majors down? I'm guessing Sampras is still #2 on your list as well? I'm guessing Roger is still in his prime playing his best tennis ever?
And also, are you really arguing the top 3 tennis players are as athletic than LeBron and other guys in the NBA and NFL? Man, it isn't even close. I'm guessing you don't watch much of either sport. I mean LeBron is an alien and he was never going to choose tennis or anything except basketball or football. If he did play tennis we are talking a guy who probably would serve like Isner with absurd power and freak athleticism. It's tough to picture the standard tennis players really having a prayer.
Last edited:
taking things out of context. I think Federer deserves to win these two matches, i was just showing cali how i can counter him with the same excuses he makes for all the times Fed and Nole lost to Nadal. I was showing him how i can also play that game, get it? The guy NEVER gives credit to Nadal when he wins, it's always 'Fed should've and could've' so i can do same thing.
Just because he has 5 more slams doesn't mean he is GOAT. There is an argument to be made for why Nole is GOAT.
1. Nole had to deal with peak Fed and peak Nadal when he came into the scene. Fed had to deal with guys like Roddick and Hewitt. Nadal had Federer..
2. Nole has a winning record vs Fed and nadal
3. Nole is only player to have won 4 slams in a row, something neither Fed nor Rafa could do
4. Nole is only player to have won every masters tournament
5. nole, can be argued, is the best on all surfaces. He has 7 AOs, 3 UOs, 4 Wimbledons and 1 FO. Like Fed he only has 1 FO but he is better than Fed on clay. Djoker is the only player to have beaten Nadal on clay 7 times! no-one has beaten Rafa more that twice, except Djokovic. He has also made several FO finals like Fed.
define athleticism. Certain athletic traits like wingspan and jumping ability are good in basketball but may not translate well in soccer or tennis. I keep hearing the same thing - people like Lebron just don't go for soccer or tennis, really? It has to also do with what different sports require. Soccer is about quick foot movement, coordination, stamina, powerful big legs. Someone like Lebron may not be built for that - carrying a tall, heavy body from side to side and without the quick reflexes or foot movement. Likewise, Messi, with all his foot speed, powerful legs and small body, would be crap in basketball. Tennis is about agility, body coordination, speed, stamina, eye-hand coordination and you can't be too big or it's tough on the knees. Playing a basketball game is a completely different thing than playing a 3 of 5 set match in a slam. Lebron has a big body, could he go 5 hours in a slam without popping his knees or getting tired? Why do think big guys are always injured or tired (del po, inner, raonic) and never reach the top? big bodies are not built for tennis... being around 6'1, strong and light is ideal. Different sports require different traits, this is basic stuff!
I would argue Monfils is a freak, as athletic as any basketball player, but he's skinny and not super tall... this means he isn't putting too much stress on his knees and is small enough to be light around the court. Btw, why isn't monfils dominating? clearly he is an athletic FREAK.
Carol
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 9,225
- Reactions
- 1,833
- Points
- 113
Talking about stupid, are you such kind of stupid to make those kind of pathetic comments? what are you talking about potential, then we could say the same about Federer and Novak , they never would have won some GS if Nadal would have played to his potential more often like for example yesterday his unexpected poor game against Novak, same like the last game in the Wimbledon semis having the match almost in his hands, like AO 2017 after Federer took that break and came back like Tarzan and Nadal so bad etc etc etc. It's clear that in grass and HC there is a lot of competition, none is the King and the proof is that there are different winners in those surfaces but clay is a very different story because it doesn't matter how much potential have your two favorites, there is only one KING named Rafael Nadal who is very superior to the others it doesn't matter how much it hurts you
Nadal in this last AO has done more than enough after to came back and been almost 5 months out of the court, when they are twenty something is easier but after 30's is a lot more difficult because they don't have that 'punch' they have when they are on track playing non-stop and of course if the opponent is playing with everything he has and more physically then is a big advantage for this last one, as clear as crystal
DarthFed
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,724
- Reactions
- 3,477
- Points
- 113
The competition argument is always overrated and we are seeing it turn full circle. I don't think there's any argument that young Roger had it easier than the other two and they also became great players at a slightly younger age than Roger. But did Novak have it tougher in his prime (2011-2016) than Roger (2004-2009) or Rafa (2008-2013)? I think what's clear is prime Fed and prime Novak never met. I know you and other fan bases want to say 30-37 year old Federer was better than ever but it has no basis in reality and certainly doesn't show statistically. Rafa's prime started with Roger still going strong and then ended with Novak in his prime. So as much as I can't stand Nadal I think in that context he had it slightly tougher as those primes intersected. Now since I feel dirty I will point out how changing conditions to the courts have benefited him the most
But what is currently lost in all of this is that Roger when slightly past his prime was dealing with Novak and Rafa in their primes (even Murray if you want to include him). And right now Novak and Rafa are past their primes (yes even Novak IMO though he obviously is still the best) but they have no one remotely as good as they were to deal with. The lost generation has benefited them a lot as the guys in their mid 20's are a bunch of tomato cans and the Next Gen clearly isn't there yet. Competition argument has come full circle IMO. And since careers are lasting longer I'd say it's clear Nole and Rafa have had the "age advantage" on Roger longer than Roger had it on them. Roger and Nole especially have played a lot of matches with each other from 2010-current. And 2010 was really the only clear neutral year in their career archs.
The top NFL and NBA guys are freak pure athletes (yes, more so than Monfils who has no stamina, no dedication, no mental toughness). I hear you about different sports requiring different things and NFL is more of a sprint. NBA however actually requires similar movements and trust me, LeBron and those guys are faster and some of them are crazy quick too.
I think the height of tennis is going to change throughout time and there is no doubt in my mind if you currently had an athletic big man (I'm talking 6'8 or more) instead of the immobile trees I think they'd be a load to deal with. The courts are slower and bouncing higher so I don't think the low ball is as big of an issue as before. Raonic has had a lot of injuries while Del Po's have been almost always the wrist. Isner has been fairly healthy. I know what you mean about tennis possibly being tougher on a tall guy's frame but again with the current conditions I don't think it's a given that they will be injury-prone.
Last edited:
atttomole
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reactions
- 1,138
- Points
- 113
If there was a GOAT, I would give it to Federer, not because of slams. The way he plays tennis, the number of weeks at number one, the semi finals streaks, hard court and grass streaks etc. Djokovic is close in that regard because he has a balanced resume and he could continue to improve. For me GOAT is a combination of a number of things.
When you list Federer’s opponents, why do you exclude Nadal, yet you do the reverse? You say Nadal had Federer but you don’t say Federer had Nadal? Djokovic had to deal with peak Federer and Nadal, but Federer has had to deal with peak Djokovic and Nadal too right? I also think that peak Federer can handle peak Djokovic on hards and on grass. One could say it’s even but I still give Federer a slight edge on hards at their peaks.
DarthFed
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,724
- Reactions
- 3,477
- Points
- 113
There isn't an all-time king of HC but it's fair to say Roger and Novak are far ahead of everyone else there in history and Novak certainly has a chance to clearly be #1 in that respect. There is a king of grass and it's Roger. He is late 30's and clearly far from what he once was on grass but even as a geezer he's far better than Nadal there.
Roger and Novak are simply better players than Nadal if we are talking the full careers. Game-wise they have long been better-rounded though I do admit Rafa has really really become a great all-around player as he's aged. But the main thing is that they are a lot better than him on everything except clay. So we are talking 8/10 months where you expect those guys to outperform Nadal day-in day-out.
Nadal is just that amazing on clay that he is up there in majors and still a GOAT contender. The clay has made his H2H with Nole reasonable and it swung a huge edge vs Roger who was mentally owned by Rafa for many years due to the clay beatings. But greatest and best can be 2 different things. Roger and Novak have shown dominance on fast hards, slow hards, indoor hards, and grass that Rafa simply never has.
Carol
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 9,225
- Reactions
- 1,833
- Points
- 113
But Nadal has 2 Wimbledon, 3 USO and unfortunately even playing several finals in tha AO which is considered to be very good results he has only 1 so it means that after Novak and Federer he is the third best player on HC in spite of all his injuries and not having the best serve which is even more meritorious
The_Grand_Slam
Masters Champion
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2017
- Messages
- 604
- Reactions
- 305
- Points
- 63
3
4
5
6
6
Nadalfan2013
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 2,768
- Reactions
- 1,426
- Points
- 113
What matters is that Rafa has at least 2 slams on each surface which neither Roger or Novak can claim. He managed to win twice on his weakest surface which is grass. Therefore they need to at least win twice on Clay. As for hardcourt he has 4 slams, so even if you divide by two for the USO and AO he still gets an average of 2. They really need to prove themselves on Clay one more time. Rafa has also beaten Novak twice in USO finals and Roger in WB and AO finals, so he has the quality wins too, he had to earn it the hard way.
Carol
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 9,225
- Reactions
- 1,833
- Points
- 113
I was talking about this ERA!3USA Pete Sampras 7
4USA Andre Agassi 6
5USA Ivan Lendl 5
6USA John McEnroe 4
6ESP Rafael Nadal4
DarthFed
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 17,724
- Reactions
- 3,477
- Points
- 113
I'm guessing you have Bill Russell in the NBA too, right? Tennis it might be unfair but there is a reason everyone says open era.
The competition argument is always overrated and we are seeing it turn full circle. I don't think there's any argument that young Roger had it easier than the other two and they also became great players at a slightly younger age than Roger. But did Novak have it tougher in his prime (2011-2016) than Roger (2004-2009) or Rafa (2008-2013)? I think what's clear is prime Fed and prime Novak never met. I know you and other fan bases want to say 30-37 year old Federer was better than ever but it has no basis in reality and certainly doesn't show statistically. Rafa's prime started with Roger still going strong and then ended with Novak in his prime. So as much as I can't stand Nadal I think in that context he had it slightly tougher as those primes intersected. Now since I feel dirty I will point out how changing conditions to the courts have benefited him the most
it's a never ending argument. The fact is that you will never know when Fed's prime really was. You say it was 04-07 but that is very convenient because this is when he was at his most dominant, you don't really take any other factors into account. As soon as he started losing in 2008 (11 years ago at the ripe age of 26/27) he was past his prime. Isn't it utterly ridiculous to claim Federer was past his prime by 08? in the prime of of his physical prowess? Now why is it that Fed fans said this? because he started losing in slams. This requires a more in depth analysis though. Federer's best years were indeed 04-07 but we absolutely need to take into account his competition, whether you like it or not. Nadal came into the scene in 2005 but he initially was very poor on grass and hardcourts, he was getting wasted by nobodies at USO and AO. He was improving his grass court game every year, making finals of W in 06, then 07 and then 08, each time improving his results. Nadal started to play well on hards after 09, when he made his first AO final. He won all of his 4 HC slams after 09, which makes sense as by 09 he was in early 20s... so was reaching his prime as he approached mid 20s. Djokovic started making his mark at 19, in 2007. So what happened in 2008 exactly? when Roger, all of sudden, got OLD at 26? Djokovic beat him at AO, Nadal at FO and Wimbledon and then Roger won USO. Now go back to 2005, extract Roddick and insert Andy in AO semis (instead of Djokovic). Also go back and extract 05 Nadal (who was 19) and put him in 08 Wimbledon. Guess what? 99% chance Federer would've won 08 AO, 08 Wimbledon, made FO finals and won USO. You think not? you know it. There is no way Federer suddenly went old in his mid 20s especially considering that at 36 he won a slam. It is true that around 2012-2017 Federer was past his prime but still playing at a high level in spurts. It is true that Djokovic's prime 11-18 didn't coincide with Federer's prime (i would argue 04-10, not just the convenient 04-07 which is preposterous) but just as past his prime fed beat prime djoker on occasion, baby joker was beating prime fed in 07-08. It goes both ways, we can both find examples that suit our arguments. What is clear though is that, without a doubt, having to face a slightly past his prime Fed and prime Nadal is HARDER than facing the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and little baby Nadal between 04-07. I would argue Djokovic has had it toughest between the 3 of them and Djoker got the added bonus of Andy Murray too.
I do think there is a compelling argument to be made that Djokovic is best ever. He has 15 slams and i think has the most complete game of the 3. Several people have called his highest level, highest level ever achieved, including Nick Bolletieri (there are many others i forget at the moment). He has a winning record against Fed and Nadal (no-one else has) and only one that could win all masters titles and 4 slams in a row, probably most impressive feats after # of slams. He will inch closer to Fed but i think having most # slams is not the only factor when assessing best ever.
