Nadalites – Rafa Nadal Talk

[britbox]

^ Great post BS

 

[DarthFed]

Do you downplay the majors won by Djokovic in 2015 and 2016? Because I'll tell you something, the competition in 2004-2007 was much better than it was in 2015 for example. For starters, Nadal was a non-factor, and according to your post, Roger hasn't been playing at a high enough level... So we're left with hot-and-cold Wawrinka and Murray and... literally nobody else. That's what people don't take into account with regards to the 2004-2007 field... Depth, and boy was it deep. Sorry but give me Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, a young Nadal who was far and away the second best player in the world over the quality of the field in 2015 any day of the week.



Djokovic's contemporaries were all done and dusted for. As I said, Nadal became plagued with one injury after another, Del Potro was out of contention and often injured as well. Soderling contacted mono and retired. That left the likes of old Federer, mercurial Wawrinka, and never has been Ferrer and a nervy Murray who wet the bed against Djokovic every time they played. The field accounted for 5 easy majors. That is simply the truth no matter how the pundits try to spin it.




Yes, I can imagine Rafa, Novak and Andy with fields such as that... and I can't imagine them being quite as successful or consistent as Federer was. For instance, let's look at Rafa's most successful year, 2010. He won 3 majors and 3 masters titles. Fantastic, no doubt. However, let's examine his year. The results are very interesting:

He started off in Doha: Lost to Davydenko in the final. The same Davydenko that is made to look like a joke by Roger routinely.
-AO: Lost to Murray in the QF. The same Murray that Roger crushed in the finals a few days later.
-Indian Wells: lost to Ljubcic (Indian Wells). Same old Ljubicic that Roger crushes routinely.
-Miami: lost to Roddick (copy and paste the above).
-He then went on to dominate the clay season, only dropping two sets in the process (no words can do that justice).
-At the French Open, Nadal's path in the second week was Almagro, Melzer and Soderling. Now, Rafa hardly needs easy draws at the FO but let's agree that this is hardly the supposed terrifying competition that would put the 2003-2007 generation to shame (in fact, they're more or less part of that generation). To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Soderling in the final was an easy opponent at all. I'd argue that Rafa would have probably preferred to face Federer, stylistically.
- At Queens, he lost to Feliciano Lopez. Again, another Federer contemporary.
- At Wimbledon, Rafa played amazing in the second week after struggling mightily in the first week, fending off Soderling and Murray in his two best performances of the season, before meeting his favorite whipping boy, Tomas Berdych in the final.
- In Canada, Rafa lost to Murray.
- In Cincinnati, Rafa lost to the same nervy Marcus Baghdatis you referred to above...only a four years older, more injury plagued version of that player.
- At the US Open, Rafa's path to the final was a joke , although he was playing out of his mind, and beating Djokovic speaks for itself so no arguments there.
- At the Thailand Open, Rafa lost to Guillermo Garcia Lopez.
- Rafa won in Tokyo (beat Monfils in the final).
- At the Shanghai Masters: Rafa lost to Jurgen Melzer. Another Federer contemporary, and not an especially good one at that.
- Rafa skipped the Paris Masters.
- At the WTF in London, Rafa lost to... Roger Federer in the final.

This is Nadal's best year ever. A year in which the competition, while definitely good, wasn't quite as good as it was in say, 2008, when Rafa first reached the top of the rankings, or 2009. In fact, Djokovic was a non factor for the majority of the year until the US Open and Roger was a non factor after the Australian Open until he woke up in the fall season. So yeah, those guys were there, but they weren't in form, and Rafa only played one of them (Djokovic) in his 3 major wins.

Keep in mind, I think Rafa would have spanked Roger at the US Open if Federer converts on those match points against Djokovic. I'm not saying his results would have been any different. But, I'm saying, his results, good as they were, in his best year ever, still pale in comparison to Roger's best years, and Rafa occasionally lost to the same guys Roger clowned in his prime...and most of these guys were past their prime when they beat him. So, food for thought.



I wonder if Nadal being Roger's only competition has anything to do with Roger being an out-of-this-world player.




I don't think anyone is claiming Haas, Monfils, Tsonga or Nalbandian are capable of lacing Rafa's boots so nobody needs convincing that he's done better than them. And yes, Roger hasn't won a major since 2012, but it's a good reminder that he's 35 now.




So you either win the big ones or you're not playing well? Roger reached two major finals at 34 last year and was ranked number 2 in the world. I reckon that counts as playing well. This year he obviously hasn't been playing well but he's missed most of it due to injury, so I think we can excuse him.




I would say it has more to do with the record number of majors he's won, the 4 consecutive years as world number 1, the outrageous amount of major semis in a row that he reached, his unparalleled dominance, the amount of Masters 1000 events he's won, the fact that even in his 30's, he was beating the likes of Djokovic and Murray on multiple occasions, etc...



OK, let's say this is true. Who would you say should be ahead of him on an all time list? Or, in other words, who do you think should be held on a higher pedestal? Name whoever you want and I'll be able to do exactly as you did in the above post and carefully twist their accomplishments to make them look less impressive.

Well said. And just in case you didn't know, Tennis Fan is a Nadal nut. She already had many posts in the past about how Djokovic is only doing well because Rafa got old.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Do you downplay the majors won by Djokovic in 2015 and 2016? Because I'll tell you something, the competition in 2004-2007 was much better than it was in 2015 for example. For starters, Nadal was a non-factor, and according to your post, Roger hasn't been playing at a high enough level... So we're left with hot-and-cold Wawrinka and Murray and... literally nobody else. That's what people don't take into account with regards to the 2004-2007 field... Depth, and boy was it deep. Sorry but give me Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, a young Nadal who was far and away the second best player in the world over the quality of the field in 2015 any day of the week.

I’m not downplaying anything. These are facts: Safin was in and out, Hewitt and Juan Carlos did contract chicken pox, Nalbandian was a walking hospital on and off the tour and Davydenko was Roger’s boot-licker. Those were Roger's contemporaries. Why do you think no one is comparing Thiem, Zverev, Kyrgios, etc. to Novak, Murray, Roger and Rafa? They're not their contemporaries, the Big Four is now the Old Guard. It doesn't make sense to compare the newbies with the seasoned professionals.

I never said that Roger wasn’t playing at a high enough level. He did indeed mow down the competition, but you still have to look at the competition, IMO. Roger stepped in and filled a void, similar to what’s happening with Novak. Do they deserve their wins? Absolutely, but does it rise to the occasion of someone walking on water? Not to me.

Djokovic's contemporaries were all done and dusted for. As I said, Nadal became plagued with one injury after another, Del Potro was out of contention and often injured as well. Soderling contacted mono and retired. That left the likes of old Federer, mercurial Wawrinka, and never has been Ferrer and a nervy Murray who wet the bed against Djokovic every time they played. The field accounted for 5 easy majors. That is simply the truth no matter how the pundits try to spin it.

This is true, and for that reason you don't see Novak as walking on water, right? Same here. Just insert the different names because it's the same thing?

Yes, I can imagine Rafa, Novak and Andy with fields such as that... and I can't imagine them being quite as successful or consistent as Federer was. For instance, let's look at Rafa's most successful year, 2010. He won 3 majors and 3 masters titles. Fantastic, no doubt. However, let's examine his year. The results are very interesting:

He started off in Doha: Lost to Davydenko in the final. The same Davydenko that is made to look like a joke by Roger routinely.
-AO: Lost to Murray in the QF. The same Murray that Roger crushed in the finals a few days later.
-Indian Wells: lost to Ljubcic (Indian Wells). Same old Ljubicic that Roger crushes routinely.
-Miami: lost to Roddick (copy and paste the above).
-He then went on to dominate the clay season, only dropping two sets in the process (no words can do that justice).
-At the French Open, Nadal's path in the second week was Almagro, Melzer and Soderling. Now, Rafa hardly needs easy draws at the FO but let's agree that this is hardly the supposed terrifying competition that would put the 2003-2007 generation to shame (in fact, they're more or less part of that generation). To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Soderling in the final was an easy opponent at all. I'd argue that Rafa would have probably preferred to face Federer, stylistically.
- At Queens, he lost to Feliciano Lopez. Again, another Federer contemporary.
- At Wimbledon, Rafa played amazing in the second week after struggling mightily in the first week, fending off Soderling and Murray in his two best performances of the season, before meeting his favorite whipping boy, Tomas Berdych in the final.
- In Canada, Rafa lost to Murray.
- In Cincinnati, Rafa lost to the same nervy Marcus Baghdatis you referred to above...only a four years older, more injury plagued version of that player.
- At the US Open, Rafa's path to the final was a joke , although he was playing out of his mind, and beating Djokovic speaks for itself so no arguments there.
- At the Thailand Open, Rafa lost to Guillermo Garcia Lopez.
- Rafa won in Tokyo (beat Monfils in the final).
- At the Shanghai Masters: Rafa lost to Jurgen Melzer. Another Federer contemporary, and not an especially good one at that.
- Rafa skipped the Paris Masters.
- At the WTF in London, Rafa lost to... Roger Federer in the final.

This is Nadal's best year ever. A year in which the competition, while definitely good, wasn't quite as good as it was in say, 2008, when Rafa first reached the top of the rankings, or 2009. In fact, Djokovic was a non factor for the majority of the year until the US Open and Roger was a non factor after the Australian Open until he woke up in the fall season. So yeah, those guys were there, but they weren't in form, and Rafa only played one of them (Djokovic) in his 3 major wins.

I don't get the point of listing Rafa's losses. That would be similar to me listing who Federer lost to when Pete and Agassi were playing. As I remember he wasn't winning anything big and at the time people were wondering if he would ever break through. So, you're comparing Roger's prime and glory years to Rafa's learning stages. Not a fair comparison.

Keep in mind, I think Rafa would have spanked Roger at the US Open if Federer converts on those match points against Djokovic. I'm not saying his results would have been any different. But, I'm saying, his results, good as they were, in his best year ever, still pale in comparison to Roger's best years, and Rafa occasionally lost to the same guys Roger clowned in his prime...and most of these guys were past their prime when they beat him. So, food for thought.

I can't say that Rafa would've spanked Roger, too hypothetical. But remember, Roger had no challengers, I've already listed his contemporaries; most of whom were his "friends" and proud to be so, Stan included. Of course Nadal had some losses. Look at the difference in tour experience. He also went on to reverse those H2Hs, did he not? Go back and look at who Federer was losing to at the same age.

I wonder if Nadal being Roger's only competition has anything to do with Roger being an out-of-this-world player.

I don’t think so. Put the other three in the same position and the results would’ve been the same. Roger’s not out of this world to me. Never has been. Put Novak in his prime against a bunch of newbies and the results would be the same.

I don't think anyone is claiming Haas, Monfils, Tsonga or Nalbandian are capable of lacing Rafa's boots so nobody needs convincing that he's done better than them. And yes, Roger hasn't won a major since 2012, but it's a good reminder that he's 35 now.

I understand that he’s 35, but aren’t his fans still looking for #18? You can’t have it both ways. The thing is, people are still giving him chances when he hasn’t won for four years and writing Rafa off in the same breath after an injury plagued year. It doesn’t make sense to me.

So you either win the big ones or you're not playing well? Roger reached two major finals at 34 last year and was ranked number 2 in the world. I reckon that counts as playing well. This year he obviously hasn't been playing well but he's missed most of it due to injury, so I think we can excuse him.

Not necessarily, but you don’t laud them either if they don’t win the big ones. Was Murray lauded all of these years for his consistency? No. That was impressive Roger reaching two finals at his age. I can’t argue with that, but if you’re going to count his injuries, you have to count everyone else’s too.

I would say it has more to do with the record number of majors he's won, the 4 consecutive years as world number 1, the outrageous amount of major semis in a row that he reached, his unparalleled dominance, the amount of Masters 1000 events he's won, the fact that even in his 30's, he was beating the likes of Djokovic and Murray on multiple occasions, etc...

Other people have great stats too that aren't repeated in every broadcast for years. Seriously, where else in history do we count major semis and Master's events? That's padding, IMO. The next thing you know we'll be counting QF's, 4th rounds, etc. The other two are impressive, the consecutive years as year end #1 and the number of majors. I'm not downing Federer, as I said before he's a great player and it took a lot of mental strength to fight and hold on as long as he did, but I have to look at the how as well, and not having contemporaries plays a big part to me.

OK, let's say this is true. Who would you say should be ahead of him on an all time list? Or, in other words, who do you think should be held on a higher pedestal? Name whoever you want and I'll be able to do exactly as you did in the above post and carefully twist their accomplishments to make them look less impressive.

I don’t believe in an all-time list of accomplishments, how do you compare over time? There is no comparison to Federer and Laver’s times. It’s ludicrous to even try to make a case for that. It’s also foolish in my opinion to consider one trait the end-all, be all to assert perfection, e.g. the career grand slam. I think that’s a load of crock. You can’t compare different times, different nutrition, different training, court surfaces, and etc. and come up with an ideal. The idea of a “GOAT” is ludicrous to me. Pedestals? Not in my mindset at all. I never did understand that. I love Nadal, but I would never call him or anyone else a GOAT. Times change and people get better due to knowledge. Everyone does different things from the others and that can’t be statistically applied, IMO.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Well said. And just in case you didn't know, Tennis Fan is a Nadal nut. She already had many posts in the past about how Djokovic is only doing well because Rafa got old.

That's not true. I don't have a lot of posts about Novak not deserving what he's earned. That's simply not true. I've always seen Novak as a threat to Rafa, even before he arrived. What you don't seem to understand is that I don't idolize and put anyone on a pedestal because of their accomplishments. I love Rafa, but I don't knock anyone down. I just don't think that many people look at all of the factors, just the ones that uplift their favorites. When have you seen me bragging about Rafa's eight and nine tournaments won at the same venue? Or his nine RG crowns, or winning RG his first time of playing? Never, because others have their accomplishments too, and I think it's silly to compare in an effort to assign superiority.

I think others are the actual nuts. Trying to convince everyone that Federer is the be-all, end-all. He may be to you, but that doesn't make it so for others.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don’t believe in an all-time list of accomplishments, how do you compare over time? There is no comparison to Federer and Laver’s times. It’s ludicrous to even try to make a case for that. It’s also foolish in my opinion to consider one trait the end-all, be all to assert perfection, e.g. the career grand slam. I think that’s a load of crock. You can’t compare different times, different nutrition, different training, court surfaces, and etc. and come up with an ideal. The idea of a “GOAT” is ludicrous to me. Pedestals? Not in my mindset at all. I never did understand that. I love Nadal, but I would never call him or anyone else a GOAT. Times change and people get better due to knowledge. Everyone does different things from the others and that can’t be statistically applied, IMO.

Fair enough, but again, you said that Roger shouldn't be held on as high a pedestal as he is. I'm saying, which player would you put on an equal pedestal with Roger? You say it's impossible to compare over time, fine. Let's compare in similar eras. Would you put Nadal or Djokovic on the same pedestal as Fed?

Replace the term "pedestal" with anything else you want if that's your issue.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I don’t believe in an all-time list of accomplishments, how do you compare over time? There is no comparison to Federer and Laver’s times. It’s ludicrous to even try to make a case for that. It’s also foolish in my opinion to consider one trait the end-all, be all to assert perfection, e.g. the career grand slam. I think that’s a load of crock. You can’t compare different times, different nutrition, different training, court surfaces, and etc. and come up with an ideal. The idea of a “GOAT” is ludicrous to me. Pedestals? Not in my mindset at all. I never did understand that. I love Nadal, but I would never call him or anyone else a GOAT. Times change and people get better due to knowledge. Everyone does different things from the others and that can’t be statistically applied, IMO.

Broken, I bolded my responses, if you're interested.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Fair enough, but again, you said that Roger shouldn't be held on as high a pedestal as he is. I'm saying, which player would you put on an equal pedestal with Roger? You say it's impossible to compare over time, fine. Let's compare in similar eras. Would you put Nadal or Djokovic on the same pedestal as Fed?

Replace the term "pedestal" with anything else you want if that's your issue.

The way I see it, The Big Four are all great players. I don't see the need to assign superiority to one over the other. I don't understand that to be honest. The tour is full of amazing players; enough for everyone to choose from. But me personally, I've never called anyone the GOAT and I never will because I think it's a mythical term that can't be measured. As it is, people choose who they want to carry that title and that's fine with me. I'm not about to worry about some multimillionaires that don't even know that I exist.

For example, you initially referred to me as a Djokovic fan. I'm not. I just respect his achievements which I think are well earned. I respect Federer's too and have said that numerous times, but I don't see him as the GOAT, him or Laver, or anybody as I think that's silly.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Well said. And just in case you didn't know, Tennis Fan is a Nadal nut. She already had many posts in the past about how Djokovic is only doing well because Rafa got old.

Ha ha ha. Broken thought I was a Djokovic fan, so I must not be that much of a Nadal nut. I give everybody their due. I just don't play the "My guy is better than your guy" game.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The way I see it, The Big Four are all great players. I don't see the need to assign superiority to one over the other. I don't understand that to be honest. The tour is full of amazing players; enough for everyone to choose from. But me personally, I've never called anyone the GOAT and I never will because I think it's a mythical term that can't be measured. As it is, people choose who they want to carry that title and that's fine with me. I'm not about to worry about some multimillionaires that don't even know that I exist.

For example, you initially referred to me as a Djokovic fan. I'm not. I just respect his achievements which I think are well earned. I respect Federer's too and have said that numerous times, but I don't see him as the GOAT, him or Laver, or anybody as I think that's silly.

There isn't a "need" to label one of the big four as superior to the other, but some things are evident. It's actually insulting to claim that say, Federer isn't superior to Murray, because he is, and we've got plenty of evidence to suggest as much.

Also, when did I call you a Djokovic fan? You have Nadal in your avatar so I thought it was pretty obvious who you root for.

 

[Tennis Fan]

There isn't a "need" to label one of the big four as superior to the other, but some things are evident. It's actually insulting to claim that say, Federer isn't superior to Murray, because he is, and we've got plenty of evidence to suggest as much.

Also, when did I call you a Djokovic fan? You have Nadal in your avatar so I thought it was pretty obvious who you root for.

You referenced Djokovic by putting him in your first sentence. You said, "I'll bet you think Djokovic..." and I don't think anything in that regard. I think they're all great players and I see no need to compare them. I just don't.

I guess we differ in our assessment process. I don't try to figure out who's better because I don't care. I don't like who I like because they're "better" I use a different criteria for my fandom.

Now, they're hinting that if Djokovic keeps up his winning ways that he'll surpass Federer. I'm not willing to get on that bus.

When you say "but" you negate the first part of your sentence, "there's no need to label them, but some things are evident. Huh?

You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from. I don't care about GOATdom and who's better. Period.

 

[Ricardo]

You referenced Djokovic by putting him in your first sentence. You said, "I'll bet you think Djokovic..." and I don't think anything in that regard. I think they're all great players and I see no need to compare them. I just don't.

I guess we differ in our assessment process. I don't try to figure out who's better because I don't care. I don't like who I like because they're "better" I use a different criteria for my fandom.

Now, they're hinting that if Djokovic keeps up his winning ways that he'll surpass Federer. I'm not willing to get on that bus.

When you say "but" you negate the first part of your sentence, "there's no need to label them, but some things are evident. Huh?

You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from. I don't care about GOATdom and who's better. Period.

you are nothing but a hypocrite, sorry to call you out on that but thats the truth. you think we are all dumb when you claim you don't care who's better? if that's so, you wouldn't utter a word about Fed's competition was on 'disabled' list because clearly his accomplishment bothered you, and you couldn't help but wrote something to degrade it.

which is almost fine except, like others pointed out already, you don't hold other players to the same scrutiny.....Djoker was a good example used, Fedal were much more 'disabled' no? and Murray was a bed wetter after Lendl left him no? outside of that who was real competition? Wawrinka is awesome when he is on, but anyone who follows tennis knows how often he shows up to play..... he is a modern version of Safin/Nalbandian without quite the same partying needs.

put simply, you are a hypocrite which is fine (i see plenty of) but don't insult our intelligence by saying all those nonsense.

 

[Ricardo]

You referenced Djokovic by putting him in your first sentence. You said, "I'll bet you think Djokovic..." and I don't think anything in that regard. I think they're all great players and I see no need to compare them. I just don't.

I guess we differ in our assessment process. I don't try to figure out who's better because I don't care. I don't like who I like because they're "better" I use a different criteria for my fandom.

Now, they're hinting that if Djokovic keeps up his winning ways that he'll surpass Federer. I'm not willing to get on that bus.

When you say "but" you negate the first part of your sentence, "there's no need to label them, but some things are evident. Huh?

You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from. I don't care about GOATdom and who's better. Period.

putting Djoker first does not make you a Djoker fan, i put him in my first sentence so what? your silly intention is clear for all to see. Pretend all you like...

 

[Ricardo]

actually it was.

roger never dominated nalbandian -- even if roger ''rose to the challenge" -- until AFTER nblandian began that endless series of injuries when both started to ''rise" to real prominence.

namely -- right afer david had a severe wrist injury in the semifinals of USO 2003 -- THE very year Roddick won the USA.

REVIEW THE chronology.
NALBANDIAN -- afer that , practically all his career really, never recovered or advanced with enough consistency FROM being injury-free playhing.

that's WHY he was often known or joked about as a walking hospital. and when he did play well - was inconsistent in his own commitment. openly admitting he preferred davis, often seen reading a book around matches,

i actually saw that moment he had that injury in his writs in the semis - and then lost to andy as the power wimkply wasn't there in his famous backhand then...kinda like delpotro -- one injury 0 then another crops ujp somehwere...

in davids, it was also the back, and then the ankle, etc. etc. etc.it in THAT context OF YEARS of dominance that roger ''dominated david".

like dominating what amounts to a repeatedly bandaged guy..but for a brief time in around 2006-07 david - winning his only YEAR-END ATP championship - put his stuff together , for once -- and demonstrated just how EASILY he beat

NADAL, ROGER and anyone else.

john mcenroe said during the USO finals 2003 ..
I WASN'T convinced about david - even with that wimbledon with hewitt...but what i'm seeing even today - i must admit i was very , very wrong, this is one hell of a very, very intelligent player...

now THAT PLAYER never quite found that 'body" of injury-free

THAT'S the david roger 'rose up to to dominate".

kinda like the way roger won hi sfirst wimbleodn...

over mark philippoussies -- almost 10 years his senior - a left-over from the sampras era -
been RECENTLY (in that same year 2004) in the hospital in wheelchair after an auto accident in florida , on top of double knee operations from previous years....

managed to get into wimbledon -- and pleasntly for him reached finals -- but only did so after being given a wildcard for lack of matches and points etc...

hewitt -- after already about 2-3 years of intense hot run from 2000,2001,2001,

OF COURSE the guy basically reached top and peaked and the rest is just coasting by -- 2004..on THAT'S the kind of competition roger 'dominated" --

basically a bunch of has-beens - left-overs, injureds, distracteds, newbies , very old,

and the BEST of them until about 2005-06 until HIS retirement -- reaching TWO consecutive USO FINALS or semis AGAINST ROGER

WAS -- UH --12-YEAR SENIOR

SCIATICA PLAGUED ANDRE AGASSI who said:
|"there are just certain movements now i JUST WILL NOT DO.."..?

gimme me a break!

and THAT'S the 'dominance and rising to the occasion" roger enjoyed -- which is why CONNORS snapped when nadal came along

"the reason i like him is HE steps up to the plate" where NO ONE DID against roger ''who stepped up to the plate"

and NO ONE REALLY was there EXCEPT very old, injured or playeres plagued by injury in he body

or in the brain -- like ivan ljubicic constantly talking about ''my friend roger" -- or james blake constantly licking roger's ass..."the reason no one wants to beat him is because he is so............NICE?"

gimme a break, ,man!

yeah gimme a break, did you copy and paste the same posts that you posted years ago? no one wants to beat him because he is so nice?
deep inside you know this logic simply doesn't cut it, this kind of talk is clearly based on prejudice against Federer. You've stated in the past that Fed is not even a great player just merely a 'good' player. hmmm, i don't know if by looking at some facts you'll want to rephrase your remarkable findings:

lets look at what he's done when he was in his 30s, since anything he did prior meant nothing because there was no competition and 'no one' wanted to beat him. In 2011 he beat Djoker in RG semi, who was on a tear for the longest winning streak and showed that he was fearless against anybody, after beating Fed only months prior at USO semi, being down matches points too....so it took just another average Jo to take Novak out, who was showing record breaking dominance at the time, and to many he played higher level than he ever did before and after (as in 2015 his competition clearly shrinker).

in 2012 he beat Djoker and Murray back to back in Wimbledon to get back the top ranking. I thought both Djoker/Murray already hit their prime by then and a merely 'good' player like Fed in his 30s shouldn't even take more than a few games off them?

in 2015 again Djoker was having a run Fed was the only player who had 3 wins in the year, how is that supposed to happen from a guy in mid-30s? he was never even a great player to start with.

You know what, admit your prejudice and move on. the more of such rubbish you post, the more ridiculous it gets, because it's simply against facts.

 

[TestingYourNeurons]

Hard Quiz on Rafa!

 

[Carol]

I haven't count the points but I had two wrong answers, the first one I though he was 18 when he won his first RG and the second I forgot to whom he beat in the Olympics 2008

 

[brokenshoelace]

You referenced Djokovic by putting him in your first sentence. You said, "I'll bet you think Djokovic..." and I don't think anything in that regard. I think they're all great players and I see no need to compare them. I just don't.

I guess we differ in our assessment process. I don't try to figure out who's better because I don't care. I don't like who I like because they're "better" I use a different criteria for my fandom.

Now, they're hinting that if Djokovic keeps up his winning ways that he'll surpass Federer. I'm not willing to get on that bus.

When you say "but" you negate the first part of your sentence, "there's no need to label them, but some things are evident. Huh?

You don't seem to understand where I'm coming from. I don't care about GOATdom and who's better. Period.

I used Djokovic to make a point that the "weak competition" thing can apply to his major wins in 2015/2016, not to suggest that you're a Djokovic fan. Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion but OK.

As far as not caring who's better, I thought that was the point of competition?

 

[Tennis Fan]

putting Djoker first does not make you a Djoker fan, i put him in my first sentence so what? your silly intention is clear for all to see. Pretend all you like...

My silly intention? The fact that I don't think Federer is the GOAT is a silly intention? I agreed with Teddy's post. Why is that a problem for you?

 

[Tennis Fan]

you are nothing but a hypocrite, sorry to call you out on that but thats the truth. you think we are all dumb when you claim you don't care who's better? if that's so, you wouldn't utter a word about Fed's competition was on 'disabled' list because clearly his accomplishment bothered you, and you couldn't help but wrote something to degrade it.

which is almost fine except, like others pointed out already, you don't hold other players to the same scrutiny.....Djoker was a good example used, Fedal were much more 'disabled' no? and Murray was a bed wetter after Lendl left him no? outside of that who was real competition? Wawrinka is awesome when he is on, but anyone who follows tennis knows how often he shows up to play..... he is a modern version of Safin/Nalbandian without quite the same partying needs.

put simply, you are a hypocrite which is fine (i see plenty of) but don't insult our intelligence by saying all those nonsense.

You should never get bothered over someone else's opinion. I gave reasons why I don't think Roger is the GOAT, him or anyone else. Why does that concern you to the point that you want to start calling me names? I said that Roger and Djoker were both great players. That doesn't mean that I have to have them as my favorites. What do you want? I must proclaim him the GOAT, or I'm a hypocrite or a nut? LOL, Who behaves this way over someone having a different opinion?

 

[Tennis Fan]

putting Djoker first does not make you a Djoker fan, i put him in my first sentence so what? your silly intention is clear for all to see. Pretend all you like...

Why even mention Novak then? That's not who I or the previous poster were talking about. You interjected and said, "Do I say that about Novak?" Totally out in left field.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I used Djokovic to make a point that the "weak competition" thing can apply to his major wins in 2015/2016, not to suggest that you're a Djokovic fan. Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion but OK.

As far as not caring who's better, I thought that was the point of competition?

You have to admit that everyone has their own set of criteria and sometimes we won't agree. I don't pick my players based on their resume, I pick who I like based on their character. My favorites don't have to win for me to like them. I usually know before they've put one trophy in their cabinet if they're someone I'll root for. Some of my favorites include Berdych, Feliciano Lopez, Gilles Simon, Dominika Cibulkova, Pliskova, etc. Do you know how many majors they have altogether? Zero. That's not why I watch them. You're assigning your value system to me. That's wrong. You can't pick who I root for or against. I don't understand what your point is. I don't get to choose what I like?