Will Nadal pass Federer?

[brokenshoelace]

^Front have you noticed how when Nadal wins a slam it's because he's good. When Roger wins he's lucky because Rafa had his head up his behind? :nono

It's hilarious how you asked him that a second before he said Nadal had to "cheat his way to win a slam." This thread is irony personified. You and Front have been on fire.

Of course, you wouldn't know if Nadal cheated or not because you didn't watch (as you don't particularly enjoy watching him). I'm sure you caught the result online though and formulated a world class assessment accordingly.

Yes Mr Snark I notice that you don't challenge the statement though. Keep trying to frame the issue to justify all your nonsense. I see the maggot 'liked' your comment, even better! :laydownlaughing

What statement? I too think it's ludicrous that a guy could win 17 slams because of luck. I didn't challenge the statement because it's a laughable premise to begin with. Federer is the greatest ever. He wouldn't have won RG had Nadal been healthy, that's my opinion. No, that doesn't make him lucky. He played, he won. What's to challenge? I said Nadal was UNLUCKY with injuries. Never said Federer was lucky.

 

[Federberg]

It's hilarious how you asked him that a second before he said Nadal had to "cheat his way to win a slam." This thread is irony personified. You and Front have been on fire.

Of course, you wouldn't know if Nadal cheated or not because you didn't watch (as you don't particularly enjoy watching him). I'm sure you caught the result online though and formulated a world class assessment accordingly.

Yes Mr Snark I notice that you don't challenge the statement though. Keep trying to frame the issue to justify all your nonsense. I see the maggot 'liked' your comment, even better! :laydownlaughing

What statement? I too think it's ludicrous that a guy could win 17 slams because of luck. I didn't challenge the statement because it's a laughable premise to begin with. Federer is the greatest ever. He wouldn't have won RG had Nadal been healthy, that's my opinion. No, that doesn't make him lucky. He played, he won. What's to challenge? I said Nadal was UNLUCKY with injuries. Never said Federer was lucky.

Yes. When did I ever dispute that?

Luckily for Roger, that Nadal was "not quite as good yet" at the 2007 Wimbledon final, and hurt his knee when he had the momentum, and choked away break points in the fifth. We can play that game all day. We all know Rafa wasn't quite in his prime when Roger was and vice versa.

Murray and Djokovic are a different issue.

Not nearly as much as Roger benefitted from Rafa being "less active" for so many stretches of his career. Let's not forget that the Sampras record could have remained a pipe dream had it not been for that.

Please, let's not play that game.

Well, let's just say I'm of the belief that Nadal was injured at the 2009 FO, which was a huge resurgence in Federer's career. And history would have been quite different had Fed not won that (a tournament that happened to give him a career slam).

Also, it is hilarious seeing a Fed fan (not you) say Roger was "less good" in 2008 (and he was, don't get me wrong), despite the fact that he was great at Wimbledon until the final (and was great again after the first two sets), reached the RG final, won the US Open, reached the AO final in 2009, then won 3 out of the next four slam (while epically messing up one that he should have won), but at the same time, write about Novak's win yesterday over a flat out washed up Nadal who can barely beat anyone in the top 15 without bringing that elephant in the room up. I mean, Novak is far and away the best, and he deserves all that he can get, but the double standards and bias are absurd.

______________________________________

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes Mr Snark I notice that you don't challenge the statement though. Keep trying to frame the issue to justify all your nonsense. I see the maggot 'liked' your comment, even better! :laydownlaughing

What statement? I too think it's ludicrous that a guy could win 17 slams because of luck. I didn't challenge the statement because it's a laughable premise to begin with. Federer is the greatest ever. He wouldn't have won RG had Nadal been healthy, that's my opinion. No, that doesn't make him lucky. He played, he won. What's to challenge? I said Nadal was UNLUCKY with injuries. Never said Federer was lucky.

Yes. When did I ever dispute that?

Luckily for Roger, that Nadal was "not quite as good yet" at the 2007 Wimbledon final, and hurt his knee when he had the momentum, and choked away break points in the fifth. We can play that game all day. We all know Rafa wasn't quite in his prime when Roger was and vice versa.

Murray and Djokovic are a different issue.

Not nearly as much as Roger benefitted from Rafa being "less active" for so many stretches of his career. Let's not forget that the Sampras record could have remained a pipe dream had it not been for that.

Please, let's not play that game.

Well, let's just say I'm of the belief that Nadal was injured at the 2009 FO, which was a huge resurgence in Federer's career. And history would have been quite different had Fed not won that (a tournament that happened to give him a career slam).

Also, it is hilarious seeing a Fed fan (not you) say Roger was "less good" in 2008 (and he was, don't get me wrong), despite the fact that he was great at Wimbledon until the final (and was great again after the first two sets), reached the RG final, won the US Open, reached the AO final in 2009, then won 3 out of the next four slam (while epically messing up one that he should have won), but at the same time, write about Novak's win yesterday over a flat out washed up Nadal who can barely beat anyone in the top 15 without bringing that elephant in the room up. I mean, Novak is far and away the best, and he deserves all that he can get, but the double standards and bias are absurd.

______________________________________

Wait wait wait, the first response was to Front who said "Roger was less good in 2008" so I said "then luckily for him, Nadal was not as good in 2007."

Great Fox News reporting there. Unfortunately it makes you look as clueless as they are.

The second response, I said Roger benefitted from Nadal being out in relation to Rafa catching his record, which makes perfect sense since as any halfwit can determine: If a player doesn't play, he has not chance of winning.

The last response I've said for years: Nadal would have won RG in 2009 if he were healthy, IMO. Had that happened, Roger would have never won that tournament and wouldn't have a career slam, therefore history WOULD be different since he went down in history as someone with a career slam. It's common sense. None of this means he was lucky.

Keep in mind, your dumb statement directed to Front said:

"Front have you noticed how when Nadal wins a slam it's because he's good. When Roger wins he's lucky because Rafa had his head up his behind?"

This CLEARLY implies that there's a general pattern you're noticing, where whenever Roger wins without playing Rafa, this narrative is brought up. When in reality, I'm only bringing it up with regards to RG and Wimbledon 2009. That's only two slams out of a total 17 that Roger won.

Anything else?

 

[Federberg]

^Well I'm glad you agree that you said that now
There was no luck involved mate. As for the other.. as you say it's just your opinion. Nadal participating in a tournament doesn't guarantee him victory mate, no matter what you say. Otherwise we might as well start talking about how Sampras would be on more than 14 if he was still playing. It's a pointless statement. What happened happened, it's really that simple. Nadal has paid the price for his style of play, perhaps with better trainers or physios things might have been different. Who knows, and frankly who cares, it's just a journey into fantasy land. If you want to have a debate about what might happen into the future, then fine. But whingeing about history is just pointless. What is.. is

 

[herios]

Without reading this whole novel over the 18 pages, my response to the title is
NO, Rafa will not surpass Roger in the slam count.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^Well I'm glad you agree that you said that now

No, I don't agree that I said "Whenever Roger wins, it's luck because Nadal had his ass up his ass," like you suggested, because I didn't.

 

[Federberg]

http://www.givemesport.com/588649-rafael-nadal-not-fussed-about-winning-more-grand-slams?autoplay=on

 

[El Dude]

"14 Slams is enough."

 

[brokenshoelace]

...in before the "is Rafa still motivated?!?!?!" hot takes.

 

[lacatch]

How about changing the thread topic to: "Will Rafa win ANY more slams?" I'd vote no.

 

[El Dude]

^Well I'm glad you agree that you said that now

No, I don't agree that I said "Whenever Roger wins, it's luck because Nadal had his ass up his ass," like you suggested, because I didn't.

I'm trying to work out the logistics of that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^Well I'm glad you agree that you said that now

No, I don't agree that I said "Whenever Roger wins, it's luck because Nadal had his ass up his ass," like you suggested, because I didn't.

I'm trying to work out the logistics of that.

Me too... :laydownlaughing

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Lot of people are going overboard with current success of Novak and some are even projecting him to surpass Federer. This was the same situation with Rafa at the end of 2013, when hoards of Nadalites were saying it is a matter of when and not if Rafa will surpass Federer. Now, almost 99% of Rafa fans openly admit that the ship has sailed for all practical purposes and he will not surpass Fed. :snicker

I would like the readers (especially if you are new to this board) to read the article (written on 3rd June 2014) before RG 14 was over) in the OP for an analysis of how to rationally project the total number of slams that will possibly be achieved by someone. Novak is roughly one year younger than Rafa (Rafa's DOB is June 3rd 1986 and Novak's DOB is May 22nd 1987). So, similar analysis applies to Novak. Moreover, the greatness coefficient would be smaller for Novak and so the multiplication factor in the formula will be smaller than that for Rafa. So, the sound analysis tells us that the chances of Novak surpassing Fed will be considerably smaller. :devil

The ability of human beings to predict future, especially the cumulative results of next few years, is terrible. Quite often, buoyed by euphorism, people think the status quo will continue (especially when the potential challengers are not obvious, as is the case now). Novak will meet his Kryptonite(s) soon. That is the world order. :chillout:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Not only do you dredge up a thread that hasn't seen a post since June of last year, you post about Djokovic when it's about Nadal.

I hope you feel better now

It is not a meaningless dredging up. The article in the OP is highly relevant to the current speculation of Novak possibly surpassing Federer. The same analysis applies here too.

 

[nehmeth]

Not only do you dredge up a thread that hasn't seen a post since June of last year, you post about Djokovic when it's about Nadal.

I hope you feel better now

It is not a meaningless dredging up. The article in the OP is highly relevant to the current speculation of Novak possibly surpassing Federer. The same analysis applies here too.

You may be right in your assessment. And there is the age of 29 line. Still I hope you don't mind Novak fans doing a bit of wishful speculation. Rosewall won four slams from around Nole's age now onward. There's exceptions to every rule.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Not only do you dredge up a thread that hasn't seen a post since June of last year, you post about Djokovic when it's about Nadal.

I hope you feel better now

It is not a meaningless dredging up. The article in the OP is highly relevant to the current speculation of Novak possibly surpassing Federer. The same analysis applies here too.

You may be right in your assessment. And there is the age of 29 line. Still I hope you don't mind Novak fans doing a bit of wishful speculation. Rosewall won four slams from around Nole's age now onward. There's exceptions to every rule.

Taking your suggestion, I created a separate thread where folks can indulge in wishful speculation.

 

[Carol]

How about changing the thread topic to: "Will Rafa win ANY more slams?" I'd vote no.

Your wish mr., your wish or maybe you have confused 'Rafa's name' for Roger :snicker

 

[Carol]

If he would keep playing like the most of 2015 (but not the last two months) and so bad like in this last AO the I doubt that he can reach the Roger's numbers but if he would start to play his real game and with more motivation then I vote YES!

 

[Front242]

There's one problem, but it's a big one. He can't beat Novak anymore so unless someone else knocks out Novak and miraculously makes it to the final, then no.

 

[Kieran]

Lot of people are going overboard with current success of Novak and some are even projecting him to surpass Federer. This was the same situation with Rafa at the end of 2013, when hoards of Nadalites were saying it is a matter of when and not if Rafa will surpass Federer.

It's not a sound comparison between Rafa and Novak. For one, Novak's career hasn't been hampered by injury, and secondly, Rafa was 27 in 2013 when he won the USO, and Novak will be 29 when the next slam starts.

Novak isn't going to win another six slams. Both Novak and Rafa had to get their knocks the hard way, beating each other in their primes, and facing Roger too. This is a lot different to how Roger reached 11.