The Official Tennis Thread

[Goat poster]

Men lie, women lie, number don't !
First time they met in 2004, Nadal beat Federer in straights at Miami ! One year later, Nadal was leading 2/0 before Fed managed to win it in 5. In 2006, Nadal beat Fed in Dubai (hardcourt again !) and in Monte Carlo, Rome and Roland Garros ! Then Fed put the beats on Rafa at Wimby and in the Masters. Therefore, from 2004 to 2006, Nadal is 5/3 against Fed. 2/3 if you don't count clay but clay is a surface like others. We could say, let's play all the matches on hard court and every grass or clay matches don't count but you may want it one way, it's still the other way !

This

The so called GOAT has always been owned by the REAL GOAT.

 

[DALLASMAVERICKS]

Men lie, women lie, number don't !
First time they met in 2004, Nadal beat Federer in straights at Miami ! One year later, Nadal was leading 2/0 before Fed managed to win it in 5. In 2006, Nadal beat Fed in Dubai (hardcourt again !) and in Monte Carlo, Rome and Roland Garros ! Then Fed put the beats on Rafa at Wimby and in the Masters. Therefore, from 2004 to 2006, Nadal is 5/3 against Fed. 2/3 if you don't count clay but clay is a surface like others. We could say, let's play all the matches on hard court and every grass or clay matches don't count but you may want it one way, it's still the other way !

so based on those matches nadal is only better than federer on clay
people talk about how djokovic's 2011 season might be the goat, but federer had 3 straight seasons from 04 to 06 that was pretty much just as good. prime nadal in that era wouldn't be able to sustain that. there were plenty of flat hitters that would feast on him, players were less content to be involved in baseline rallies, he wouldve lost more matches than federer.
2003 us open roddikk would beat 2010 nadal 3 times out of 5
the list right now goes
1. federer
2. sampras
3. djokovic head to head with nadal

 

[Goat poster]

so based on those matches nadal is only better than federer on clay
people talk about how djokovic's 2011 season might be the goat, but federer had 3 straight seasons from 04 to 06 that was pretty much just as good. prime nadal in that era wouldn't be able to sustain that. there were plenty of flat hitters that would feast on him, players were less content to be involved in baseline rallies, he wouldve lost more matches than federer.
2003 us open roddikk would beat 2010 nadal 3 times out of 5
the list right now goes
1. federer
2. sampras
3. djokovic head to head with nadal

2003 Roddikk would get TORCHED by Nadal...these 2 should never even be compared.
Nadal is better in every way except for maybe at serving but even that is questionable.

If Fed is the GOAT then why can't he consistently beat Rafa? He even loses to him OFF Clay.

 

[Liu Kang]

so based on those matches nadal is only better than federer on clay[...]

Not at all lol. That's a 5/3 Nadal which is divided as is :
- 3/0 Nadal on clay (Monte-Carlo, Rome, French)
- 2/1 Nadal on hardcourt (Miami, Dubai)
- 1/0 Federer on grass (Wimby)
- 1/0 Federer on indoor (Masters)

You want it one way...

[...]
people talk about how djokovic's 2011 season might be the goat, but federer had 3 straight seasons from 04 to 06 that was pretty much just as good. prime nadal in that era wouldn't be able to sustain that. there were plenty of flat hitters that would feast on him, players were less content to be involved in baseline rallies, he wouldve lost more matches than federer.[...]

You can "would" all you want, we can't possibly know. Nadal from 04 to 06 is 5/3 against Fed. Fact.

But still, let's talk about flat hitters who would have (supposedly) feasted on Nadal because of Soderling (at the French), Tsonga (at the AO) and Delpo (at the USO) I guess.
Head to head then :
- 6/2 Nadal against Soderling
- 8/3 Nadal against Tsonga
- 8/4 Nadal against Del Potro
- 7/0 Nadal against Gulbis
- 5/0 Nadal against Raonic
- 18/3 Nadal against Berdych
- 12/1 Nadal against Wawrinka.
- 7/3 Nadal against Roddikk (they met twice in 2004 and they were 1/1)
- 7/3 Nadal against Gonzalez

None of them have a positive record against Nadal. Fact.
You can make hypothesis all you want but the facts oppose you. Fed is still the GOAT for me (we'll see in the next 2 years) but you reaching if you think Nadal is not a serious contender for the GOAT title.

[...]
2003 us open roddikk would beat 2010 nadal 3 times out of 5

OK.

[...]
the list right now goes
1. federer
2. sampras
3. djokovic head to head with nadal

If you say so man...
I'm a Pistol Pete stan but even I put Nadal above him. Sampras couldn't move on clay. Best result in the French his epic '96 run when he was "all in" because of Gullickson's death. He did have a nice record on clay but in major tourneys, he was a non-factor let's be honest (French, Rome, Hamburg, Monte-Carlo, only 1 title ('94 Rome) in his whole career).

Nadal has :
- 3 finals in the AO
- 9 finals in the FO
- 5 finals in the BO
- 3 finals in the USO
- 1 final in the Olympics (hardcourt)
- 2 finals in the Masters finals (indoor)

And I won't even talk about his Masters 1000 record.

Sampras was scratched from GOAT title when Federer won the French because it was obvious his lack of titles on clay was a flaw against an evenly Slam winning player. Nadal has 14 now and he has won Slams on every surfaces. Fact.

 

[Jax]

Don't even go there

He's my GOAT but I can see how Fed is STILL regarded as the GOAT

Fed? that nikka is old news. Nole>Fed

 

[DALLASMAVERICKS]

2003 Roddikk would get TORCHED by Nadal...these 2 should never even be compared.
Nadal is better in every way except for maybe at serving but even that is questionable.

If Fed is the GOAT then why can't he consistently beat Rafa? He even loses to him OFF Clay.

yall actin like federer greatness is defined by his record against nadal, based on his overall record, federer is the most dominant tennis player ever in his prime
while nadal aint even better than sampras at this point, yall gassing him up based on his performance against the GOAT whos passed his prime
in conclusion, federer is the best tennis player of all time, with the exception of djokovic, nadal's era is even weaker than roger's, kei neiskori in the top 10? david ferrer in the top 5?
and i know for a fact that players wouldnt dare to do federer like this, they know better than to provoke the gawd

 

[Carlos Huerta]

this dude DallasMavericks is on some straight hater shyt. Mad as hell.

 

[Carlos Huerta]

Not at all lol. That's a 5/3 Nadal which is divided as is :
- 3/0 Nadal on clay (Monte-Carlo, Rome, French)
- 2/1 Nadal on hardcourt (Miami, Dubai)
- 1/0 Federer on grass (Wimby)
- 1/0 Federer on indoor (Masters)

You want it one way...


You can "would" all you want, we can't possibly know. Nadal from 04 to 06 is 5/3 against Fed. Fact.

But still, let's talk about flat hitters who would have (supposedly) feasted on Nadal because of Soderling (at the French), Tsonga (at the AO) and Delpo (at the USO) I guess.
Head to head then :
- 6/2 Nadal against Soderling
- 8/3 Nadal against Tsonga
- 8/4 Nadal against Del Potro
- 7/0 Nadal against Gulbis
- 5/0 Nadal against Raonic
- 18/3 Nadal against Berdych
- 12/1 Nadal against Wawrinka.
- 7/3 Nadal against Roddikk (they met twice in 2004 and they were 1/1)
- 7/3 Nadal against Gonzalez

None of them have a positive record against Nadal. Fact.
You can make hypothesis all you want but the facts oppose you. Fed is still the GOAT for me (we'll see in the next 2 years) but you reaching if you think Nadal is not a serious contender for the GOAT title.


OK.


If you say so man...
I'm a Pistol Pete stan but even I put Nadal above him. Sampras couldn't move on clay. Best result in the French his epic '96 run when he was "all in" because of Gullickson's death. He did have a nice record on clay but in major tourneys, he was a non-factor let's be honest (French, Rome, Hamburg, Monte-Carlo, only 1 title ('94 Rome) in his whole career).

Nadal has :
- 3 finals in the AO
- 9 finals in the FO
- 5 finals in the BO
- 3 finals in the USO
- 1 final in the Olympics (hardcourt)
- 2 finals in the Masters finals (indoor)

And I won't even talk about his Masters 1000 record.

Sampras was scratched from GOAT title when Federer won the French because it was obvious his lack of titles on clay was a flaw against an evenly Slam winning player. Nadal has 14 now and he has won Slams on every surfaces. Fact.

Not even sure why you continue to entertain this dude. You've dropped nothing but facts and he's not even addressing most of what you say

 

[Regular_P]

Lol @ all this Federer slander because he's now past his prime. He held 3/4 of the major titles in three different years. No one is fukking with that. Not Nadal, not Sampras, not Bjorg.

Bring this debate back up when Nadal makes ten GS finals in a row or is ranked #1 for nearly five straight years.

 

[Carlos Huerta]

This topic is funny because everyone likes to pull their own selective stats depending on which player they like more.

I have a question for you guys who know the game a lot more than I do -- instead of discussing which courts and which tournaments and which eras are best, why not just look at each player's overall winning %? In that way, it encompasses all types of tournaments and surfaces and whatever other variables and gives you a true benchmark of how they performed against their contemporaries.

Rafael Nadal has the highest career winning percentage of any player in the history of tennis with at least (10) Grand Slams --

- Nadal: 83.81% (834 matches) 64 titles
- Bjorn Borg 82.7% (736 matches) 64 titles
- Federer: 81.12% (1176 matches) 78 titles
- Sampras: 77.43% (984 matches) 64 titles
- Laver: 79.76% (672 matches) 52 titles
- Emerson: 71.8% (553 matches)

 

[Carlos Huerta]

Lol @ all this Federer slander because he's now past his prime. He held 3/4 of the major titles in three different years. No one is fukking with that. Not Nadal, not Sampras, not Bjorg.

Bring this debate back up when Nadal makes ten GS finals in a row or is ranked #1 for nearly five straight years.

it's "slander" to say that he's not the best ever? OK. Fed fans throw these stats out and completely disregard the levels of competition. It's like they just refuse to look at the obvious and want to throw out numbers in a vacuum.

 

[Regular_P]

it's "slander" to say that he's not the best ever? OK. Fed fans throw these stats out and completely disregard the levels of competition. It's like they just refuse to look at the obvious and want to throw out numbers in a vacuum.

As you guys are about Nadal. Fact of the matter is Federer was consistent across all surfaces and majors.

Throw out the French and Nadal has one Aussie, two US Opens and two Wimbledons. Throw out Fed's best GS, Wimbledon, and he still has five US Opens, four Aussies and one French.

We'll let the rest of their careers play out before making a final determination, but Fed has clearly had a better career to this point.

Nadal beat Fed five times in the French. If not for him, Fed would have 20+ Grand Slams and four career Grand Slams. It's crazy how little respect he gets on here.

 

[Carlos Huerta]

As you guys are about Nadal. Fact of the matter is Federer was consistent across all surfaces and majors.

Throw out the French and Nadal has one Aussie, two US Opens and two Wimbledons. Throw out Fed's best GS, Wimbledon, and he still has five US Opens, four Aussies and one French.

We'll let the rest of their careers play out before making a final determination, but Fed has clearly had a better career to this point.

Nadal beat Fed five times in the French. If not for him, Fed would have 20+ Grand Slams and four career Grand Slams. It's crazy how little respect he gets on here.

It's not little respect, my man. The guy is 10-23 against Nadal, also losing to him at Wimby and AO - it's not just on clay. But you already know this.

It's getting to the point where you guys would say the Celtics of the 60's would beat the Bulls of the 90s because their accolades were greater. NO ONE in their right mind would say that because their competition was vastly inferior.

 

[Regular_P]

It's not little respect, my man. The guy is 10-23 against Nadal, also losing to him at Wimby and AO - it's not just on clay. But you already know this.

It's getting to the point where you guys would say the Celtics of the 60's would beat the Bulls of the 90s because their accolades were greater. NO ONE in their right mind would say that because their competition was vastly inferior.

15 of those matches were on clay (13-2 Nadal) and he's 6-1 against Fed since 2012 when Fed was clearly on the decline by that point.

 

[Carlos Huerta]

15 of those matches were on clay (13-2 Nadal) and he's 6-1 against Fed since 2012 when Fed was clearly on the decline by that point.

So what? Clay doesn't count because Nadal is better at it.