Yoga wrote:I predict Rafa wins in a 5 set thriller over Novak
Novak proved me wrong. Its nice to see someone else beside Rafa and Fed win the major grandslams.
Moderators: Doctor MJ, kdawg32086
Yoga wrote:I predict Rafa wins in a 5 set thriller over Novak
Doctor MJ wrote:BULLZ1LLA wrote:(Federer never won Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open in the same season. That's the hardest thing to do in a season, especially now that all 3 are on completely different surfaces. Rafa is the only man in history to win Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open in the same season on 3 completely different surfaces [Rafa won those 3 slams in a row last year, and he also became the first player ever to win 3 Masters Shields in a row. He also made the Final of the Indoor World Tour Finals, a year after going winless in that event]. I guess Rafa will have to win 4 slams in a row to dominate a season as much as you'd hope)
Let me try to be really precise here:
For me it's not about Nadal's 3 slams being less than others winning 3 slams. It's about factoring in everything a player plays to get the best picture of his ability to dominate. Of course I weigh the slams more than other matches, but this notion that non-major matches are completely different from the slams is silly.
3 players in question, here are their # of losses in their 4 best seasons before this year:
Federer: 4, 5, 6, 9
Nadal: 10, 10, 11, 12
Djokovic: 17, 18, 19, 19
It would be one thing if Nadal constantly disappointed in non-majors, and constantly dominated in the majors, but that's never been the case, people just get that impression because he's won in the finals at majors. However, before the finals he's much less dominant than someone like Federer.
Which is why Federer has 2 years where he won 3 majors and lost in the 4 finals of the 4th, an additional year where he made the finals in all tournaments, has two separate streaks where he made 10 & 8 finals in a row, while Nadal's for even making the semi's in a row is only 5 (and Fed's semi streak was of course 23).
Also, just for perspective, if we take out the French, here's how the 3 players in question look at major finals:
Federer 15-3
Nadal 4-3
Djokovic 3-2
The scale of which people perspective is skewed simply because Nadal's the clay GOAT, and Federer's easily Top 5 of all-time on clay, is utterly mind-blowing. If Federer were worse on clay, people would actually think he had a stronger case for overall GOAT.
Ong_dynasty wrote:
As I said before I think if Nadal reaches say 12 - 14 (while winning a few more hard courts / wimbledon titles) you can make an argument as best ever without needing to surpass Federer's titles. now that is a big if considering how Novak is playing.
Ong_dynasty wrote:^^
most fun - best ever?
So where does darius miles rank? did you see that oop to oop?
Rafa's playing style is boring or not even better than sampras is a joke.
I also love when people say with certainty "never". it cracks me up.
KING JAMES1978 wrote:Ong_dynasty wrote:
As I said before I think if Nadal reaches say 12 - 14 (while winning a few more hard courts / wimbledon titles) you can make an argument as best ever without needing to surpass Federer's titles. now that is a big if considering how Novak is playing.
Nadal will never be greater than Federer and Sampras.It's not only the titles.Federer is by far the most fun to watch player ever(imo with Sampras second) and technically is miles better than Rafa.
Federer's playing style is the best in Tennis history.Rafa's isn't even top-5.
Ong_dynasty wrote:Huh? how can you take out clay? If we take out Grass and Hard. how wouold there perspective major finals look like?
You cannot do that. As I said before I think Clay court players get the short end of the stick becuase Grass and Hard are very similar so in theory if you are good in one, you will naturally be good in the other. While in clay, you dont have that. and why I think it is harder to rack up majors and why I think what Nadal is doing is impressive. (but maybe I am biased)
And the reason I used to rate and still rate Federer quite highly is because he was not inept in Clay, he just went against probably the best player in clay of all time.
My problem with Federer has always been i felt he played and racked up trophies in a weaker era than what nadal and djokovic will be doing. He was able to rack up a few before he actually started having real competition (and that was only initially clay). His inability to actually overcome Federer in the french and his poor record against him also makes me irk in calling him the G.O.A.T (but i do).
If Nadal will have problems with Novak the way Federer did with Nadal, than the criticism will be the same.
As I said before I think if Nadal reaches say 12 - 14 (while winning a few more hard courts / wimbledon titles) you can make an argument as best ever without needing to surpass Federer's titles. now that is a big if considering how Novak is playing.
KING JAMES1978 wrote:Ong_dynasty wrote:^^
most fun - best ever?
So where does darius miles rank? did you see that oop to oop?
Rafa's playing style is boring or not even better than sampras is a joke.
I also love when people say with certainty "never". it cracks me up.
Joke is if you believe that Nadal's style is better than Pete's.Big Joke!
Sampras technically is the 2nd best ever only behind Federer.
Also Borg>Nadal technically.
UssjTrunks wrote:
You could already make a case that he's better than both. He has a 17-8 record against the supposed "GOAT". Yes, I know that most of those wins came on clay, but that is an impressive record nonetheless. I think with a few more slams under his belt (especially on hardcourts) he'll be in the discussion a lot more.
AdamTheGreek wrote:Sampras' game was efficient and mostly consistent, not boring. No one has his serve-volley game. If anyone were to master it, they'd be winning countless grand slams right now. Even the best tennis players don't know how to consistently beat a superb serve-volley game.
Return to General Other Sports Talk