Tennis
He is the best player on Planet for last 3 years already! And at least another 3 ones to come.
Are you from Serbia?
taht's right. Not everyone can be a GOAT. There's only one. Certainly he did not LOSE today!
A GOAT never loses to a noname in teh first round of the Majors!
darcis was defo far more trouble for nadal today fed would be
bye bye, pls retire so we get rid of this pathetic topic, he's just a 1 surface player like Errani
Dear oh dear
6/1 us open with slybet was just damn right silly
the slam count is close enough now, for the other factors to swing the balance in nadal's favour.
1. Nadal's H2H against Federer.
2. Nadal beating Federer on grass to Wimbledon; Federer never beating Nadal in RG.
3. As a corollary, Nadal's constant development. Dirtball, to hard court, to grass, always adding a little bit here and there. Even at the US this year, Nadal going to djokovic's fh so much more, to counter the edge novak got when he dominated him on clay in 2011 mainly through hitting Nadal's xcourt fh early with his bh. Nadal has been beating Federer in exactly the same manner for almost a decade and Federer has done NOTHING to adapt.
4. Nadal's big point play and ability to raise his intensity at will.
Federer will always remain easier on the eye, and his maulings more beautifully destructive, but Nadal is, for me, unquestionably the greatest player of the modern era.
Yes I like that analysis,says it all about the fed. When you look at novak he hates the wind,his smash volley is mediocre, compare that with Nadal,not sure he has any weakness, he has the lot.
On clay he is the GOAT by miles. On other surfaces, just in the top 10
Completly agree with that, only on clay
Head-to-head stats don't lie, and Nadal's superiority over his closest rivals (21-10 Federer, 22-15 Djokovic, 13-5 Murray) surely entitle him to be considered the GOAT.
Right now Federer is the goat period. But Rafa is closing in. Ive read all posts here and some people have their blinders on they dont care about facts or choose some facts to prove they are right.
I like the post about rafa needs to win more HC. Why? Sampras was the goat before Federer and he sucked on clay, so he got to be that goar without a carrer slam, hummm. So it must of been by numbers.
So rafa needs 17 to equal Federer and nulify that category. With this unexpected US Open and baring any injury this number is within reach. 2016 or 2017 he may reach this.
1- GRANDSLAM TITLES. ( No brainer)
2- Weeks nº1 ( i wanted to put career grandslam 2nd because i feel feds 300 while impressive didnt have the names its does now, its not feds fault for lack competion, but rafa and noles 100 in a big 4 era is more important them feds 1st 100 weeks.
3- Carrer Golden Slam ( Agassi and Rafa own this)
4- Gold Medal
5- H2H (because we are comparing these 2 it should factor in)
6-Atp Masters1000 ( rafa onws this and Fed might have 1 or 2 tops. Dont see nole or Murray anywhere close)
7- World tour finals( Fed rules here but always indor and hc or carpet plus look at the finalist, grosjea, davydenko, blake ferrer)
8- Davis cup ( rafa rules this one)
9- Finished year nº1 Fed leads this one
I didnt put titles, money, wins because they are still active, so comparing those is pointless until the end their carrers.
I would like to read you guys top10 and why.
1. career slam
2. most grand slam wins
at the moment fed is the GOAT
its as simple as that.
what annoys me about the rafa doubters is their bias against him for being so successful on clay. every discussion is like this "clay goat, no doubt but not goat".........if he had 8 wimbledons, 2 french, 2 USO and 1 AUS they would not say "grass goat yes, but.......".............
fed is not as good on grass as nadal is on clay.
He is the MOAT (Misterious of all time).
The same media discounted Years as Number one and implemented Weeks as Number one??
Q: Since when a week is greater than Year?
A: since Roger Federer had more weeks as #1 than Sampras! (Sampras has more years as #1...but who cares about Years!!...
).
one of the dumbest statements i have ever heard.
you can come second in 20 tournaments a year and be ranked no 1. it means nothing. winning titles is what matters.
ask darina safin.
Oct 1, 2013 -- 7:18PM, brain dead jockeys wrote:
there are two requirements for the GOAT1. career slam2. most grand slam winsat the moment fed is the GOATits as simple as that.what annoys me about the rafa doubters is their bias against him for being so successful on clay. every discussion is like this "clay goat, no doubt but not goat".........if he had 8 wimbledons, 2 french, 2 USO and 1 AUS they would not say "grass goat yes, but.......".............fed is not as good on grass as nadal is on clay.
agree ,history would tell thos in years but we who witnessed this era should remember that nadal was the real goat of it.ups and downs for all players but still think rafa can make past fed with ease especially I f he will compose himself for slams only but atm he wanted to be no 1
Oct 3, 2013 -- 4:15AM, yyyy wrote:
In Fact Number of years occupying World #1 place is the most important achievement in tennis. GS were not as important before Federer's era. Then some media driven by powerful sponsors started counting them...The same media discounted Years as Number one and implemented Weeks as Number one?? Q: Since when a week is greater than Year? A: since Roger Federer had more weeks as #1 than Sampras! (Sampras has more years as #1...but who cares about Years!!...).
who has more seconds as no 1 that should be question in XXII century
sampras had one serious rival for MOST of his career. agassi.............and agassi went missing for long periods of time.
rafa has had federer.............yes federer (winner of 17 majors) and joko.
u seriously think nadal is not better than lendl and mcenroe?.............do u want to debate this?
In the 1984 Wimbledon Final his unforced error count was 2
In the 2013 FO Final Nadal made 25 .
Oct 8, 2013 -- 9:08PM, tobermory wrote:
McCenroe was incredible before he lost the plot with cocaine and Tatum O'NealIn the 1984 Wimbledon Final his unforced error count was 2 In the 2013 FO Final Nadal made 25 .
If it's like it was these days I wouldn't read a lot into this. The stats aren't done by a uniform formula.
Wimbledon is known for being very kind. They virtually put nothing down as an unforced error. That combined with the fact it's easier to hit winners/shorter rallies leading to less errors leads to a lot more 20 winners, 5 unforced error stat lines than you see elsewhere.
Oct 3, 2013 -- 4:15AM, yyyy wrote:
In Fact Number of years occupying World #1 place is the most important achievement in tennis. GS were not as important before Federer's era. Then some media driven by powerful sponsors started counting them...The same media discounted Years as Number one and implemented Weeks as Number one?? Q: Since when a week is greater than Year? A: since Roger Federer had more weeks as #1 than Sampras! (Sampras has more years as #1...but who cares about Years!!...).
This isn't actually true. World number 1 is a debatable stat. Because world number 1 doesn't always tell you who the best player in the world is. World number 1 is a formula based on many tournaments which doesn't have to tell you the actual best player.
Eg. Nadal has been the real best player in the world for a lot longer time than before he took over world number 1 this week.
Serena Williams has a very years (and weeks) at number 1, only 2 before this year. The same as Caroline Wozniacki, anybody going to seriously argue they are on the same level.
Stuff like Ronnie O'Sullivan has been the best player in the world more often than he's been world number 1 etc. Phil Taylor many years ago wasn't world number 1 in darts, yet everyone knew he was the best player in the world.
Grand slams, world championships in the case of other sports are where the best ply their best and come to play. Thus are the true measure of greatness in tennis.
World number 1 is more bonus gravy than the carrot.
---------------------
Eg. Nadal has been the real best player in the world for a lot longer time than before he took over world number 1 this week.
---------------
REAL in YOUR eyes.
So, to conclude: fcku THE Ranking,...the best player is the one YOU say.
Nice.
1. you cannot equal s/f with final
2. Djoko lost. He handed it to Rafa. (Djoker will remember that one for as long as he lives. He did something similar in USO final. I do not remember that NAdal handed the title to someone ever??)
Lee Westwood in Golf was the world number 1, tiger woods wasn't but has won 14 majors - which one is better ?
Being World number 1 in any sport nothing more than a nice tag to have, you have it through consistency and a manufactured ranking system- not greatness, greatness is measured in winning BIG tournaments against big players over a period of time, Nadal might have won that French against Ferrer, but he's won many more against the other multi slam winners. I don;t know if he's the greatest, it's too hard to say because eras are too different to compare
And I don't even like him.
09 Oct 13 04:36
Being World number 1 in any sport nothing more than a nice tag to have, you have it through consistency and a manufactured ranking system- not greatness,...
-----------
not greatness, just a tag?
Now, (you might) say that Borg was a mug??
Borg (and many others) not traveling to whatever tournament a few decades ago doesn't say anything about the worth said tournaments have nowadays. I would speculate Djokovic, along with all the other top players, would disagree about the AO not being important. Right now the majors have quite clearly been elected as the pinnacle of the sport, all of them.
not meAll that matters is slams in terms of greatness
bb66
well, the only reason Nadull is #1 now is, that he played some crap tournies of the golden swing on his fav surfaceLaugh
----------------
yyyy, wtf are you going on about Laugh
Lee Westwood in Golf was the world number 1, tiger woods wasn't but has won 14 majors - which one is better ?
wtf
Oct 9, 2013 -- 1:18AM, yyyy wrote:
This isn't actually true. World number 1 is a debatable stat. Because world number 1 doesn't always tell you who the best player in the world is. World number 1 is a formula based on many tournaments which doesn't have to tell you the actual best player.---------------------Eg. Nadal has been the real best player in the world for a lot longer time than before he took over world number 1 this week.---------------REAL in YOUR eyes. So, to conclude: fcku THE Ranking,...the best player is the one YOU say. Nice.
Flaw in system is easy to see. If WTA used ATP rankings Kvitova would have ended 2011 world number 1. Indeed I haven't tried but I imagine using 2014 ranking system Kvitova would have been world number 1.
In other words the system is subjective.
Real in my eyes maybe. But in most examples, only muppets would disagree. Eg. Phil Taylor in darts was winning all the TV majors at the time, but because players like Lloyd would dominate the floor events which Taylor wouldn't even play he was world number 1.
In the Nadal example you bring up. Your point is completely flawed. "Real in my eyes", so according to you Nadal only become the best player in the world after getting comprehensively outplayed by Djokovic in the final? He does that and now all of a sudden because of that he's the best player in the world, and not beforehand where he dominated nearly every event all year.
The problem with the systems used in these sports is they are not a rating system based on who is the best player like say in chess, they are a system designated on who can collect the most points etc. So they don't necessarily tell you who is the best player, obviously they often will, because they are designed to do that, but there are plenty of times when they don't.
According to your "unbiased" system AMurray was the best player of 2013 till USO; because he won Wimby.
And whoever wins USO is the best player of that season, because he won USO and after him there was no one to win another major till end of year?!
You worship to GS tours as the only tours in ATP?! Fine, then bow to Roger Federer, and kiss his icon every day till someone else wins 18 majors. Your god may never live that long to achieve that. My condolences to you...
Just one question for th end: (if GS titles determine the best player in the world), is Rogi the best player in the world now? Yes or No are the only options here. I appreciate your effort to answer this one.
AyersRock • October 9, 2013 4:36 AM BST
yyyy, wtf are you going on about Laugh
Lee Westwood in Golf was the world number 1, tiger woods wasn't but has won 14 majors - which one is better ?
wtf
what's confused you aaron, Lee Westwood had been the World Number 1 when he had never - and still hasnt won a major, tiger woods had slipped down the rankings but had won 14 majors - which one was greater? woods. Form is temporary and majors is permanent
Oct 9, 2013 -- 9:12AM, shiraz wrote:
The proposition of GOAT for tennis is very subjective, I prefer to think of a group of "elites" of the sport and Nadal would certainly be in that group.
". Obviously that falls flat after you trapped me like that. ****I agree anyway. Goat debates are pointless as neither fangroup will ever move a single inch and will just keep dissing and hating on their favourite's biggest rival. Just appreciate all the greats I say.
Oct 10, 2013 -- 4:40AM, yyyy wrote:
n88uk, you're Nadal worshiper. Therefore I understand your effort to prove Nadal is the god. According to your "unbiased" system AMurray was the best player of 2013 till USO; because he won Wimby. And whoever wins USO is the best player of that season, because he won USO and after him there was no one to win another major till end of year?! You worship to GS tours as the only tours in ATP?! Fine, then bow to Roger Federer, and kiss his icon every day till someone else wins 18 majors. Your god may never live that long to achieve that. My condolences to you...Just one question for th end: (if GS titles determine the best player in the world), is Rogi the best player in the world now? Yes or No are the only options here. I appreciate your effort to answer this one.
I am not a Nadal worshipper, and nothing I have said is to make Nadal look good . That's just guff from you to cloud the actual issue. My points are all in objective fashion, alas most my points haven't even used ATP.
And no Murray wasn't the best player after he won Wimbledon because he hadn't really dominated the rest of the season had he. It didn't become clear Nadal was the best player until some time in the summer. Either after Cincinnati or sometime in the US Open, depends on your opinion.
Yes right now in answer to your last question.
But it's not so much that grand slams is all that matters, though it's obviously the main factor in deciding the best. Grand slams alone aren't the deciding factor in deciding the best player, they just play a major role in it. A bit like the best team doesn't always win the Champions League, World Cup etc. They are a major factor, not the only factor, there's a difference.
If you want to look into a system which would rank players by "who is the best player", look into something like an ELO system. Of course nothing is perfect, it has its own flaws to, but it's reasonably handy. The reason tennis doesn't use this system though is ATP and WTA who make the ranking system have a vested interest in their tours, by definition they want players to extensively play the tours. ELO doesn't encourage that, it would encourage something like play 11-12 tournaments a year and play your absolute maximum in every event.
.-....
no i do not want to debate it, since it`s pointless. you can`t compare times, that is my point.
one of the best in history
.-....
no i do not want to debate it, since it`s pointless. you can`t compare times, that is my point.
but i agree nadal is among the best, but if he is the best in history, is impossible to say.
Yes right now in answer to your last question.
---------
thank you. That was helpful. No further questions.
this is a much better explanation than your original post
(on a sort of related note but not relevant to this thread, only slamless/majorless no.1's are used to bash the rankings. However, multiple year end no.1s have gone slamless on WTA Tour (Hingis, Davenport(I think)) in the years they were year end no.1 at least once yet because they won previously, it wasnt seen as a flaw in the rankings)
Laver, the only tennis player to achieve the Grand Slam twice, believes Federer's consistency over the six to eight years when he was at the top of the game is what sets him apart from contemporaries like Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.
"When I look at Federer, with what he's accomplished, against the competition that he's accomplished it with, I'd have to say I would think that Roger is the greatest player,'' Laver said.
But the Australian, who won the Grand Slam in 1962 and 1969 and is still the only man to have won it in the Open era, was quick to add he's not sure he can call Federer the greatest of all time.
"I've always said if you're the best in your era, that's as good as you really can do. You could take it back to 'Is it Fred Perry, is it Don Budge, is it myself that came along?'''
But the Australian, who won the Grand Slam in 1962 and 1969 and is still the only man to have won it in the Open era, was quick to add he's not sure he can call Federer the greatest of all time.
"I've always said if you're the best in your era, that's as good as you really can do. You could take it back to 'Is it Fred Perry, is it Don Budge, is it myself that came along?'''
i agree, nobody knows who the best is in the history, it`s impossible to compare times in history.
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Statisfaction-ATP-s-Best,-Worst-Records-against-To.aspx
Rod Laver does have a point, its hard to compare certain eras. But one thing he cant deny, Since 2004 This has been the most competetive era in history.
