Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 255 comments are related to the topic:
Rafa - The Greatest Tennis Player of All Time!!!
Rafa - The Greatest Tennis Player of All Time!!!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 255
|
By:
no one really takes Olympic Gold into account
|
|
By:
no they don't , it was more to point out Nadal's apparent lack of adaptability on Hard courts
|
|
By:
oh right yeah, he defo adapted well enough
on HC he faces the big servers and flat hitters and that is difficult |
|
By:
 nothing funnier than Nadal fanboy's in a rage Since when was wimbledon a hard court ? I never mentioned adapting his game to grass so you're taking something else and running away with it, so don't get bent out of shape His kness were good enough to win two hard court slams - and his kness were also not as bad a few years ago in the early part of his career when he was good enough to win the french every year but not us or OZ. The bottom line is this, adaptability due to physical problems or not - he can never be called the greatest tennis player of all time with only two hard court slams to his name - clay he's untouchable, but clay less than 50% of the season |
|
By:
pay attention ayersrock.
firstly, as you could have immediately inferred from my earlier post, i'm not a nadal fanboy. secondly, i'm arguing that it doesn't just come down to the number of slams: that's too basic an analysis. there are a number of factors, two of which i quoted and compared one of them federer. your immediate reply missed the point. "Nadal's inability to transform his clay court form to hard court is worth talking about to as well as fed's inability to change his game for rafa," firstly for nadal to transform his clay court form to hard courts would make him essentially unbeatable across all surfaces and clearly the undisputed GOAT. but you can't compare that limitation to Fed being unprepared to develop his game in face of a challenge. he's never done that. rafa has done and continues to do it. you're comparing apples and oranges. nadal is great, and some of his characteristics which lead to his being great are possibly the of the greatest magnitude ever witnessed. |
|
By:
You were going on about how I attacked his adaptability - i was only talking about his adaptability from clay to hard - not from clay to grass, so maybe you should pay attention, you'r immediate reply was to cite my post about his adaptability from the blue to red as horsehit, total horseshit.
an out and out dirtballer who modified his game and his serve to win a Wimbledon final against Federer? when i never mentioned grass ut you can't compare that limitation to Fed being unprepared to develop his game in face of a challenge I didn't compare if you read properly - I said both were worth talking about - and federer has beaten him on clay a few times Again, bottom line is, you can go on all day long and talk about his great characteristics - but only 2 hard court slams due to whatever circumstances - mean he can never be called the very best |
|
By:
ayers looks like what you need is confrontation and argument but thers not much substance in your posts,really no point to discuss anything here
|
|
By:
I;m stating facts and opinions, if you don't the debate p don;t have it,
|
|
By:
I'm a fan of neither player really but of course enjoy their tennis
but regarding the goat issue I'm sorry but trailing 20:10 to your rival means you cannot be the goat for me Roger has 10 slams where he beat Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis and 35 yo Agassi in the final Rafa has 8 where he beat either Fed or Novak |
|
By:
u meandring in facts to prove opinion which u formed on some picked up fact but u are unable to see whole picture as u seems to be biased so nothing to debate here
|
|
By:
it's an aged old debate, and I;m not making things up, if you agree with my opinion, that's upto you, but throwing your toys out of the pram and saying everyone's opinion that doesn't conform to you own is bollox or worng than that makes you the irrational one
whose to say i'm right or wrong? it's called a debate of the GOAT, if you're obsessed by one person than you won't take anyone elses opinion into view wheather facts are there or not, it's called being blinded by love  Not a Nadal hater by any stretch, and I 'm not even elevating Federer into GOAT status, because like it has been said - the slams he has won are not worth as much as Nadals for example considering Nadal won more of his slams against better players, it';s all up in hte air, maybe when they've retired the picture will be clearer but not worth you crying over |
|
By:
but regarding the goat issue I'm sorry but trailing 20:10 to your rival means you cannot be the goat for me
Roger has 10 slams where he beat Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis and 35 yo Agassi in the final Rafa has 8 where he beat either Fed or Novak good points |
|
By:
lol. points i've already made...
hey-ho. feel like quoting twain now... |
|
By:
we were talking about transition to hard courts,facts are that since2009 where it happened and nadal became grown player and improwed on all fields,he played in 7 hc slams,winning 2 beat fed and nole,being in 2 more finals ,.one very close
those facts which were mentioned earlier here. obvious lack of adaptation to hard courts in course of developing career  problem is some people cant use stats properly |
|
By:
transition? what was he doing before 2009 for 6 years?
|
|
By:
winning slams
 |
|
By:
not on hard
|
|
By:
i think once you've achieved a certain level of consistency at the top of the game for more than 5 years you're allowed to include that player in the following "thought" match-up:
at their best on their worst surface against a contender, who wins? i just think longevity is that important |
|
By:
*just don't think
|
|
By:
purely on strike-rate, BORG is the GOAT all day long.
|
|
By:
but regarding the goat issue I'm sorry but trailing 20:10 to your rival means you cannot be the goat for me
Roger has 10 slams where he beat Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis and 35 yo Agassi in the final You have to draw the line somewhere. Half of those matches have been on clay and the majority of them beyond Federer's peak tennis. Lets just say Federer was less good on clay and failed to make the later stages of the French, he'd have 1 less GS title and 5 less losses to Nadal. The way people argue the H2H is if Federer would be better placed in the latter situation which is nonsense. People argue Fed played in a weak era, the biggest benefactor of the slowing courts and string developments has been Nadal. Put Fed back in the 90s and he would have still won slams, put Nadal back then with a full gut racket and quicker courts and even with Nadal's ability to adapt I don't think it's unrealistic to suggest that he might not have won a slam outside the French |
|
By:
how many French Open titles would Fed have without the clay GOAT in the way
 |
|
By:
Rafa also leads outdoor HC 6-2
if you're gonna claim GOAT for Fed explain this |
|
By:
The greatest isn't determined by one matchup, explain how Nadal lost 7 in a row to Djokovic...
|
|
By:
the argument I was making was that Federer is difficult to label the GOAT
'greatest' hardly credible when he is owned by Rafa |
|
By:
As I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. It doesn't seem credible just considering that. Nadal has won 1 tournament outside of clay in over 2 1/2 years. He lost to Djokovic 7 times in a row.
You have to consider all arguments and Federer has more positives going for him than negatives. You'll just go round in circles if we consider one angle |
|
By:
I'm not claiming Rafa is GOAT
I'm saying it is logically difficult to claim RF is when he is dominated 20-6 outdoors by his main rival |
|
By:
"Roger has 10 slams where he beat Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Baghdatis and 35 yo Agassi in the final"
I love this, as if these guys are somehow easy opponents and Federer's other opponents in previous rounds were just cannon fodder. Wimbledon 2012 defeated Djokovic in semi then Murray US Open 2008 defeated Djokovic in semi then Murray The others are all former No.1 in the world except Baghdatis and Agassi's level of play in 2005 was awesome, (he was still world No. 7) the preceding tournament that Agassi played, he lost to Nadal in the Montreal final, so using the same logic, Nadal's record on HC is tarnished. |
|
By:
Who is the GOAT? You can't say Fed's not the GOAT, or it's hard to argue he is without creating a counter argument for another player. You either accept that there is no GOAT or you draw a line somewhere and agree there is
|
|
By:
I'm arguing about the logical concept of the meaning of the word greatest
people want to claim RF is the 'greatest' but he is dominated by Rafa it's a logical non sequitor that is all |
|
By:
Yes DonNo1, I consider Federer the best player of tennis I have ever seen, but that does'nt make him the GOAT necessarily, it's subjective and until someone comes along and wins the golden slam two years in a row or something equally as amazing it will be hard to seperate the top players.
i.e. Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Nadal |
|
By:
In that case you imply that there is no greatest, arguing someone isn't the greatest when there isn't a defined greatest in your belief is a non sequitor
|
|
By:
no, there may be a GOAT
but given the H2H I find it logically difficult to accept Federer is the answer for me, the GOAT would not suffer humiliating thrashings and trail so much to another player and therefore RF cannot be the answer |
|
By:
I wonder if we will have this debate in a 5-6 years time when Nadal nears 17, Djokovic nears 12 with the thanks of a lot of Aussie Opens and Djokovic carries on his head to head since he became Djokovic 2.0 and leads Nadal in the H2H
 |
|
By:
Federer is the greatest because he has won the most slams, spent the most time at number 1, his SF and QF slam record, the 6 year end WTF titles, his technique would seem him succeed in any era with the different court and racket conditions and the fact he's still competing at the top level at this age.
That's the positives, the negative is his H2H with Nadal. Not a minor negative but when you consider the matchup, the fact that Nadal wasn't making the non-clay GS finals when Fed was at his peak then it doesn't outweigh the positive arguments |
|
By:
just your opinion, does not make it true
|
|
By:
there are some players leading h2h vs Fed, and no doubt Fed is over all the better player then them, Nadull is no exception
|
|
By:
Who is it then Judorick, Nadal has been owned by Djokovic somewhat the last 3 years. It's hardly credible that the greatest is someone who's lost to Muller, Youzhny, Gonzalez in 3, Ferrer twice, battered by Del Potro in 3 sets since claiming his first slam.
So we're looking back to Sampras, but then he never even got the final of the French. You can pick negatives in every player, somewhere you have to draw the line as ive said |
|
By:
Never said it did judorick, you could argue Bogdanovic is the greatest and nobody could prove he wasn't because there's no pre-defined criteria. I think Fed is the greatest based on weighing up the arguments
|