- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kornheiser: Nadal has removed Federer from the discussion of G.O.A.T
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:15 pm to bobbyray21
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:15 pm to bobbyray21
Being better than Federer now does not make Nadal better than Federer all-time. Federer is the GOAT. Nadal may get there, but he's not there yet.
1
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:15 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
I'm gonna say this about Nadal. Nadal could be the greatest of all time if in the next three years he beats Djokovic on every surface. But what he established is that Roger Federer is not the greatest of all time.
So, let's say Nadal never wins another major except the French. Who does Kornheiser think is the best in that scenario? Sampras? The guy who never won anything of note on clay?
Nadal clearly has Federer's number. But I can't discount the fact that Federer does better against the rest of the field than Nadal. Federer had a streak of 23 semis and an active streak of 36 quarter final appearances at grand slams. Nadal's longest streaks are 5 semis and 11 quarter finals. So, while Nadal regularly beats Roger's arse, he's also way more likely to lose to the Lukas Rosals of the world. I have to give consistent dominance weight in this argument.
In addition, while Nadal's head to head against everyone is fantastic, so much of it is attained from playing so frequently on clay. He's 20-10 against Federer but only 7-8 off clay. He's 20-15 against Djokovic 7-12 off clay. So against his chief rivals he's 26-5 on clay and 14-20 on other surfaces. If he starts to meet more Djokovic more frequently on hard courts, the h-2-h is going to tilt strongly in Djokovic's favor. Will that remove Nadal from discussion of G.O.A.T?
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:15 pm to SunSpring00
quote:
Funny how no ones mentioned Sampras in this discussion of past-and-present so far.
He's certainly a top 5 guy. But he couldn't win on clay. That dings him.
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:16 pm to SunSpring00
quote:
Funny how no ones mentioned Sampras in this discussion of past-and-present so far.
Fed has surpassed everything Sampras did in spades. You can say Sampras never got dominated in head to head by anybody, but he would have been embarrassed on clay worse than Fed was. Fed's legacy would arguably be better if he never made those French Open semis/finals where he lost to Nadal.
This post was edited on 6/11/13 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:17 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Don't bet your mortgage.
I never said he WOUD win it..
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:17 pm to ItNeverRains
quote:
He could easily win 6-7 Majors in next three years.
quote:
I don't see anyone on the horizon touching him.
Yup not even the guy who pushed him to the extreme on his best surface.
Do you even tennis, bro?
This post was edited on 6/11/13 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:18 pm to bobbyray21
Having a bad matchup against one guy doesn't change the fact that what Federer has done in tennis is completely unparalleled by anyone.
That's like saying the Patriots aren't the best NFL team the last decade because they lost to the Giants a couple times.
That's like saying the Patriots aren't the best NFL team the last decade because they lost to the Giants a couple times.
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:18 pm to ChiSaint
quote:
But I can't discount the fact that Federer does better against the rest of the field than Nadal.
Does he?
Nadal GS win/loss: 88.17%
Fed GS win/loss: 86.90%
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:19 pm to Patrick_Bateman
quote:
Being better than Federer now does not make Nadal better than Federer all-time. Federer is the GOAT. Nadal may get there, but he's not there yet.
Thanks captain obvious
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:21 pm to barry
quote:I agree with that statement. However, despite being on the downside of his peak, Federer has won 5 majors from 2008-present, including his first French Open (although he didn't beat Nadal in the tournament).
Nadal probably hit his prime at the same time Fed was starting his decline,2008.
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:22 pm to ChiSaint
quote:
Federer had a streak of 23 semis and an active streak of 36 quarter final appearances at grand slams. Nadal's longest streaks are 5 semis and 11 quarter finals. So, while Nadal regularly beats Roger's arse, he's also way more likely to lose to the Lukas Rosals of the world. I have to give consistent dominance weight in this argument.
It can't be understated the pathetic and I mean PATHETIC competition Fed faced during that time.
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:22 pm to castorinho
quote:
Do you even tennis, bro?
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:23 pm to bobbyray21
quote:I disagree.
I think the interesting question, is how does all of this play out if Rafa is 3 years older?
Full disclosure, I'm a Rafa fan: but I think under that scenario Rafa would have more slams right now than Fed.
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:24 pm to ChiSaint
quote:
In addition, while Nadal's head to head against everyone is fantastic, so much of it is attained from playing so frequently on clay. He's 20-10 against Federer but only 7-8 off clay. He's 20-15 against Djokovic 7-12 off clay. So against his chief rivals he's 26-5 on clay and 14-20 on other surfaces. If he starts to meet more Djokovic more frequently on hard courts, the h-2-h is going to tilt strongly in Djokovic's favor. Will that remove Nadal from discussion of G.O.A.T?
You can't take Rafa's dominance on clay and turn it into an argument against him. We're not talking about Sergei Brugeira here. Rafa is elite on every surface. The fact that he is historically untouchable on clay adds to his resume; it doesn't detract.
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:25 pm to dukke v
quote:
I never said he WOUD win it..
Fair enough.
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:25 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Does he?
Nadal GS win/loss: 88.17%
Fed GS win/loss: 86.90%
Again, Fed's streak of semis and QFs blows away Nadal's. Also, Fed is more consistent off his best surface. His GS record excluding Wimbledon is 190-32 (85.58%). Nadal's excluding the French is 105-21 (83.32%). Fed is the better all surface player (notwithstanding the fact that Nadal can beat him on any surface).
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:26 pm to bobbyray21
During Fed's prime years he had a 95.7% win percentage in grand slams, from 2004-2007. That is with Nadal in the field for three of those years. That is a ridiculous win percentage across all surfaces.
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:29 pm to bobbyray21
It's good to see Rafa back in healthy and great form because that will make for some exciting tennis ithis summer but I think people are getting a little carried away right now.
Had Djokovic held two more times at 4-3 in the 4th set people would be saying that he's done.
Imagine a wimbledon tourney with Fed (dudde just won this thing last year, not discounting him), Nadal, Murray (hopefully), Djokovic all healthy
Had Djokovic held two more times at 4-3 in the 4th set people would be saying that he's done.
Imagine a wimbledon tourney with Fed (dudde just won this thing last year, not discounting him), Nadal, Murray (hopefully), Djokovic all healthy
This post was edited on 6/11/13 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:29 pm to Boss
quote:
During Fed's prime years he had a 95.7% win percentage in grand slams, from 2004-2007. That is with Nadal in the field for three of those years
yea at age 19,20, and 21
Posted on 6/11/13 at 4:30 pm to barry
Nadal is 4-5 in Finals of the Grand Slams not named the French Open. Nadal is clearly the greatest clay court player ever, though Borg is probably in that conversation, but Nadal doesn't have the multi-surface dominance of other great players. Federer has 9 hard court titles to go with his 7 grass court titles. Sampras was 7 and 7. Rod Laver and Roy Emerson won each Grand Slam at least twice, the only to guys to do that.
And, we've had this argument before and I really don't feel like re-hashing it because it's pretty boring, but I feel this is a profoundly weak era of men's tennis. The fact that so few people are winning titles is a bit of an indictment of the overall depth of talent in this era. I actually think the women's field has never been stronger, so this isn't quite back in the dayism. But only a small group absolutely dominating the field normally is a sign that the overall field isn't that good.
And while we're looking at dynamism, I'd submit McEnroe is the greatest player of all time because he was great at both singles and doubles. In fact, he's considered the greatest doubles player ever.
And, we've had this argument before and I really don't feel like re-hashing it because it's pretty boring, but I feel this is a profoundly weak era of men's tennis. The fact that so few people are winning titles is a bit of an indictment of the overall depth of talent in this era. I actually think the women's field has never been stronger, so this isn't quite back in the dayism. But only a small group absolutely dominating the field normally is a sign that the overall field isn't that good.
And while we're looking at dynamism, I'd submit McEnroe is the greatest player of all time because he was great at both singles and doubles. In fact, he's considered the greatest doubles player ever.
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News