Loki Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Rafa was class today but to be honest he has the notebook on how to beat Stan convincingly. He forces Stan back with the depth on his shots, meaning that he has to rush his forehand. Stan has only won sets in three of the nineteen matches against Nadal. However some of the shots on display today were incredible. Nadal's forehand down the line when he wasn't even looking was perfection. Stan can console himself by knowing it wasn't the worst Swiss display in a French Open final. Federer got destroyed for the loss of four games in 2008. On to the grass season, where despite Nadal now being second in the world he could easily end up seeded fifth. Good old grass calculated seedings Edited to add: Nadal will be seeded in the top four at Wimbledon. However Federer could easily be fifth seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accies1874 Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Didn't catch the final today, but the way Nadal has bounced back so well is astonishing. Time after time we think we've seen the last of him; time after time he proves us wrong. Ten fucking French Opens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WullieBroonIsGod Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Both his and Federer's desire to play (and win) at the very top level again after injury has to be applauded. Be very easy for either to slink off into the sunset with 17 or 14 GS titles, especially with the form Djokovic was showing. Just on Djok, been a while since he hasn't held one of the big 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 He's beaten Federer 6 times to Federers 3 and 4 of them were on clay. His clay record skews everything. Federer also beat him at the age of 35 after not playing for a few months. You are purely judging on game against each other rather than their careers, At this point in time Federer is the greatest, and has won multiple times in 3 different majors. I think you will find you are wrong. Nadal has beaten Federer 9 times in grand slams and lost 3 times. Nadal has also won multiple times in 3 different majors. Nadal will be seeded higher than Federer for Wimbledon. They are both great champions we could argue all night about who is best. May the best man win Wimbledon [emoji5] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 Nadal will not be seeded 2nd. Djokovic will be seeded 2nd. Nadal will be 3rd or 4th seed. With Federer seeded 3rd-5th. Depending on their showings on grass on the lead up to Wimbledon. Got the calculator out and that, may not be true at all. Nadal is scheduled to play Queens and that will be worth double points for the Wimbledon seedings, so he could end up seeded second. Nadal could also be world number one in the week after Wimbledon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 2 hours ago, ftk said: I think you will find you are wrong. Nadal has beaten Federer 9 times in grand slams and lost 3 times. Nadal has also won multiple times in 3 different majors. Nadal will be seeded higher than Federer for Wimbledon. They are both great champions we could argue all night about who is best. May the best man win Wimbledon Federer has only lost 10 finals and you are trying to say nadal has beaten him in 9 of those. I can think of at least 3 or 4 where Djokovic has beaten him. Nadal has beaten him 4 times on clay, once on grass, once on hard court. Federer has beaten him twice on grass and once on hard court. When I said multiple I meant more than two, Nadal has only won more than 2 on clay. like you say they are both great champions, Federer just slightly greater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Federer has only lost 10 finals and you are trying to say nadal has beaten him in 9 of those. I can think of at least 3 or 4 where Djokovic has beaten him. Nadal has beaten him 4 times on clay, once on grass, once on hard court. Federer has beaten him twice on grass and once on hard court. When I said multiple I meant more than two, Nadal has only won more than 2 on clay. like you say they are both great champions, Federer just slightly greater [emoji6] Think you need to look it up. Nadal 9-3 in grand slams makes him a lot greater [emoji8] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 I would tend to agree that the Grand Slams aren't the be all and end all. Borg played one Australian Open, and players in the 80s and before that regularly didn't play the Australian Open as they couldn't be bothered. Rod Laver was banned from playing in the Slams for seven years as he turned professional. He won 11 and completed the calendar slam twice, he also won nine professional slams that people don't count now. Ken Rosewall won 8 Slams and 15 professional Slams. How can you compare all that variables? But when you are comparing players in the same era, how do you compare them? Big titles. The way Nadal plays puts extra stress on his body, so for him not to pick up that injuries he would have to play less intense. Without that intensity he doesn't win the titles he has won. Federer has won the last four matches against Nadal including a Slam final. Nadal is 3-0 against Murray on grass, but I would pick Murray to beat Nadal seven out of eight times on grass right now. Djokovic has beaten the King of Clay on Chatrier and the King of Grass on Centre court. That must make him your GOAT. For Nadal to be considered greater than Federer he has to better his achievements. If Nadal was to win the career slam twice, that would certainly put him closer to Federer. It is very difficult to compare players from different eras that is why Nadals achievement is so remarkable. He is in a era where he has had 2 of the greatest players ever to compete against with a 9-3 grand slam win over Federer and 9-4 win over Djokovic. Not even a close rivalry. He has 15 grand slams competing against those 2 in their prime for his whole career. Federer has a few more but in his early days before Nadal and Djokovic were on the scene had no real competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 30 minutes ago, ftk said: It is very difficult to compare players from different eras that is why Nadals achievement is so remarkable. He is in a era where he has had 2 of the greatest players ever to compete against with a 9-3 grand slam win over Federer and 9-4 win over Djokovic. Not even a close rivalry. He has 15 grand slams competing against those 2 in their prime for his whole career. Federer has a few more but in his early days before Nadal and Djokovic were on the scene had no real competition. Nadal has beaten Djokovic once in three years and has lost his last five against Federer. It certainly isn't a close rivalry (Cherry picking is great isn't it?). Whilst Djokovic was playing the highest level of tennis ever - Nadal was jobbing in slams to Fognini (twice), Kyrgios, Rosol, Berdych, Brown, Darcis and Pouille. If Nadal was good enough to get that far he would have been beaten badly. Your same logic could be applied to Federer or Djokovic. Imagine how many slams they would have had if it wasn't for Nadal? Etc, etc. Djokovic really only hit his prime in 2011, Nadal won his first in slam in 2005. Nadal by the end of his career could surpass Federer in slams and have a claim to the greatest ever, but until then he isn't even the greatest in this era. Nadal hasn't even won the ATP Finals. Federer was the catalyst for the greatness in the big four, without him being that darn good, they would never have had to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Nadal has beaten Djokovic once in three years and has lost his last five against Federer. It certainly isn't a close rivalry [emoji38] (Cherry picking is great isn't it?). Whilst Djokovic was playing the highest level of tennis ever - Nadal was jobbing in slams to Fognini (twice), Kyrgios, Rosol, Berdych, Brown, Darcis and Pouille. If Nadal was good enough to get that far he would have been beaten badly. Your same logic could be applied to Federer or Djokovic. Imagine how many slams they would have had if it wasn't for Nadal? Etc, etc. Djokovic really only hit his prime in 2011, Nadal won his first in slam in 2005. Nadal by the end of his career could surpass Federer in slams and have a claim to the greatest ever, but until then he isn't even the greatest in this era. Nadal hasn't even won the ATP Finals. Federer was the catalyst for the greatness in the big four, without him being that darn good, they would never have had to improve. I don't think picking out grand slam victories is cherry picking. Nobody remembers the Rome Masters etc lol. Its all about the grand slams. On that basis Federer is the man to catch with 18 but himself and Djokovic will be dreading meeting Nadal again in the big matches if they want to improve their tally. 9-3 and 9-4 defeats is truly humiliating for such great champions. Nadal has 15 grand slams and counting.( 2nd of all time) [emoji5] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Just now, ftk said: I don't think picking out grand slam victories is cherry picking. Nobody remembers the Rome Masters etc lol. Its all about the grand slams. On that basis Federer is the man to catch with 18 but himself and Djokovic will be dreading meeting Nadal again in the big matches if they want to improve their tally. 9-3 and 9-4 defeats is truly humiliating for such great champions. Nadal has 15 and counting. So you now admit Federer is the greatest? Thanks. I can stop replying now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 So you now admit Federer is the greatest? Thanks. I can stop replying now. For the casual fan yes look at grand slams totals. Look a bit deeper and you will realise Nadal is best [emoji38]Same with the ladies Serena has the most but I rate Steffi Graf better. Not getting into that one though lol....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Absolutely no chance Nadal is better than Federer overall. Looking "a bit deeper" I'm seeing a guy who is utterly dominant on one surface to the point that it skews his stats to make him look better than he actually is as an all-round player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Absolutely no chance Nadal is better than Federer overall. Looking "a bit deeper" I'm seeing a guy who is utterly dominant on one surface to the point that it skews his stats to make him look better than he actually is as an all-round player. Played 12 times in grand slams Federer managing only 3 wins. Federer also had the advantage of 3 of the 4 grand slams being on his favourite surface. If Nadal had hadn't missed so many Grand Slams through injury he would already have overtaken Federers 18. In fact Federer wouldn't even have reached 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Nightmare you're just a casual fan mate [emoji2] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Nightmare you're just a casual fan mate [emoji2] So you think Nadal is the 2nd greatest of all time going on your logic? ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Fyvie Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Nadal is the greatest of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 1 hour ago, ftk said: Played 12 times in grand slams Federer managing only 3 wins. Federer also had the advantage of 3 of the 4 grand slams being on his favourite surface. If Nadal had hadn't missed so many Grand Slams through injury he would already have overtaken Federers 18. In fact Federer wouldn't even have reached 18. Since his first GS appearance in 2003, Nadal has only missed 7 Slams through injury. I think it's a stretch to assume he'd have won at least 3 of the 7, tbh. But again, it's all just daft hypotheticals. We could equally assume that we didn't have clay as a surface, Nadal would only have 5 Slams. There are so many things to take into consideration. You're going all in on this H2H when realistically it's only one of many things that can be used to compare players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Federer is the undisputed GOAT.Any doubt of that was removed at Australian Open 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 It's Federer I'm afraid lads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.