Topic: Federer is GOAT or this is the WEOAT !!

[Start da Game]

Though I wouldn't like mentioning it but since you are over speculating, then why did it take Nadal so long to make a Slam HC final when the field you are talking about is supposedly very weak. Because there were guys (at their peaks) like Gonzalez, Blake, Youzhny etc who were consistently beating him. He had to wait until the flare had gone out of their games before he mad his first final. But at that same time, Federer was always making important clay tournament finals, hence the 1 sided H2H.
Anyhow you look at it, its a win win situation for Fed and the whole argument points at Nadal as the one who had benefited from the weak era on clay.
Speculating further, had Nadal played in the 90s he wouldn't have won a single slam tournament outside of clay and even on clay, he might at most won 3. So Nadal is a 3 time slamer in my book full stop !!

nadal peaked differently compared to federer who enjoyed the surface homogenization and hit his peak with his brand of baseline tennis on all surfaces around 2004........nadal is not naturally gifted and had to dig really hard to find the game for hardcourts and grass........rafa peaked on clay as early as in 2004 but took 3 to 4 years from there to become an all courts player........

[Start da Game]

Nadal's 7 RG titles are jokes as well. No real contention as most of them were 3 setters and rarely 4 setters. In fact RG is the most predictable slam because of the lack of competition. The 2nd and 3rd best clay court specialists Ferrer and Almagro are just jokers. Even Federer beats them with ease on clay. That just shows how weak the clay field is.

2005 - beat peak puerta, peak federer
2006 - beat peak federer
2007 - beat djokovic, peak federer
2008 - thrashed peak verdasco, peak almagro, peak federer, peak djokovic
2009 - donation
2010 - just thrashed the field before him, here the argument that he did not beat anyone solid is vague because he was already a proven great by beating solid players in the previous years
2011 - took peak federer to clay school for the fifth time 
2012 - welcome peak djokovic to roland garros finals with a solid 4 set hammering which would actually been straight set hammering but for the rain 

all the players mentioned above are inferior to kuerten, bruguera, courier, muster etc. of the 90s but nadal beat them all very convincingly........not one of them managed to take him to 5 sets at least and they are all more than decent clay courters........

nadal however would have found it difficult to get to the finals in the 90s with a few more tough rounds but nothing more than that........he handled roland garros champions like costa,  moya, ferrero(all in their peak) with ease even before he was 17........

ok... I'll get in the mix.  Peak Puerta?  Now even you have to laugh at that one!  If you're claiming Roddick (who has a slam); and Hewitt (who also have slams) as WEAK competition for Roger.... Then you say "Puerta" is to be counted in Rafa's run as "peak"....and then you go on to use the rest of the names to defend Rafa - those SAME names that are playing in "Roger's Era" who you used to defend that as a "weak" era!!! 

You can't have it both ways.  If you're using all the folks Roger played in his time to justify your "weak era" stance...then you can't turn around and use those same players in Nadal's run to boost your stance that he had "strong competition".  It doesn't work that way!

But if it makes you happy...go ahead!

Exactly. It's a weak era, so Rafa's 7 RGs are worthless. Right, Start da Game?  Borg is still the King of Clay. Let's not forget that he retired at 26. If he hadn't retired, he could have won another 6 RGs easily! 

P.S - Rafa did not face Moya, Costa and Ferrero at their peak. They all peaked before Rafa started playing LOL.

Pity peak Guga wasn't there to thrash Rafa's topspin. Moya himself remarked a long time ago that Guga was the only guy who he thought could beat Rafa on clay.

dallas, clay court competition is usually made up of specialists(rather than outright slam winners) and puerta was one very good specialist........slams or no slams, original clay courters were hard to overcome........rod and hew were slam winners but weak era folks who weren't denied by someone like fed or rafa, that's why they had those slams........

avantika, 13 year old nadal took care of moya in an exhibition match.......16 year old nadal beat albert costa in montecarlo 2003 and costa was the reigning french open champion having won the slam in 2002........by 17 years he was out of reach for 95% clay courters on tour........

[oracle86]

avantika, 13 year old nadal took care of moya in an exhibition match.......16 year old nadal beat albert costa in montecarlo 2003 and costa was the reigning french open champion having won the slam in 2002........by 17 years he was out of reach for 95% clay courters on tour........

Two words - "WEAK ERA".

[Dallas]

You're talking about Puerta...the same man who's career record at the French Open is 12-6?  Who has a TOTAL of 3 CAREER titles?  You're putting this man ahead of Roddick and Hewitt -- former #1 players who have multiple grand slams?  This is the same man - Puerta????  He was lucky to get to that French Open Final (the ONLY major final he ever got to, by the way).  I would not put him above Roddick or Hewitt as far as you're calling the latter 2 'weak' and then you turn around and call Puerta a clay court specialist who then, by your definition, should be strong?  What about Roddick on grass then?  If it wasn't for Roger, Roddick would have multiple Wimbledon titles.  So why should we discount some of Roger's Wimbledon titles because he faced Roddick in the final - but count Nadal's French Open because he faced Puerta?

 

OK... Let's just agree to disagree and why don't we just count everyone's grand slams since they ALL got them through hard work and they were the last men standing.  So... just credit Roger with 17 and credit Nadal with 11 and we'll move on...

[FedFanForever]

The same Puerta who was found guilty of doping.

[Dallas]

The same Puerta who was found guilty of doping.

Oh yea, I had forgotten about that!!!!! Thanks for bring that one out!

[mav140]

Nadal's 7 RG titles are jokes as well. No real contention as most of them were 3 setters and rarely 4 setters. In fact RG is the most predictable slam because of the lack of competition. The 2nd and 3rd best clay court specialists Ferrer and Almagro are just jokers. Even Federer beats them with ease on clay. That just shows how weak the clay field is.

2005 - beat peak puerta, peak federer
2006 - beat peak federer
2007 - beat djokovic, peak federer
2008 - thrashed peak verdasco, peak almagro, peak federer, peak djokovic
2009 - donation
2010 - just thrashed the field before him, here the argument that he did not beat anyone solid is vague because he was already a proven great by beating solid players in the previous years
2011 - took peak federer to clay school for the fifth time 
2012 - welcome peak djokovic to roland garros finals with a solid 4 set hammering which would actually been straight set hammering but for the rain 

all the players mentioned above are inferior to kuerten, bruguera, courier, muster etc. of the 90s but nadal beat them all very convincingly........not one of them managed to take him to 5 sets at least and they are all more than decent clay courters........

nadal however would have found it difficult to get to the finals in the 90s with a few more tough rounds but nothing more than that........he handled roland garros champions like costa,  moya, ferrero(all in their peak) with ease even before he was 17........

ok... I'll get in the mix.  Peak Puerta?  Now even you have to laugh at that one!  If you're claiming Roddick (who has a slam); and Hewitt (who also have slams) as WEAK competition for Roger.... Then you say "Puerta" is to be counted in Rafa's run as "peak"....and then you go on to use the rest of the names to defend Rafa - those SAME names that are playing in "Roger's Era" who you used to defend that as a "weak" era!!! 

You can't have it both ways.  If you're using all the folks Roger played in his time to justify your "weak era" stance...then you can't turn around and use those same players in Nadal's run to boost your stance that he had "strong competition".  It doesn't work that way!

But if it makes you happy...go ahead!

Exactly. It's a weak era, so Rafa's 7 RGs are worthless. Right, Start da Game?  Borg is still the King of Clay. Let's not forget that he retired at 26. If he hadn't retired, he could have won another 6 RGs easily! 

P.S - Rafa did not face Moya, Costa and Ferrero at their peak. They all peaked before Rafa started playing LOL.

Pity peak Guga wasn't there to thrash Rafa's topspin. Moya himself remarked a long time ago that Guga was the only guy who he thought could beat Rafa on clay.

dallas, clay court competition is usually made up of specialists(rather than outright slam winners) and puerta was one very good specialist........slams or no slams, original clay courters were hard to overcome........rod and hew were slam winners but weak era folks who weren't denied by someone like fed or rafa, that's why they had those slams........

avantika, 13 year old nadal took care of moya in an exhibition match.......16 year old nadal beat albert costa in montecarlo 2003 and costa was the reigning french open champion having won the slam in 2002........by 17 years he was out of reach for 95% clay courters on tour........

Puerta a good specialist???? LMFAO... YOU ARE TOO MUCH SHANK.. Puerta is a joke, clay or not clay... I can't even believe I am writing about Puerta in this context... LOOOOOL..

Moya in an exhibition??? You gotta be f***ING kidding me........

I mean, really pathetic.. You are running out of ideas to defend Nadal... Shame

Sent from my LG-P990 using Tapatalk 2

[Start da Game]

laugh all you want but competition on clay was always made up of specialists, there were too many specialists in the 90s who were tough as nails and the only one i can see handling them ALL is nadal........djokovic and federer do make up for good competition on clay but i really don't see either of them really emerging on top in the 90s........

[mav140]

laugh all you want but competition on clay was always made up of specialists, there were too many specialists in the 90s who were tough as nails and the only one i can see handling them ALL is nadal........djokovic and federer do make up for good competition on clay but i really don't see either of them really emerging on top in the 90s........

Well, we'll never know would we????? Cause quoting Puerta as tough competition on clay is just shameful.. Quoting an EXHIBITION match vs. Moya is just hilarious and just a win to Costa in 2003 (in his prime??? LOOOOOOOOL) it is hilarious as well...

Fed beat Sampras on Wiombledon 2000, way before Federer's prime and you won't give credit of this, BUT you give credit to Nadal for beating Costa (not even a former No. 1 player)(7-5 6-3) at MonteCarlo is a GREAT FEAT???? Really.. that must really tough for you to digest.

Dallas once said that diminishing Fed's accomplishments will diminish Nadal's accomplishments, but now that we are talking about Nadal at this moment, I am thinking that Nadal has had it the easiest with nobody challenging up in clay, since there are no clay courters... Hence Nadal would be like 2-3 slam winner in any other era... LOOOOOOL...

But, hey, this is just for you to take a look into your comments made for Federer. I personally think Federer is the best to ever hold a raquet and his style of play is the most beautiful and I will not get into the GOAT, because I there is no way to compare a Borg, Lendl, Tilden, Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, etc. etc. to anybody else, they just played in different eras and that is it...And I truly believe that Rafa is the best clay court player to ever play the game... But if you are going with the weak era for Federer, if you are going with this BS, then you have to know that Rafa will be call a good clay court player with NO competition on clay, because there wasn't any and shouldn't be consider the GOAT on clay...

You can twist the numbers all you want, but by your first comments on defending Nadal accomplishments, you just hit the dirt and couldn't find nothing that stands...

[TennisVeritas]

2005 - beat peak puerta, peak federer
2006 - beat peak federer
2007 - beat djokovic, peak federer
2008 - thrashed peak verdasco, peak almagro, peak federer , peak djokovic
2009 - donation
2010 - just thrashed the field before him, here the argument that he did not beat anyone solid is vague because he was already a proven great by beating solid players in the previous years
2011 - took peak federer to clay school for the fifth time 
2012 - welcome peak djokovic to roland garros finals with a solid 4 set hammering which would actually been straight set hammering but for the rain 

Two remarks on my side..
From your list:

FED was at his peak between '05-'11 on clay...

An all time great performance in his own: So, to validate Rafa's results and validate his slams you need FED being at the peak..

In the meantime, FED at the peak was playing against clowns out of clay..

Strange among these clowns out of clay there was a guy, Rafa, who took 3 long years before winning a Slam out of clay..I mean, FED has been the 2nd best clay courter consistently, only to be beaten by the best clay courter. Can you say the same about Nadal on HC? [Nope, because as I said FED was there in plenty of events during his best years-'03-'07- waiting for Rafa in that surface]

Rafa won his first slam in 2005(RG). Since then, Federer has won 13 slams, Nadal has won 10. Who is the more dominant player [and I will not enter in the numbers of weeks as N#1 because is just too easy]?

If your answer to this is that "Rafa was still maturing on other surfaces" then dont call him Federer's rival. They are from different eras. The game is not about 2 players, its bigger than that. If players seeded 1 and 2 always met each other in the finals, other players wouldn't play the game. Its about overall dominance, not dominance on a particular player. And Rafa was less dominat than FED out of clay, i.e. FED was owning 2/3 of the season when Rafa was managing the 1/3 left!

As a conclusion: If FED has dominated his major competitors at his prime (which definitely ended around '08..From that moment on he was not so consistent and his best tennis is shown only at patches-as the current one- which last for some months and certainly no more for years), this was not the sign of him facing clowns (if not the Rafa was one of them!), but just that FED is one of the great ever, a GOAT candidate, and the guy who mark his era. Namely. the following (always looking at the open era bit) classification of all time greats is still valid:

1960's - Laver (Rosewall an honourable mention)
1970's - Borg (Connors an honourable mention)
1980's - Lendl (McEnroe an honourable mention)
1990's - Sampras (Agassi an honorable mention..given after all his carrer GS)
2000's - Federer (Nadal an honourable mention)

All these amazing (all time) great players..Now, clearly, if it continue like that, having a FED able to win Slams even after his best years and at an age in which few players win ATP events...Well the guy is just proving over and over again to be the one who deserve the most the GOAT status.

[FreeBird]

This continues to be an interesting topic.  In the end, the argument that Rafa is the king of clay, combined with the idea that Fed and Sampras are roughly equals on clay, doesn't hold water.  And I'd still love to see who Sampras lost to on clay...

[mav140]

This continues to be an interesting topic.  In the end, the argument that Rafa is the king of clay, combined with the idea that Fed and Sampras are roughly equals on clay, doesn't hold water.  And I'd still love to see who Sampras lost to on clay...

This is who Sampras lost to on clay on RG on his entire career.. On some of them he lost to great clay courters and on some he lost to nobodies…
1989 – 2nd. Round
M. Chang  6/1 6/1 6/1

1990
Didn’t play

1991
2nd. Round
A French named “Champion” 6/3 6/1 6/1

1992
QF.
Agassi
7/6 6/2 6/1
(Special Note: in 1992 COSTA (Supposedly by Shank prime competition on clay on NADAL era) was already playing!!!!!!  OMG Shank, really??, and his argument was that Costa was the defending champion, but by those standards, Sampras was reigning champion of USO in 2002, those that make him real competition in 2002-2003? or his last slam in his declining play?

1993 QF.
Sergi Bruguera
6/3 4/6 6/1 6/4

1994 QF.
 Jim Courier
6/4 5/7 6/4 6/4

1995
1st. Round
G Schaller
7/6 4/6 6/7 6/2 6/4

1996
Only SF. 
Kafelnikov
7/6 6/0 6/2

1997
3rd. Round
M Norman
6/2 6/4 2/6 6/4

1998
2nd. Round
From Ecuador I think…..R Delgado
7/6 6/3 6/4

1999
2nd. Round
Medvedev
6/1 6/2 6/3 6/1

2000
1st. Round
M Philippoussis
6/4 5/7 6/7 6/4 8/6

2001
2nd. Round
Spain G Blanco
7/5 6/2 6/3
 
2002
1st. round
A Gaudenzi
6/3 7/6 6/1

There, now we can argue all you want, and for those who will come up the likes of losing to Agassi, Bruguera, Chang and even Kafelnikov, others will argue that "Champion", Schaller, Delgado or Blanco are nobodies and still lost to them.. so, it is going to be a never ending story.. (I used to love this film when I was a kid)

I could get the results for Rome, Monte Carlo and Hamburg, but I think this gives us an overview, and it will benefit Sampras on this department, since on those tournaments he really lost to nobodies, so let's leave it like that.

On a special note, when he faced good clay courters, Sampras demonstrated his lack of committment to clay, losing easily to most of them...

[ashwin#1]

dallas, clay court competition is usually made up of specialists(rather than outright slam winners) and puerta was one very good specialist........slams or no slams, original clay courters were hard to overcome........rod and hew were slam winners but weak era folks who weren't denied by someone like fed or rafa, that's why they had those slams........

avantika, 13 year old nadal took care of moya in an exhibition match.......16 year old nadal beat albert costa in montecarlo 2003 and costa was the reigning french open champion having won the slam in 2002........by 17 years he was out of reach for 95% clay courters on tour........

oh my god !!
1. You're Quoting Exhibition matches ??? man, thats sad.. Next, you'll be quoting Nadal once defeated Moya/Sampras/anyone once in his backyard garden..

2. About the Doper Puerta : even he's gotta be laughing after reading this BS  

C'mon man, give us something solid..not this crap..

as far as the Donation is concerned, lets look at what fed's donated :

2005 - Aus open
2008 - Aus open, Wimbledon, Olympics
2009 - Aus open, Us open
2010 - Wimbledon, US open
2011  - Aus open, Wimbledon, US open
2012   - Aus open.

now i don't believe in the concept of donation, if a player doesn't win GS, he doesn't deserves to win it, but since u opened such a discussion..

& what about murray ??

Donating slams since 2008 ???

[Start da Game]

doping would only make him tougher than what he already is........so that's not really a wise argument on your part.......as for donations, federer never held an upper hand over rafa in slams and nadal snatched them clean in all the finals, so none of them were donations........


i will say it again........in 90s, specialists made up the competition contrary to what the situation is today where major competition is from top guns who are multiple slam winners........


mav140, what about the mental aspect? being aware that there are a lot of dirtballers, it effects the mind and that shows in results as well........


how funny that federer creamed djokovic in wimbledon semis while he looked disinterested in playing nadal in another roland garros final and threw away double break leads in roland garros semis this year........for a player like him who beat djokovic in 4 sets last year, he lost in straight sets and din't bother fighting at all........


that's what pressure of facing a couple of possible clay court specialists in forthcoming rounds (in sampras's case) or clay GOAT like nadal (in fed's case) can do to your mind........

[TennisVeritas]

mav140, what about the mental aspect? being aware that there are a lot of dirtballers, it effects the mind and that shows in results as well........

how funny that federer creamed djokovic in wimbledon semis while he looked disinterested in playing nadal in another roland garros final and threw away double break leads in roland garros semis this year........for a player like him who beat djokovic in 4 sets last year, he lost in straight sets and din't bother fighting at all........

that's what pressure of facing a couple of possible clay court specialists in forthcoming rounds (in sampras's case) or clay GOAT like nadal (in fed's case) can do to your mind........

How about the possibility (a real one this one) to focus your entire season in two main events: Wimbledon & Olympics?

I mean, we are talking of a guy who did pass his prime (quite a while ago btw) and he had the opportunity to play on grass two major events:

Well if you are smart (logic ? Intelligent?) you will easily decide to do the strict "minimum" -still a semi- in the slam on clay (his worst surface anyway) and then move on grass ASAP (this year he did Halle as well).

Come on, this is just normal smart behavior and this does not tarnish FED's career or results, just the contrary: Being smart is an asset and Rafa should learn from him!

PS.: Pete did exactly the same during all his career: Focusing Wimbledon and skipping clay and RG & you do not find any problems in his choices..But when you are talking about FED..Well, when you hate someone....

[mav140]

mav140, what about the mental aspect? being aware that there are a lot of dirtballers, it effects the mind and that shows in results as well........

Let's get real.. Sampras was no good at clay, he was a fast court player, always was.. he played amazing tennis, specially at SW19, I used to love him play, I loved Edberg's S&V even more but I loved watching Sampras play at Wimbledon. He had good ground strokes from the baseline but they were suited for faster courts, like USO... But consider clay, he had no business whatsoever on that surface, and I have to say that it had to do with his lack of committment to the surface, not to anything else..

Mental aspect for a guy who has won 14 slams doesn't hold ground... Sure, he knew he was worse than any good clay courter, but his mental attitude doesn't have to do anything with "throwing" up matches to good clay courters... it doesn't work that way, specially for the likes of Borg, Laver, Sampras, Lendl, Federer, Nadal, etc... it just doesn't happen.

About Puerta, yes, he was acused and charged with doping... that, is a major let down for any professional player, but let's get real, you can't say that he was a strong clay courter...

I mean, come on, you of all people would know if Puerta was a good clay courter... Let's look at his numbers shall we:
Only singles titles:
1998 - Palermo
2000 - Bogota
2005 - Casablanca

Wait, that was it?? Not even a single Masters 1000 titles? Yeah! These 3 tournaments are the only ones he has a title... How can you say he is a strong clay courter?? Come on....

Give me something I can use and not these Puerta, exhibition Moya, granpa Costa....