Tennis Discussions > Tennis Discussions

Replace Federer with Djokovic from 2005-2008 . . .

(1/5) > >>

medwatt:
. . . and would Nadal be hailed as best clay courter of all time ?? Of course, Nadal's claim to the title as GOAT on clay is as a result of him beating Federer multitude of times since Federer was at the same time making the finals.
Now, lets assume the reverse scenario, Federer beating Nadal in as much as he in reality lost. So would have Federer had a claim to the GOAT on clay ?? Well, you will never be certain because if Federer is replaced with Djokovic . . .

PS: From a neutral fan !!

pawan89:
I'm a little confused. Nadal's claim to the title as GOAT on clay is a result of him winning on clay that much, not because of Federer. He would have (and did) win against anyone and everyone, not just Federer. He's beaten countless others over and over again who ought to be worse a  match-up for him than Federer ever was on clay. So I disagree with that statement that he's GOAT because he beat up on Federer. That'd be diminishing his achievements on clay.

Same goes with Federer, if he had beaten Nadal on clay all the time but didn't dominate the surface he would not have been goat, he'd just have been a successful clay courter, much like Ferrer is. If Federer was replaced by Djokovic I think Djokovic and Nadal would most likely have split the titles and neither would have been GOAT but a solid rivalry. Much like what Djokovic and Federer kinda have had for the past couple years now on hardcourts. Well not really because they still do lose to others along the way, neither is dominating the hard-court like Federer and Nadal did at one point (or Djokovic and Nadal would have)

This is one confusing post haha. I tried to make as much sense as I could.

Swish:
Nadal would most likely be the best at any time.
 
It would depend on which Djokovic he was playing too.
 
Djokovic 2.0 should be able to take some away from Nadal.

medwatt:

--- Quote from: pawan89 on April 21, 2013, 04:09:04 PM ---I'm a little confused. Nadal's claim to the title as GOAT on clay is a result of him winning on clay that much, not because of Federer. He would have (and did) win against anyone and everyone, not just Federer. He's beaten countless others over and over again who ought to be worse a  match-up for him than Federer ever was on clay. So I disagree with that statement that he's GOAT because he beat up on Federer. That'd be diminishing his achievements on clay.

Same goes with Federer, if he had beaten Nadal on clay all the time but didn't dominate the surface he would not have been goat, he'd just have been a successful clay courter, much like Ferrer is. If Federer was replaced by Djokovic I think Djokovic and Nadal would most likely have split the titles and neither would have been GOAT but a solid rivalry. Much like what Djokovic and Federer kinda have had for the past couple years now on hardcourts. Well not really because they still do lose to others along the way, neither is dominating the hard-court like Federer and Nadal did at one point (or Djokovic and Nadal would have)

This is one confusing post haha. I tried to make as much sense as I could.

--- End quote ---
You missed the point ! Me saying it was because of beating Federer a lot on clay implies Federer too was invariably winning against everyone on clay against Nadal and so if Federer had been winning the finals (at least half of them), will Nadal still be the GOAT on clay ??? Thats my point !!

Alex:
Med, the way I see it is that Fed/Nadal is a horrible match up. I actually don't like their matches at all, except on grass. Nadal pounding Fed's BH, Fed making UE, so predictable ... I still can't believe that Fed simply didn't even try to change his game and adapt.

 It's funny how Djokovic is exploiting Rafa's BH nowadays. nothing Rafa can do. I'm just rewatching the MC final.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version