Real McCoy Posted October 16, 2024 Posted October 16, 2024 54 minutes ago, Texan said: Djoker record is now safe for another 8-10 years at least On a side note, few things about Nadal - Good stuff: Nobody could have ever thought two decades ago that it was possible to win 14 Grand Slams at a single event. Nadal did it. It will never be repeated. I stand to be corrected but I don't think anybody will achieve this in the future. Was able to beat peak Federer in Fed's backyard (Wimbledon) one time. Best Grand Slam final conversion ratio indicating that when he reached a Grand Slam final, he used to level up. Not so good stuff: Nadal was always disrespectful to Djokovic despite Djokovic always being respectful to him. Contrast this to how he treated Federer. Never won the year end slam that pitted the top 8 players against each other in a different format. Makes you wonder if he was ever the "BEST" in any year, let alone GOAT debate Lost many times in early rounds in non Clay court tournaments as against Federer & Djokovic, who routinely made the last rounds. Makes you wonder if he had the game to always beat players of lower skill levels. I remember he lost two matches to Dustin Brown (including at Wimbledon), an unorthodox player, who played a very different game and primarily looked to entertain. Number of weeks as World number 1 is below Djoker, Fed, even Sampras, Lendl and Connors, which indicates he was not consistently the top player during his playing time. +1. Yeah the chances of anyone beating his RG record is lower than Djokovic keeping the slam record. His mental strength is also great as you mentioned the final conversion ratio. I'm not sure but I think that levels Sampras' record. Yeah the way he spoke about Djokovic leaves much to be desired. It was expected that Federer would turn out to be the cry baby but it was Nadal who acted sour grapes on more than one occasion. In hindsight, Federer appears to be in a happy state post retirement. In addition to the not so good stuff, I would add his gamesmanship, time wasting, MTOs, injury excuses, etc Texan 1
Muloghonto Posted October 16, 2024 Posted October 16, 2024 On 10/13/2024 at 6:35 AM, putrevus said: You need to have better understanding of tennis and its history. Federer is not even in same ballpark as Nole .Novak is best clay court player after Nadal and Borg.He was the only guy who could beat Nadal at his best in Roland Garros. He is a better grass court player than Federer.He beat him straight in three wimbledon finals.Where he fought not just his opponent but the crowd also.He promptly wins wimbledon when Nole was injured in 2017. Federer was the one who took advantage of weakest era in tennis history.2005-2009.Where his main rival was Nadal who was a clay court specialist.He never sniffed another US open 2008, he would not have sniffed another Australian open if Nole was not having his injury issues. This is after he was Nole getting ban where he was not allowed to compete in some grand slams.Plus one year he was DQed from US open after line judge accidently. Nole before this year had reached finals 50% of the slams he competed that is just insane. Nadal and Federer had one major problem after 2010, that is the GOAT other wise they have ended up with lot more grand slams. Ah yes. the best claycourter ever, who got whumped by Federer at his peak season and couldnt regularly feature as FO finalist like federer did at nadal's peak. Ah yes, weak era in tennis is 2005-2009, when we had far more lower ranked people beating higher ranked people up an down all the way to #32 in the world, weak era isnt the one where higher ranked players win much more predictably, Makes so much sense. Yes, such a better player than Federer that he couldnt beat Federer in wimbledon till Fed was 30+ and even then got completely owned by a 38 year old geriatric in the final and required the biggest luck-choke to win. Greatest indeed.
putrevus Posted October 16, 2024 Posted October 16, 2024 2 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Ah yes. the best claycourter ever, who got whumped by Federer at his peak season and couldnt regularly feature as FO finalist like federer did at nadal's peak. Ah yes, weak era in tennis is 2005-2009, when we had far more lower ranked people beating higher ranked people up an down all the way to #32 in the world, weak era isnt the one where higher ranked players win much more predictably, Makes so much sense. Yes, such a better player than Federer that he couldnt beat Federer in wimbledon till Fed was 30+ and even then got completely owned by a 38 year old geriatric in the final and required the biggest luck-choke to win. Greatest indeed. Try again.
Muloghonto Posted October 16, 2024 Posted October 16, 2024 6 hours ago, putrevus said: Try again. Mate, i have been trying at this game since the becker-edberg finals. Easyera-ovic is objective fact that any simple math dude will tell you that can see beyond basic statsguru analysis. The era where the rankings are more likely to stay true till the end of the tourney- meaning the seeds get to where they are supposed to based on ranking- is the weaker one. not the stronger one as weakovic fans like to insist. The era where #1-4 consistently beat #5-8, #5-8 consistently beat #9-16, etc. *is* objectively the weaker era as far as winning odds are concerned. As i said, the goat can't be the man who didnt get better of his two main rivals, one of whom is a half a tennis generation older, till his rivals both got to be 30+ and near the end of tennis age for 80% of tennis players even today,with one of them also getting terribly broken in the body and being a shadow of his former self for the last half of his career, who won a fluke victory against a 38 year old geriatric while being world #1, cannot be goat, regardless of how many slams this chap wins.
putrevus Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 On 10/16/2024 at 5:59 PM, Muloghonto said: Mate, i have been trying at this game since the becker-edberg finals. Easyera-ovic is objective fact that any simple math dude will tell you that can see beyond basic statsguru analysis. The era where the rankings are more likely to stay true till the end of the tourney- meaning the seeds get to where they are supposed to based on ranking- is the weaker one. not the stronger one as weakovic fans like to insist. The era where #1-4 consistently beat #5-8, #5-8 consistently beat #9-16, etc. *is* objectively the weaker era as far as winning odds are concerned. As i said, the goat can't be the man who didnt get better of his two main rivals, one of whom is a half a tennis generation older, till his rivals both got to be 30+ and near the end of tennis age for 80% of tennis players even today,with one of them also getting terribly broken in the body and being a shadow of his former self for the last half of his career, who won a fluke victory against a 38 year old geriatric while being world #1, cannot be goat, regardless of how many slams this chap wins. I never base anything based on stats alone.What made you think I did not watch Edberg and Becker finals.I have also watched Roscoe tanner and Borg matches. Your really come up with useless stats , 80% of tennis age. You really need some tennis education. If weaker players are able to beat top players then tennis was 1970s and 80s would be greatest era in tennis. I will follow up with you with detailed discussion later as I am short of time. I will leave you with this, 2004-2009 is the weakest ERA in tennis. Sampras was long gone, Agassi was on his last legs.Safin had the talent to be great but never controlled his emotions.Hewitt was done .Roddick and Nadal were his main rivals even on grass.Nadal reached 5 straight finals on of wimbledon he played..He never sniffed finals for next decade, it is not due his injuries. Novak is GOAT , as he could win 3/4 in 2011 and keep his greatness by reaching all four slam finals in 2023. Roger won his first wimbledon when he was 22 and Novak won his first wimbledon when he was 24.Roger was good enough to win Wimbledon and Australian open back to back at even 36 in 2017-18 when Novak was recovering from his injuries and not at his best. Novak is GOAT as he could win not just Wimbledon but also other slams at 36 and reach finals in all four slams. Novak leads in everything , there is no debate on who GOAT is, everyone is aiming for second place.
Muloghonto Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 12 hours ago, putrevus said: I never base anything based on stats alone.What made you think I did not watch Edberg and Becker finals.I have also watched Roscoe tanner and Borg matches. Your really come up with useless stats , 80% of tennis age. A stat isnt useless when its a fact. 12 hours ago, putrevus said: You really need some tennis education. If weaker players are able to beat top players then tennis was 1970s and 80s would be greatest era in tennis. Not really, since tennis was less upset prone in the 70s than in the 80s and 90s. 12 hours ago, putrevus said: I will follow up with you with detailed discussion later as I am short of time. I will leave you with this, 2004-2009 is the weakest ERA in tennis. No. Thats illogical, as demonstrated above. 12 hours ago, putrevus said: Sampras was long gone, Agassi was on his last legs.Safin had the talent to be great but never controlled his emotions.Hewitt was done .Roddick and Nadal were his main rivals even on grass.Nadal reached 5 straight finals on of wimbledon he played..He never sniffed finals for next decade, it is not due his injuries. Which is still a greater era than post 2015 period of Djokovic and a bunch of nobodies. 12 hours ago, putrevus said: Novak is GOAT , as he could win 3/4 in 2011 and keep his greatness by reaching all four slam finals in 2023. Roger won his first wimbledon when he was 22 and Novak won his first wimbledon when he was 24.Roger was good enough to win Wimbledon and Australian open back to back at even 36 in 2017-18 when Novak was recovering from his injuries and not at his best. Novak is GOAT as he could win not just Wimbledon but also other slams at 36 and reach finals in all four slams. Novak leads in everything , there is no debate on who GOAT is, everyone is aiming for second place. As i said, you are not goat, if your two greatest rivals had a better h2h with you till they literally reached the average retirement age in tennis. Reaching all 4 slam finals at 36 means its weak era of nobodies. Else it'd happen more often. yes, Novak leads in everything stats-wise. Coz he was the fittest of them all and managed to stay relevant when his rivals and competition declined. Its called last man standing syndrome.
putrevus Posted October 19, 2024 Posted October 19, 2024 4 hours ago, Muloghonto said: A stat isnt useless when its a fact. Not really, since tennis was less upset prone in the 70s than in the 80s and 90s. No. Thats illogical, as demonstrated above. Which is still a greater era than post 2015 period of Djokovic and a bunch of nobodies. As i said, you are not goat, if your two greatest rivals had a better h2h with you till they literally reached the average retirement age in tennis. Reaching all 4 slam finals at 36 means its weak era of nobodies. Else it'd happen more often. yes, Novak leads in everything stats-wise. Coz he was the fittest of them all and managed to stay relevant when his rivals and competition declined. Its called last man standing syndrome. Try again
Muloghonto Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 On 10/16/2024 at 12:01 AM, Texan said: Djoker record is now safe for another 8-10 years at least On a side note, few things about Nadal - Good stuff: Nobody could have ever thought two decades ago that it was possible to win 14 Grand Slams at a single event. Nadal did it. It will never be repeated. I stand to be corrected but I don't think anybody will achieve this in the future. Was able to beat peak Federer in Fed's backyard (Wimbledon) one time. Best Grand Slam final conversion ratio indicating that when he reached a Grand Slam final, he used to level up. Not so good stuff: Nadal was always disrespectful to Djokovic despite Djokovic always being respectful to him. Contrast this to how he treated Federer. Never won the year end slam that pitted the top 8 players against each other in a different format. Makes you wonder if he was ever the "BEST" in any year, let alone GOAT debate Lost many times in early rounds in non Clay court tournaments as against Federer & Djokovic, who routinely made the last rounds. Makes you wonder if he had the game to always beat players of lower skill levels. I remember he lost two matches to Dustin Brown (including at Wimbledon), an unorthodox player, who played a very different game and primarily looked to entertain. Number of weeks as World number 1 is below Djoker, Fed, even Sampras, Lendl and Connors, which indicates he was not consistently the top player during his playing time. When was Nadal disrepectful of Djokovic ? This man LITERALLY is pretty much the only man ever on tour whos never ever broken a racket at court in anger. Not one. EVER!! If you mean he didnt treat Djok with as much reverence as Fed, well that is obvious - Nadal has said since he was like 19 that Fed is the target-setter, the benchmark, the gold standard that he measures himself against, being the older, more established player, with the better records for pretty much all their playing career together. So i am not surprised that Nadal treats Fed as a mini celebrity. But to say that he's rude to Djok, when Djok is like 1000 times worse in attitude than Nadal and literally when Nadal is the ultimate Buddha on court throughout his career, is taking it too far. Nadal not having year end championship + far less weeks at #1 is a factor of his injury. Near the end of the year, his extra-heavy load of clay court used to catch up to him post USO, where Nadal used to routinely play the most tourneys up to USO. This is because Nadal so much loved clay, that he used to routinely play the stupidest clay event ever - the hamburg open, that is like the last clay500 tourney and it happens AFTER wimbledon. Nadal for eg, played in only 11 ATP world tour finals despite qualifying for 18 of them. Meaning 7 times he qualified, he didnt even play,of which 3 times he ended up as world #1 or 2 anyways. Nadal's biggest flaw in terms of 'statistics' is that the man loved clay too much and played pretty much EVERY clay event he could, even when its detrimental to his game. For eg, very few top 10 ATP players play the clay swing of south america ( Rio & Buenos Aires) because they literally happen 'after Australian open but before Indian wells + florida, the first two masters of the year', all of which are hard court events. Nadal played those routinely. Very few top players play the quad events of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid and Rome, because they have zero gap weeks between them and its 4 straight weeks of tennis. Nadal almost ALWAYS played these 4 events in a row, while if you look closely, the likes of Federer, Djokovic, Stanimal, Murray, etc. ALWAYS played like 3 of 4 of these events max. Then Nadal also played reguarly at the abovementioned hamburg open, that literally happens after wimbledon and before the canadian masters+ cincy, that are prep for USO. Basically he overfocussed on clay at the detriment of better ranking and better prep for hard court, as if you switch to clay in middle of HC season or delay your HC prep by playing another meaningless clay event, your HC game will suffer.
Muloghonto Posted October 20, 2024 Posted October 20, 2024 7 hours ago, putrevus said: Try again Facts do not need to be tried again. What i said, are objective facts : your alleged GOAT didnt get a positive h2h with his two greatest rivals till they were literally past the retirement age of 90% of tennis players and a shadow of their former self. I dont tend to rate the one who gets best record by simply outlasting his rivals as the goat in any sport.
Recommended Posts