Federer, Nadal, and the question of GOATness in general...

[Murat B.]

Sorry to jump in the middle of the discussion but the correct answer is Federer. You can all go home now

 

[Horsa]

Sorry to jump in the middle of the discussion but the correct answer is Federer. You can all go home now

Is that the truth or just your opinion? If it's just your opinion what makes you think it's more valid than anyone else's & why do you have that opinion? In short why do you think the way you do about the matter in hand? If it's the truth, how do you know & can you prove it & how (not that I don't believe you)? Yes, Sir! Lol. :0)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I have never said that Rafa would otherwise have won that match. At most, I'm just challenging you on what we can presume on a bad back, and under what circumstances. I agree that there is no comparison, but with a different conclusion. Nadal was playing a final. He was 3 sets away from the title. Roger's back had him many sets and circumstances away from his goal. It's really not even equivalent. Plus, I will remind you of what our old friend Kieran said about that AO final: Nadal was down a set and a break. Roger was down a set and a break to Baghdatis at the AO a few years before. No reason to keep watching then, eh?

Baghdatis was unheard of when he reached AO final. But, Stan was steadily improving. He took Novak to 5 sets at AO one or two times before and finally managed to send Novak home and that too on his favorite slam. So, it is not a given that Rafa would have beat up on Stan, notwithstanding the H2H record between them. There is a first time for everything right. Also, that is why they play it out right.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Impossible to compare Nadal's AO 2014 loss in the final to Wawrinka with Federer's loss to Del Potro at last year's USO because Nadal's injury occurred only in the final whereas Federer entered the tournament with a bad back before it started and promptly went on to play like crap and go 5 sets with Tiafoe and Youzhny. Simply no comparison there.

Trust me you are incorrect..when you have a “known” injury you can alter your game somewhat but when your back spasm during warmups,,there’s no time to strategize for that occurrence.

Front..why do you say these things when you know either Moxie or myself will crucify you..LoL

 

[DarthFed]

I have never said that Rafa would otherwise have won that match. At most, I'm just challenging you on what we can presume on a bad back, and under what circumstances. I agree that there is no comparison, but with a different conclusion. Nadal was playing a final. He was 3 sets away from the title. Roger's back had him many sets and circumstances away from his goal. It's really not even equivalent. Plus, I will remind you of what our old friend Kieran said about that AO final: Nadal was down a set and a break. Roger was down a set and a break to Baghdatis at the AO a few years before. No reason to keep watching then, eh?

Kieran would say that every time it was mentioned that Nadal MAY have lost the match if his back didn't go out. He was clearly in the "Nadal would've definitely won" camp and it's clear you are too, you just won't come out and say it.

And clearly Baghs was no Stan and 2014 Rafa was a far cry from 2006 Roger at Australia or anywhere aside from his beloved shitty dirt.

 

[Federberg]

Trust me you are incorrect..when you have a “known” injury you can alter your game somewhat but when your back spasm during warmups,,there’s no time to strategize for that occurrence.

Front..why do you say these things when you know either Moxie or myself will crucify you..LoL

You do realise you're effectively agreeing with him don't you? :scratch:They aren't comparable

 

[Moxie]

Simple: I agree that Nadal hurting his back in a major final is a bigger, more tangible deal, and more unfortunate, but also agree with Federberg that bringing it up re: Federer at the US Open is false equivalency and a bit forced.

Apparently I made my point poorly, because most don't seem to get it. I'm not comparing Rafa losing in a final with a bad back to Roger coming into a tournament with a bad back. My complaint is with the way these circumstances get treated by fans. Nadal fans have been shut down for years for even suggesting that Rafa might otherwise have won that final, yet Federer fans feel perfectly free to whinge about what Roger might have done the whole rest of that year, had he not played that ill-fated Montreal, out of hubris for chasing #1.

Basically, my point is that Rafa fans can complain about the ones that got away, too.

 

[Murat B.]

Is that the truth or just your opinion? If it's just your opinion what makes you think it's more valid than anyone else's & why do you have that opinion? In short why do you think the way you do about the matter in hand? If it's the truth, how do you know & can you prove it & how (not that I don't believe you)? Yes, Sir! Lol. :0)

You believe me, that's all that matters

 

[Horsa]

You believe me, that's all that matters

:0) I believe you, thousands wouldn't. Lol.

 

[Moxie]

Kieran would say that every time it was mentioned that Nadal MAY have lost the match if his back didn't go out. He was clearly in the "Nadal would've definitely won" camp and it's clear you are too, you just won't come out and say it.

And clearly Baghs was no Stan and 2014 Rafa was a far cry from 2006 Roger at Australia or anywhere aside from his beloved shitty dirt.

I changed my earlier post to reflect my real feelings. I hope you don't think that what I said was a Freudian slip, or that my changing it was dastardly. It was careless, only. I honestly don't think anyone can say that a match would have different but for whatever, definitively. (Except Nishikori v. Nadal at Madrid in '14, I think it was. I do think Kei would have won it.) My argument is not who would have won that match, but that Fed fans feel completely free to complain about matches that Roger lost, as, "unforgivable," (I think you've used,) while not allowing for matches that Rafa might well have won and his fans could regret.

 

[Ricardo]

Apparently I made my point poorly, because most don't seem to get it. I'm not comparing Rafa losing in a final with a bad back to Roger coming into a tournament with a bad back. My complaint is with the way these circumstances get treated by fans. Nadal fans have been shut down for years for even suggesting that Rafa might otherwise have won that final, yet Federer fans feel perfectly free to whinge about what Roger might have done the whole rest of that year, had he not played that ill-fated Montreal, out of hubris for chasing #1.

Basically, my point is that Rafa fans can complain about the ones that got away, too.

Yes but much much less. Name me matches where Rafa was up match points and ended up losing...not many if at all, while Federer has done it so many times that one could question his mental state if he wasn’t so accomplished. There are not many that got away for Rafa.

 

[monfed]

so much discussion over something that can be just seen LOL

 

[DarthFed]

Apparently I made my point poorly, because most don't seem to get it. I'm not comparing Rafa losing in a final with a bad back to Roger coming into a tournament with a bad back. My complaint is with the way these circumstances get treated by fans. Nadal fans have been shut down for years for even suggesting that Rafa might otherwise have won that final, yet Federer fans feel perfectly free to whinge about what Roger might have done the whole rest of that year, had he not played that ill-fated Montreal, out of hubris for chasing #1.

Basically, my point is that Rafa fans can complain about the ones that got away, too.

I think it's separated a bit, our complaints last year are more akin to Rafa fans complaining about his schedule over the years. For Roger I'd say Montreal last year was the one totally idiotic decision he's made with his schedule. I mean he was gunning hard for #1 despite having no points to defend the rest of the year and knowing in his sleep he could and would outplay Rafa in the Fall. And the last major was two weeks away. His goal was to win Montreal and immediately go to Cincy and win that. Even if he had done that and not hurt himself I think it'd have been a negative for his chances at USO.

So part of it is that it was simply out of character for Roger and that's why you see us mention it quite a bit. All I say about USO is that Roger would've been the clear favorite if Montreal didn't happen. And aside from really, really biased Nadal fans I'd say that assertion is reasonable. That's not the same as saying he definitely wins of course.

 

[Horsa]

so much discussion over something that can be just seen LOL

People talk about what they want to talk about. I could talk all in rhyme, rhyming slang, French or Spanish if I wanted to a certain extent anyway. Here we are free to do what we like & say what we want (within reason). What would you rather have us talk about?

 

[monfed]

People talk about what they want to talk about. I could talk all in rhyme, rhyming slang, French or Spanish if I wanted to a certain extent anyway. Here we are free to do what we like & say what we want (within reason). What would you rather have us talk about?

How about less obvious things

 

[Busted]

so much discussion over something that can be just seen LOL

Well, CLEARLY and INDISPUTABLY Roger is the GOAT. It's just that those pesky Nadal fans still cling to the belief that it could ever, on planet earth, off clay, be Nadal. Hence the infinite discussion. We gave them clay...and yet they want the whole enchilada (pun not intended)...with extra cheese and extra sauce...

 

[Horsa]

How about less obvious things

What is obvious to some people isn't obvious to others. I know you'll probably say it's common sense or common knowledge. Define common sense or common knowledge. I've got a question for you. Is common sense or common knowledge really common? Is it universal or does common sense or common knowledge differ according to where you're from, where you live, where you were educated & trained & sometimes age? How does common sense or common knowledge change according to place of upbringing & education, place you live & age? Everyone sees things differently. How can anyone say something is common sense or common knowledge? We all see the world through our own eyes & make sense of the world through what's going on inside our own heads, what we see of the world & what we've been taught. What if some of this isn't right?

 

[monfed]

What is obvious to some people isn't obvious to others. I know you'll probably say it's common sense or common knowledge. Define common sense or common knowledge. I've got a question for you. Is common sense or common knowledge really common? Is it universal or does common sense or common knowledge differ according to where you're from, where you live, where you were educated & trained & sometimes age? How does common sense or common knowledge change according to place of upbringing & education, place you live & age? Everyone sees things differently. How can anyone say something is common sense or common knowledge? We all see the world through our own eyes & make sense of the world through what's going on inside our own heads, what we see of the world & what we've been taught. What if some of this isn't right?

you have too much time on your hands

 

[Horsa]

you have too much time on your hands

I don't. I write poetry, fairy-tales, short stories & books. I sing. I read poetry, classic books & books about history, horses & other animals as well as other things. I sew pictures & jam jar lids. I make table mats & paint them. I paint pictures, fences, walls & white china owl soap dispensers & white china ornaments. I cook, bake & make jam & do lots of other things. How do I make time to do all these things you may ask. Simple. I don't watch much T.V. Besides it's not really any of your business what I do & it's you who has too much time on your hands with some of the comments you make. You were more-or-less judging everyone because of what they spoke about. That's why I asked what you wanted everyone to talk about. You were still judging others. That's why I said what I said & asked questions.

 

[Moxie]

Well, CLEARLY and INDISPUTABLY Roger is the GOAT. It's just that those pesky Nadal fans still cling to the belief that it could ever, on planet earth, off clay, be Nadal. Hence the infinite discussion. We gave them clay...and yet they want the whole enchilada (pun not intended)...with extra cheese and extra sauce...

I'm afraid to ask why enchilada is a pun.