Roger should send Novak flowers

[DarthFed]

Front's point was obvious and I'm surprised you guys missed it; Nadal owns Federer but against the REST of the field Federer has been way superior throughout his career. If he hadn't been then why in the world would he still have more majors than Rafa? Remember Roger only had 4 majors when Rafa won his first. So despite Roger being a bye for Rafa at slams they will have won 13 and 14 majors respectively since RG 05 after today. It wasn't until 2010 that Rafa was truly better against the REST of the field. Needless to say if Rafa equals or surpasses Roger's total then it doesn't matter in the end. But the above point has long been relevant for those Rafa fans who would say he is greater than someone who, up until recently, had a lot more slams than he did. They'd act like tennis was one matchup and would ignore everything else.

As for Moxie reading Latin, I can't lay it out any easier than that. It's not my fault you can't comprehend something that's relatively easy to follow. My guess is you don't like what you read.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Front's point was obvious and I'm surprised you guys missed it; Nadal owns Federer but against the REST of the field Federer has been way superior throughout his career. If he hadn't been then why in the world would he still have more majors than Rafa?

Because he started winning majors before Nadal broke through. Rafa's first major was the FO 2005. At that time, Federer had already bagged 4 (which is exactly the difference between them as off today).

Since pretty much 2008, Nadal has been superior against the field. Before that, it was Federer. Federer did better against the guys of his generation, Rafa did better against the guys of his generation. Which highlights perfectly the disparity in their age. Nadal used to lose his fair share to Blake, Nalbandian, Davydenko, and other guys of Roger's generation before he (meaning Nadal) peaked. While Roger lost his fair share to Del Potro, Murray and Djokovic...guys of Rafa's generation since he had slowly started exiting his peak.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

 

[DarthFed]

Front's point was obvious and I'm surprised you guys missed it; Nadal owns Federer but against the REST of the field Federer has been way superior throughout his career. If he hadn't been then why in the world would he still have more majors than Rafa?

Because he started winning majors before Nadal broke through. Rafa's first major was the FO 2005. At that time, Federer had already bagged 4 (which is exactly the difference between them as off today).

Since pretty much 2008, Nadal has been superior against the field. Before that, it was Federer. Federer did better against the guys of his generation, Rafa did better against the guys of his generation. Which highlights perfectly the disparity in their age. Nadal used to lose his fair share to Blake, Nalbandian, Davydenko, and other guys of Roger's generation before he (meaning Nadal) peaked. While Roger lost his fair share to Del Potro, Murray and Djokovic...guys of Rafa's generation since he had slowly started exiting his peak.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Yes they have the same number of slams despite the fact that Federer loses every single time to Rafa. With due respect it is like you and Moxie are trying hard not to see the obvious here. And it was actually 2010 when Rafa became better vs. "the others" In 2008 and 2009 he lost to Tsonga, Murray, Sod and DP all before the final while Roger lost to Djokovic and DP only.

 

[huntingyou]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

 

[huntingyou]

Tennis legend Pete Sampras described Rafael Nadal as "incredible" after watching the world number one live for the first time at the Australian Open. Nadal, 27, faces Stanislas Wawrinka in Sunday's final, and a win will see him equal Sampras's 14 Grand Slam titles. "I think he's incredible," Sampras told BBC Sport. "I saw him play live for the first time on Friday night and the movement he has is incredible." "He's able to adjust his shots on the run. I've never seen anything like it."

"To see him play - he hits a very heavy ball, serves pretty well, he does everything," said the seven-time Wimbledon champion, who will present the trophy to the winner on Sunday, 20 years on from the first of his two Australian victories. "He's mentally tough - he has the whole package." And Sampras is in little doubt that Nadal, who will go for a ninth French Open title in June, has many more Grand Slam titles in him. "He's not looking at 14, he's looking beyond," said Sampras. Nadal is looking to equal Pete Sampras' 14 Grand Slam titles with victory in Sunday's final "Realistically, he could very well get 17, 18 majors when it's all said and done. He's a credit to the sport. I'm a fan."



Now he is fan?

 

[DarthFed]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

The wins all count the same. It should be said that Nole was only awesome for 1 year too. Other than that he is no more than Murray. He is great at AO and nowhere else.

But none of what you said diffuses the point I made, Roger for his career is way better vs. the field than Rafa. But the fact that he is a walk in the park for Rafa is what will make his career 2nd rate in the end.

 

[Riotbeard]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

Except for that it is all relative. I honestly will probably never view Rafa as the greatest, even if he becomes the most accomplished in slams.

But yes rafa does do better against other big boys. Although, Fed was dominant against his generation, just not those those who supplanted him. Part of that is his mind/nature, part of it is he stuck around into dotage, even though OAP Fed is obviously still very good.

 

[Riotbeard]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

Except for that it is all relative. I honestly will probably never view Rafa as the greatest, even if he becomes the most accomplished in slams.

But yes rafa does do better against other big boys. Although, Fed was dominant against his generation, just not those those who supplanted him. Part of that is his mind/nature, part of it is he stuck around into dotage, even though OAP Fed is obviously still very good.

You also post the Sampras quotes, as if there was a lot ambiguity over whether Rafa was one of the greats?!

 

[huntingyou]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

The wins all count the same. It should be said that Nole was only awesome for 1 year too. Other than that he is no more than Murray. He is great at AO and nowhere else.

But none of what you said diffuses the point I made, Roger for his career is way better vs. the field than Rafa. But the fact that he is a walk in the park for Rafa is what will make his career 2nd rate in the end.

The wins are NOT the same because this little thing called history keeps track of who beat who at what stage. We know Nadal won SW19 against reining champ Federer in 2008 and his second crown was against Berdych which it's hardly a feat.

Your take on player's greatness and level it's insane, there only can be one winner. The is no Novak was "awesome" for a year mantra.

If it wasn't for Rafa then Novak would have been awesome too in 2012 and 2013 but because he lost virtually three Slam finals against him makes his just good according to your logic.

You only argue against yourself and at this point and most people see your argument as delusional. Your expectations for these humans in a sports where only can be one winner it's illogical.

Rafa will be remember as the player who dominate the second greatest player in history in Roger and had amazing battles back and forward with a top 10 (perhaps top 5 when he finishes) in Novak.

Who you beat is EVERYTHING in tennis!

 

[huntingyou]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

Except for that it is all relative. I honestly will probably never view Rafa as the greatest, even if he becomes the most accomplished in slams.

But yes rafa does do better against other big boys. Although, Fed was dominant against his generation, just not those those who supplanted him. Part of that is his mind/nature, part of it is he stuck around into dotage, even though OAP Fed is obviously still very good.

it's not relative and it really it doesn't matter if you in particular doesn't see Rafa as the best. Rafa has an opportunity to be the most accomplish player in tennis...not just slams.

BTW, Roger is part of Rafa's generation........I mean he has played 33 times against the guy and their first match was soon after Roger got his #1 for the first time.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

The wins all count the same. It should be said that Nole was only awesome for 1 year too. Other than that he is no more than Murray. He is great at AO and nowhere else.

But none of what you said diffuses the point I made, Roger for his career is way better vs. the field than Rafa. But the fact that he is a walk in the park for Rafa is what will make his career 2nd rate in the end.

The wins are NOT the same because this little thing called history keeps track of who beat who at what stage. We know Nadal won SW19 against reining champ Federer in 2008 and his second crown was against Berdych which it's hardly a feat.

Your take on player's greatness and level it's insane, there only can be one winner. The is no Novak was "awesome" for a year mantra.

If it wasn't for Rafa then Novak would have been awesome too in 2012 and 2013 but because he lost virtually three Slam finals against him makes his just good according to your logic.

You only argue against yourself and at this point and most people see your argument as delusional. Your expectations for these humans in a sports where only can be one winner it's illogical.

Rafa will be remember as the player who dominate the second greatest player in history in Roger and had amazing battles back and forward with a top 10 (perhaps top 5 when he finishes) in Novak.

Who you beat is EVERYTHING in tennis!

No, your argument is delusional and always has been. Basically you want to assign some magical point value for wins depending on the player they beat. It is not who you beat that is important it is WINNING that is everything. Competition, above everything else, is about proving yourself superior. There IS only one great player at the end of every tourney, and it ain't the guy holding the dinner plate. All they get is a lot of money that they don't even need.

Nole has one year with 3 slam wins and just 3 slams outside of that, dude just lost to Wawrinka too. He is a great player but you are putting him way higher than he currently deserves. Let him become something more than a 3rd tier great (like his coach) first.

 

[huntingyou]

No, your argument is delusional and always has been. Basically you want to assign some magical point value for wins depending on the player they beat. It is not who you beat that is important it is WINNING that is everything. Competition, above everything else, is about proving yourself superior. There IS only one great player at the end of every tourney, and it ain't the guy holding the dinner plate. All they get is a lot of money that they don't even need.

Nole has one year with 3 slam wins and just 3 slams outside of that, dude just lost to Wawrinka too. He is a great player but you are putting him way higher than he currently deserves. Let him become something more than a 3rd tier great (like his coach) first.

there is no magical points assigned.....it is what it is.

Reality doesn't suit your narrative. I could care less that Novak lost to Stan...it doesn't erase he achievements nor the fact he plays incredible tennis and it's hard as nail to beat.

If you were right, people would have care more about Emerson than Laver. We all know the narrative about Pete Sampras, he had Agassi as a rival and came out on top.

Whatever, you are in the minority here and I don't mean this board but the tennis world.

 

[Front242]

All this talk is so premature as neither has retired yet so we've no idea who finishes with the most slams. I like how Nadal fans all assume Fed won't win another one but he may yet and then extends his lead again.

 

[huntingyou]

All this talk is so premature as neither has retired yet so we've no idea who finishes with the most slams. I like how Nadal fans all assume Fed won't win another one but he may yet and then extends his lead again.

I gave Roger 18 Slams at the end of 2007.

He has one in him

Rafa? I don't know......it's matter of health which it's very hard to predict. He might lose tomorrow so I don't take anything to the bank, but he does have an opportunity to buried the debate once and for all in the coming years.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

The wins all count the same. It should be said that Nole was only awesome for 1 year too. Other than that he is no more than Murray. He is great at AO and nowhere else.

But none of what you said diffuses the point I made, Roger for his career is way better vs. the field than Rafa. But the fact that he is a walk in the park for Rafa is what will make his career 2nd rate in the end.

OK I conducted some research:

In his entire career, Nadal has lost 21 times to players not named Federer in slams.

Now, Nadal turned pro in 2003, so it's unfair to look at Roger's losses before that year since he's been on the tour for longer. So I'll only count Roger's losses since 2003.

And what do you know, since 2003, Roger has lost 19 times to people not named Nadal.

That's a difference of....TWO, yes two losses only.

So, in other words, he's hardly been WAY better against the field.

There, now that we have facts in the way, is this debate put to bed?

PS: I'll gladly name the losses by the way. And if someone wants to double check, be my guest.

PPS: Nadal's losses would have been even less if I didn't count his pre Roland Garros 2005 losses, which is when he broke out. So yeah, he might even have done BETTER against the field since 2005.

 

[Front242]

All this talk is so premature as neither has retired yet so we've no idea who finishes with the most slams. I like how Nadal fans all assume Fed won't win another one but he may yet and then extends his lead again.

I gave Roger 18 Slams at the end of 2007.

He has one in him

Rafa? I don't know......it's matter of health which it's very hard to predict. He might lose tomorrow so I don't take anything to the bank, but he does have an opportunity to buried the debate once and for all in the coming years.

For sure there's more chance in Nadal surpassing Fed at this stage than Fed winning another 1 but anything can happen in sports so I'll take a wait and see approach is all I'm saying. I don't think anyone had predicted the way the women's draw was going to open up here as it did last year. And that's all Fed needs at any slam. Nadal to lose early. He can still beat the others and if Nadal was out early I'm sure he'd focus 100% to capitalize.

 

[DarthFed]

No, your argument is delusional and always has been. Basically you want to assign some magical point value for wins depending on the player they beat. It is not who you beat that is important it is WINNING that is everything. Competition, above everything else, is about proving yourself superior. There IS only one great player at the end of every tourney, and it ain't the guy holding the dinner plate. All they get is a lot of money that they don't even need.

Nole has one year with 3 slam wins and just 3 slams outside of that, dude just lost to Wawrinka too. He is a great player but you are putting him way higher than he currently deserves. Let him become something more than a 3rd tier great (like his coach) first.

there is no magical points assigned.....it is what it is.

Reality doesn't suit your narrative. I could care less that Novak lost to Stan...it doesn't erase he achievements nor the fact he plays incredible tennis and it's hard as nail to beat.

If you were right, people would have care more about Emerson than Laver. We all know the narrative about Pete Sampras, he had Agassi as a rival and came out on top.

Whatever, you are in the minority here and I don't mean this board but the tennis world.

Sampras and Agassi is not anything close to a debate as H2H and 6 slam difference shows. Laver also played during the Open Era (very beginning but still) and also has the greatest single achievement in the sport. This is why he is still talked of so highly.

Nole is a great player but you are waaayy overstating him. His achievements right now do not warrant anything close to top 5 talk and he hasn't been tough to beat since 2011, 2 of the last 9 slams he has won. Same amount as Murray over that span.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK so since 2005 (including the Australian Open, before he actually won RG), Nadal has lost 17 times to players not named Federer. Federer has lost 19 times to players not named Nadal.

Please, let's argue some more about how well Nadal has done against the field, and how Moxie and I are trying hard not to see the truth.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

The wins all count the same. It should be said that Nole was only awesome for 1 year too. Other than that he is no more than Murray. He is great at AO and nowhere else.

But none of what you said diffuses the point I made, Roger for his career is way better vs. the field than Rafa. But the fact that he is a walk in the park for Rafa is what will make his career 2nd rate in the end.

OK I conducted some research:

In his entire career, Nadal has lost 21 times to players not named Federer in slams.

Now, Nadal turned pro in 2003, so it's unfair to look at Roger's losses before that year since he's been on the tour for longer. So I'll only count Roger's losses since 2003.

And what do you know, since 2003, Roger has lost 19 times to people not named Nadal.

That's a difference of....TWO, yes two losses only.

So, in other words, he's hardly been WAY better against the field.

There, now that we have facts in the way, is this debate put to bed?

PS: I'll gladly name the losses by the way. And if someone wants to double check, be my guest.

PPS: Nadal's losses would have been even less if I didn't count his pre Roland Garros 2005 losses, which is when he broke out. So yeah, he might even have done BETTER against the field since 2005.

And you are already leaving out a big factor: how many slams did Rafa not play in? I know of at least 5, RG 04, AO 06, Wimby 09, USO 12 and AO 13. Debate put to bed indeed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Some Federer fans are still stuck in the same arguments that were valid 4 years ago. Yeah, it was true then, it's different now. Time to update.

In other words: No more "his record is padded with clay wins." No more "Nadal's slam count is very unbalanced" (if he wins tomorrow, it would mark his 6th non clay slam. While he has 9 on clay. Hardly a huge discrepancy), no more "he hasn't done as well against the field." Please. I'm not saying there are no arguments in favor of Fed (for instance, he HAS been more dominant. 4 consecutive years as world number 1 is ridiculous), but some of the other arguments are out of date.

EDIT: Correction, he has 8 clay slams.