What do you prefer: Nole Slam or Nadal's 7th RG? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What do you prefer: Nole Slam or Nadal's 7th RG?

Pages : [1] 2

Roger the Dodger
05-31-2012, 06:11 PM
As a neutral fan of the game, and since I actively support neither Nadal nor Nole, I am interested to get a popular opinion about what MTF has to say about it?


With the Nole Slam, he'll be the first male in the open era to get 4 in a row and become genuine GOAT candidate.

With Nadal getting his 7th title here, he will equal Borg in total number of titles, and become the undisputed ClayGOAT.

What would you prefer?

TigerTim
05-31-2012, 06:12 PM
Nole Slam would be more impressive imo, Nadal will no doubt get the 7th and probably 8th in the coming years.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 06:12 PM
Novak Slam. He'll hold the set, but only for 3 weeks. The career slam achievement has already been cheapened by Nadal winning it.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 06:13 PM
Nadal 7th slam. Novak is not allround enought to deserve a Nole slam.

misty1
05-31-2012, 06:13 PM
neither one. I'd love to see someone win their first slam but even if roger wins this one i'd be happier with that outcome than either one of the 2 options

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 06:15 PM
Nadal 7th slam. Novak is not allround enought to deserve a Nole slam.

And Nadal is? :confused:

Mark Lenders
05-31-2012, 06:16 PM
None of these are my preferred outcome.

However, if I had to choose, I'd rather see the Nole Slam because (a) I like Djokovic far more than Nadal and (b) I believe he deserves to be the first man since Rod Laver to hold all four Slams (and I'd really like to see someone do it in my lifetime, so why not a player I actually like?)

Allez
05-31-2012, 06:17 PM
If Rafa won as it would once and for all deal a fatal blow to all doubts about who the greatest player on this surface is :bounce: This is my preferred outcome but I'd also be happy with a Nole Slam just so I can say I witnessed it :yeah:

Telegram Sam
05-31-2012, 06:19 PM
With Nadal getting his 7th title here, he will equal Borg in total number of titles, and become the undisputed ClayGOAT.

And he's... disputed ClayGOAT?

:rolleyes:

Fireballer
05-31-2012, 06:21 PM
Novak Slam. He'll hold the set, but only for 3 weeks. The career slam achievement has already been cheapened by Nadal winning it.

and how do you know he wont win Wimbledon again?

Allez
05-31-2012, 06:23 PM
And he's... disputed ClayGOAT?

:rolleyes:

It's silly I know, but some people like to say Borg > Nadal. Don't know why :shrug:

Paylu2007
05-31-2012, 06:24 PM
I rather marry a woman :D

You can call Tennis' time of death when either of this scenarios happen.

sexybeast
05-31-2012, 06:24 PM
And Nadal is? :confused:

Not really. But Nadal hasnt won a Nadal slam (only career slam). However, Nadal is great enought on clay to deserve to have the RG record.

Roger the Dodger
05-31-2012, 06:28 PM
And he's... disputed ClayGOAT?

:rolleyes:

Borg has 6. Nadal has 6. :shrug:

ServeVolley
05-31-2012, 06:29 PM
Roger's double career slam. ;)

Paylu2007
05-31-2012, 06:32 PM
Roger's double career slam. ;)

..and I'm gay again! bring it on!! :D

GSMnadal
05-31-2012, 06:32 PM
Borg has 6. Nadal has 6. :shrug:

Nadal has 8 MC titles, 7 Barcelona, 6 Rome titles. How many does Borg have? Who has the higher clay winning %? Who has the longest clay streak of 81 straight?

Frankly, tell me something Borg has that Nadal doesn't on clay.

Macbrother
05-31-2012, 06:32 PM
Are you asking which outcome we'd like to see happen personally? Or which do we think is most impressive?

Don't really have a dog in the fight for the former -- as for the latter, we'll, they're kinda equally impressive in different ways. One shows incredible longevity and greatness on a surface, but the other shows something equally important -- highest level of consistent peak play. The fact that only two people have achieved either feat in the open era says enough, really.

Fireballer
05-31-2012, 06:33 PM
why the fuck would you give that 3rd option?Are you retarded.Now rabid Fedtards like you are gonna vote for that one and we wont know the answer to your question.Some people here are dumb as a rock

Chirag
05-31-2012, 06:33 PM
Nole slam without a question :shrug:

TigerTim
05-31-2012, 06:34 PM
Nadal has 8 MC titles, 7 Barcelona, 6 Rome titles. How many does Borg have? Who has the higher clay winning %? Who has the longest clay streak of 81 straight?

Frankly, tell me something Borg has that Nadal doesn't on clay.

a win with a wooden racket :nerner:

Nole Rules
05-31-2012, 06:36 PM
why the fuck would you give that 3rd option?Are you retarded.Now rabid Fedtards like you are gonna vote for that one and we wont know the answer to your question.Some people here are dumb as a rock

I was going to say the same thing. The 3rd option made this poll a bit pointless.

guga2120
05-31-2012, 06:38 PM
Its a bigger deal if Novak wins historically. IF he does win then wimbledon too, the goat debate will start changing.

Rafa is already past Borg.

tektonac
05-31-2012, 06:40 PM
why the fuck would you give that 3rd option?Are you retarded.Now rabid Fedtards like you are gonna vote for that one and we wont know the answer to your question.Some people here are dumb as a rock

that's the option for haters and roger fans obviously.

GSMnadal
05-31-2012, 06:42 PM
a win with a wooden racket :nerner:

:bowdown: Case closer :bowdown:

Telegram Sam
05-31-2012, 06:42 PM
Borg has 6. Nadal has 6. :shrug:

This:

Nadal has 8 MC titles, 7 Barcelona, 6 Rome titles. How many does Borg have? Who has the higher clay winning %? Who has the longest clay streak of 81 straight?

Frankly, tell me something Borg has that Nadal doesn't on clay.

And this:

Borg (49-2) won 6 FO titles in 8 attempts. Nadal (47-1) won 6 in 7 attempts.

Nadal defeated world number one in 4 of those 6 wins.

Borg lost both times to Panatta. Nadal proved he's better than his executor. Twice.

Borg has 30 clay titles. Nadal 35.

BauerAlmeida
05-31-2012, 06:42 PM
Nole Slam.

paseo
05-31-2012, 06:43 PM
why the fuck would you give that 3rd option?Are you retarded.Now rabid Fedtards like you are gonna vote for that one and we wont know the answer to your question.Some people here are dumb as a rock

I was going to say the same thing. The 3rd option made this poll a bit pointless.

Yeah. If he gave a 3rd choice of "Neither", he should also gave a 4th which is "Both". Cause I really want to vote for both, as I love both of them equally. Inconsiderate prick, this OP.

Commander Data
05-31-2012, 06:46 PM
The term GAOT is thrown around far too easy. Nole could maybe be considered a top 10 player of all time, certainly not GOAT candidate with the NoleSlam. It becomes easier and easier to win all slams and therefore less impressive. the records show it clearly.

dencod16
05-31-2012, 06:46 PM
Neither, i want an outsider to win neither of the top 3, maybe a Ferrer or Berdych. It's free to dream, so that's what i'll do.

jojoh07
05-31-2012, 06:47 PM
why the fuck would you give that 3rd option?Are you retarded.Now rabid Fedtards like you are gonna vote for that one and we wont know the answer to your question.Some people here are dumb as a rock

relax sister

maybe you should find a new site

70-68
05-31-2012, 06:51 PM
why the fuck would you give that 3rd option?Are you retarded.Now rabid Fedtards like you are gonna vote for that one and we wont know the answer to your question.Some people here are dumb as a rock

Yep. Berdych/Ferrer/Tsonga/etc fans who want to see their players win their first slam, those people are indeed dumb.

Jamoz
05-31-2012, 06:54 PM
New winner thank you. Enough for these same men winning everything year after year...

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 06:54 PM
If it was realistic then any of Murray, Berdych, Tsonga winning the title would be the best outcome. But none of those are.

Fireballer
05-31-2012, 06:54 PM
The term GAOT is thrown around far too easy. Nole could maybe be considered a top 10 player of all time, certainly not GOAT candidate with the NoleSlam. It becomes easier and easier to win all slams and therefore less impressive. the records show it clearly.

no it's not.They are winning all 4 because they are that good.Why isnt Murray winning all 4 if it's that easy?But when Fed won it in 2009 then it was greatness and skill even though he beat fucking Soderling in the final.You Fedtards are pathetic

Fireballer
05-31-2012, 06:55 PM
Yep. Berdych/Ferrer/Tsonga/etc fans who want to see their players win their first slam, those people are indeed dumb.

they are dumb but that's not the point.OP asked which one you prefer of those two options.Then give us only 2 options to vote on

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 06:57 PM
no it's not.They are winning all 4 because they are that good.Why isnt Murray winning all 4 if it's that easy?But when Fed won it in 2009 then it was greatness and skill even though he beat fucking Soderling in the final.You Fedtards are pathetic

Because the surfaces are very similar in speed nowadays.

Fed's benefitted from sped up clay.

Roger the Dodger
05-31-2012, 06:58 PM
Nadal has 8 MC titles, 7 Barcelona, 6 Rome titles. How many does Borg have? Who has the higher clay winning %? Who has the longest clay streak of 81 straight?

Frankly, tell me something Borg has that Nadal doesn't on clay.

This is what Borg had in his heydays:

1. Tougher draws
2. Transparent tournament organizers (when tennis was not sold out to TV audiences)
3. No technology support for superior top-spin.
4. No superior technology in shoes to help footwork.
5. Opponents who actually made the word "match up" meaningful and therefore surface differences helped.
6. Mastery over different surfaces: Psychological advantage over one opponent on one surface did not lead to similar advantage over another surface because surfaces were not homogenized.
7. More heart, less hype.
8. More skill.

If there were no technology, there might not have been any "Nadal-Goat" argument.

Fireballer
05-31-2012, 07:02 PM
Because the surfaces are very similar in speed nowadays.

Fed's benefitted from sped up clay.

who cares man?The bounce is not the same.People talk like it's the same surface everywhere yet you dont see Nadal winning AO year after year like he does RG.That's bull excuse

Allez
05-31-2012, 07:02 PM
This is what Borg had in his heydays:

1. Tougher draws
2. Transparent tournament organizers (when tennis was not sold out to TV audiences)
3. No technology support for superior top-spin.
4. No superior technology in shoes to help footwork.
5. Opponents who actually made the word "match up" meaningful and therefore surface differences helped.
6. Mastery over different surfaces: Psychological advantage over one opponent on one surface did not lead to similar advantage over another surface because surfaces were not homogenized.
7. More heart, less hype.
8. More skill.

If there were no technology, there might not have been any "Nadal-Goat" argument.

It was the same conditions for everyone :shrug:

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 07:05 PM
who cares man?The bounce is not the same.People talk like it's the same surface everywhere yet you dont see Nadal winning AO year after year like he does RG.That's bull excuse

Since the beginning of 08- 3 RG 2 W 2 hardcourt GS.

Fireballer
05-31-2012, 07:07 PM
Since the beginning of 08- 3 RG 2 W 2 hardcourt GS.

and?He was always great on grass?Once Fed started declining on grass he beat him there and he was at his peak in 2008.He got better over time on hardcourts and even though that US Open in 2010 was a joke with his draw he deserved it

peribsen
05-31-2012, 07:13 PM
And Nadal is? :confused:

On clay? Most certainly.

Roger the Dodger
05-31-2012, 07:14 PM
It was the same conditions for everyone :shrug:

You are right, man but since comparisons are always made to Borg, it is valid to bring up the conditions during Borg's heydays. Borg was always more skill-dependent, unsupported by technology and didn't do well outside natural surfaces. Nadal on the other hand is what he is because of technology - you can again use that fillip and say the conditions are the same, but Nadal, being more physical benefits through technology. His skill levels are Goat level??? Debatable.

rocketassist
05-31-2012, 07:15 PM
and?He was always great on grass?Once Fed started declining on grass he beat him there and he was at his peak in 2008.He got better over time on hardcourts and even though that US Open in 2010 was a joke with his draw he deserved it

It points to a similarity in court speeds and surfaces. Even Federer admits it's helped him, how can you not agree it's true?

Nole Rules
05-31-2012, 07:19 PM
This poll is just a comparison of the number of Novak fans, Nadal fans, and Fedtards that clicked on this thread.

Exactly. Mug poll.

Federer in 2
05-31-2012, 07:20 PM
I'd prefer the not needed proof that Roger is the GOAT.

Telegram Sam
05-31-2012, 07:21 PM
This is what Borg had in his heydays:

1. Tougher draws

Prove it. Nadal constantly has to go through multiple Slam winners, all-time record holder included.

2. Transparent tournament organizers (when tennis was not sold out to TV audiences)

Perhaps that made it easier for him? It works both ways really.

3. No technology support for superior top-spin.

Precisely like for 100% of his opponents.

4. No superior technology in shoes to help footwork.

Precisely like for 100% of his opponents.

5. Opponents who actually made the word "match up" meaningful and therefore surface differences helped.

And today all play the same? :rolleyes:

6. Mastery over different surfaces: Psychological advantage over one opponent on one surface did not lead to similar advantage over another surface because surfaces were not homogenized.

Excuse me, we were talking about the best clay courter.

7. More heart, less hype.

You missed Madrid SF 2009 and Rome F 2005&2006, among others.

8. More skill.

And lesser results.



If there were no technology, there might not have been any "Nadal-Goat" argument.

If there were no tennis balls, there might not have been tennis. :rolleyes:



Now give us one objective argument why Nadal isn't the best clay court player of all time. You tried 8 times now, and you failed just as many.

dencod16
05-31-2012, 07:22 PM
It was the same conditions for everyone :shrug:

Exactly his points. He is saying thats it harder to dominate before than today, as there was no technological help. Nowadays you get the help of technology to produce more pace or to absorb the pace of shot. Also there was more of adjustment of game before than today as surfaces have very significant difference on speed. You cannot compare the person that started this style of play to the one that emulated it or made his game around it. Borg started Nadal's play and today style of play, so stop comparing. Borg basically invented top spin as a normal ground stroke.

Fireballer
05-31-2012, 07:27 PM
It points to a similarity in court speeds and surfaces. Even Federer admits it's helped him, how can you not agree it's true?

it helps it's not THE factor or THE reason Djoker and Nadal and Fed are winning all over

Nole fan
05-31-2012, 07:30 PM
Its a bigger deal if Novak wins historically. IF he does win then wimbledon too, the goat debate will start changing.

Rafa is already past Borg.

I agree with this.
Rafa is already the undisputed clay's GOAT. :shrug:
But if Nole achieved the Nole Slam defeating Nadal in his best surface ever... man, that would be something. :cool:

peribsen
05-31-2012, 07:35 PM
This is what Borg had in his heydays:

1. Tougher draws
2. Transparent tournament organizers (when tennis was not sold out to TV audiences)
3. No technology support for superior top-spin.
4. No superior technology in shoes to help footwork.
5. Opponents who actually made the word "match up" meaningful and therefore surface differences helped.
6. Mastery over different surfaces: Psychological advantage over one opponent on one surface did not lead to similar advantage over another surface because surfaces were not homogenized.
7. More heart, less hype.
8. More skill.


And 3 set matches on the first two rounds. Funny, how some people will go on for ages bitching about how 3-setters have spoiled the MS1000, but conveniently forget that slams weren't always played out for 5 sets on every single of the 7 rounds... (let's not even mention the bye's they had in the 60s, lest someone think I'm putting asterisks on some of Laver's slams...)

If there were no technology, there might not have been any "Nadal-Goat" argument.

Nobody has the option to play outside his own generation, has one? New technology is out there for the benefit of everyone to use (and they all do). Plus, it wasn't developed for Rafa, any more than the demise of carpet or the tendency to slow things down were put in motion by Nadal, they were all trends that started well before he arrived on the scene. Every player deserves to be valued in comparison to his peers, not to how things may have been had he been born 2 decades earlier or later (those comparisons are always foolish, since they always fail to consider that, had that been the case, the player being discussed would have also been a different player, trained, growned and addapted to other circumstances).

But we could always enjoy ourselves opening threads on such utterly unanswerable issues as whether any of the sport's greats from the pre-70s would have really achieved that much if they had had to contest 2 out of 4 slams on parking-lot tennis, instead of one on clay and 3 on slippery grass, as it always was.

I for one don't have a crystal ball.

Nole fan
05-31-2012, 07:36 PM
This is what Borg had in his heydays:

1. Tougher draws
2. Transparent tournament organizers (when tennis was not sold out to TV audiences)
3. No technology support for superior top-spin.
4. No superior technology in shoes to help footwork.
5. Opponents who actually made the word "match up" meaningful and therefore surface differences helped.
6. Mastery over different surfaces: Psychological advantage over one opponent on one surface did not lead to similar advantage over another surface because surfaces were not homogenized.
7. More heart, less hype.
8. More skill.

If there were no technology, there might not have been any "Nadal-Goat" argument.

That's not true. Because you don't take into consideration that the technology helps all players EQUALLY, including Federer who has also benefitted from slower courts (at least he said so in an interview). But that doesn't prove anything because the conditions are the SAME for all the players. Sorry but this argument is not valid at all. In what way is Nadal helped by technology or court speed than the others are not? If anything blame the others for not being capable of adapting their games to the conditions. :shrug:

Commander Data
05-31-2012, 07:37 PM
it helps it's not THE factor or THE reason Djoker and Nadal and Fed are winning all over

Ever heard of multi-causality? multiple factors combined bring things about. if it helps it is a factor, it is a reason.

tektonac
05-31-2012, 07:44 PM
another 'fed is the goat' thread.





disclosure: haven't voted.

JurajCrane
05-31-2012, 07:46 PM
Frankly, tell me something Borg has that Nadal doesn't on clay.

Nice and attractive game ?

Allez
05-31-2012, 07:50 PM
Exactly his points. He is saying thats it harder to dominate before than today, as there was no technological help. Nowadays you get the help of technology to produce more pace or to absorb the pace of shot. Also there was more of adjustment of game before than today as surfaces have very significant difference on speed. You cannot compare the person that started this style of play to the one that emulated it or made his game around it. Borg started Nadal's play and today style of play, so stop comparing. Borg basically invented top spin as a normal ground stroke.

Today everybody gets the help of technology. Same conditions for everyone playing today. Same conditions for everyone playing back then. Simply put Nadal > Borg.

Jamoz
05-31-2012, 07:56 PM
Borg was much cooler, straight to business man and no bull shitter. As person, Borg owns Nadal 10-0.

70-68
05-31-2012, 07:56 PM
Nadal benefits more from the technology. He wouldn't be able to create such a huge spin, which is the biggest strenght of his game. Other players don't rely on topspin as much as Nadal.

Allez
05-31-2012, 07:59 PM
You are right, man but since comparisons are always made to Borg, it is valid to bring up the conditions during Borg's heydays. Borg was always more skill-dependent, unsupported by technology and didn't do well outside natural surfaces. Nadal on the other hand is what he is because of technology - you can again use that fillip and say the conditions are the same, but Nadal, being more physical benefits through technology. His skill levels are Goat level??? Debatable.

Anyone can use the technology to their advantage today. I imagine the technology used in the 80's was better than that used in the 20's and therefore Borg benefited from improvements in racquet technology in his era. This technology debate is given way too much credence. Nadal is not exclusively benefiting from racquet technology. It could be argued that Nadal faces a far tougher task because technology helps a hell lot of more guys now than it did in the 70's, 80's so in theory there should be far more chances of Nadal being upset than Borg who had to deal with the same players over and over again relatively speaking.

Haters are just trying to find anything they can to undermine Rafa's achievements. Even if he won 20 RG's people would still say Borg > Nadal. It's beyond ridiculous. I mean you do not have to be a fan of the guy to notice what this guy has done on clay.

Allez
05-31-2012, 08:01 PM
Nadal benefits more from the technology. He wouldn't be able to create such a huge spin, which is the biggest strenght of his game. Other players don't rely on topspin as much as Nadal.

No one is stopping them from incorporating this dimension of play into their game. If they cannot it just goes to show Nadal > than them.

timafi
05-31-2012, 08:03 PM
I'd rather Roger win another RG trophy at his age and Novak win his 1st RG trophy to complete the whole thing although he'll NEVER be on the same level as Roger (neither will Nadal for that matter) than for Nadal to win another one.It would mean a LOT more for both Roger and Novak than it would mean to Rafa.Rafa takes RG for granted and I hope he doesn't win it

Filo V.
05-31-2012, 08:03 PM
I prefer Prostejov, Furth, Nottingham and Caltanissetta over this boring ass event.

Commander Data
05-31-2012, 08:06 PM
That technology argument is :stupid: Borg was lucky he got a racquet instead of his bare hand. who says Borg would have won RG using his bare hand?

Nole Rules
05-31-2012, 08:07 PM
I prefer Prostejov, Furth, Nottingham and Caltanissetta over this boring ass event.

The is the true tennis fan ladies and gentlemen.

Commander Data
05-31-2012, 08:07 PM
Rafa takes RG for granted

:stupid:

Jamoz
05-31-2012, 08:08 PM
That technology argument is :stupid: Borg was lucky he got a racquet instead of his bare hand. who says Borg would have won RG using his bare hand?

Borg can win anything he wants, just like Chuck Norris.

Filo V.
05-31-2012, 08:13 PM
The is the true tennis fan ladies and gentlemen.Yes, and thank you for pointing it out.

I really couldn't care one iota about this event. We already know pretty much who the final eight will be. And we can basically write Nadal and Djokovic into the SF. This tournament is boring. Next week will be more interesting when the challengers start up again.

Commander Data
05-31-2012, 08:15 PM
Borg can win anything he wants, just like Chuck Norris.

:lol:

But Chuck got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee

JLO1YIWQuXE

Jamoz
05-31-2012, 08:19 PM
Yeah, but Chuck is still just a man. Lee was a fittest man in the human history. We can forgive Chuck this one loss.

tektonac
05-31-2012, 08:23 PM
:lol:

But Chuck got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee

JLO1YIWQuXE

That's when he decided to become a professional tennis player.

misty1
05-31-2012, 08:25 PM
Yes, and thank you for pointing it out.

I really couldn't care one iota about this event. We already know pretty much who the final eight will be. And we can basically write Nadal and Djokovic into the SF. This tournament is boring. Next week will be more interesting when the challengers start up again.

i enjoy a more unpredictable event too. I wont deny that im sitting here hoping that we get some sort of upset that makes things a little more interesting

but at the same time the challengers are so often just such a mess that i do enjoy a slam more. You get these nice stories at slams that you dont get at the challengers. Plus i can see the players i like on tv, i dont have to watch some crappy little video on my computer

EliSter
05-31-2012, 08:30 PM
I prefer Prostejov, Furth, Nottingham and Caltanissetta over this boring ass event.

Hipster Filo.


On topic, another thread that has no relevance with Olderer became "Olderer the Goat" thread...excpected, mods should take care of this kind of theards and fedtards posioning it. Mug pool options.

safin-rules-no.1
05-31-2012, 08:33 PM
Glad ur alive, missed your Joker constant bashing :hug:

Well it was a close call :tape:

:hug: But I'm back and Faker hating in full force :hearts:

70-68
05-31-2012, 08:38 PM
No one is stopping them from incorporating this dimension of play into their game. If they cannot it just goes to show Nadal > than them.

Well, good for Nadal taking advantage of the modern technology more than everyone else.

But my point is, if everyone used rackets from 20-25 years ago, then what advantage would Nadal have over other players with his game :shrug:

Allez
05-31-2012, 08:55 PM
Well, good for Nadal taking advantage of the modern technology more than everyone else.

But my point is, if everyone used rackets from 20-25 years ago, then what advantage would Nadal have over other players with his game :shrug:

That we will never know just like we will never know what advantage Borg would have had, had everyone in his era been using racquets from the 19th century. Additionally we cannot know what Borg would have achieved if he were playing today :shrug: All we can go with is the dominance each player had over his contemporaries and to that end Rafa is head and shoulders above Borg, yes :shrug:

PedroMarquess
05-31-2012, 09:03 PM
:lol:

But Chuck got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee

JLO1YIWQuXE

Where is Bruce now? :rolleyes:

Nole Slam.

Jamoz
05-31-2012, 09:08 PM
Where is Bruce now? :rolleyes:

Nole Slam.

In grave?? :eek::eek: just like we all are in the future.

Clay Death
05-31-2012, 09:13 PM
clay warrior is coming for you.

PedroMarquess
05-31-2012, 09:14 PM
In grave?? :eek::eek: just like we all are in the future.

Not Chuck dude.

Jamoz
05-31-2012, 09:18 PM
clay warrior is coming for you.

I hope not! :eek: I like girls.

Roger the Dodger
05-31-2012, 09:19 PM
Nice and attractive game ?

Don't say that to the haters of aesthetic evolution.

According to them, tennis is basically a net with a ball going to and fro over it. It doesn't matter if its all top-spin and moonballs. They could watch it for hours and days. We should learn to deal with it. :shrug:

This, they call the evolution of the game. Based on this one-dimensional view, they will decide GOAT status.

If skill level is ever a matter in GOAT debate, Borg with his wooden racket might give actually Nadal a run for his money.


--

Fictional Conversation in 2020 AD when Nadal has 20 GS (fictional!):

Son: Dad! Why is Rafa the GOAT on Clay?

Dad: Because he was the best on clay in his heydays!

Son: The best?

Dad: Yes, the very best!

Son: What defines the best? Even I want to be the best!

Dad: Do anything to win. Don't bother about how you do it. Ethics and aesthetics are overrated, son. As long as you get the thing done, it doesn't matter how you do it! Shove everyone off the line to achieve what you want - then act humble. That's how you become the greatest.

Son: Err ... Bit less on the philosophy, Dad! How do I become the best in tennis?

Dad: Hire uncle Toni.

Son: Uh, what?

Dad: Never mind. Are you serious about being the best?

Son: Yes yes.

Dad: Well then you have to be able to run real fast.

Son: Dad, you've seen me practice. I can hit the ball real fast.

Dad: IT doesn't matter. You have to run fast.

Son: I already do. But no one can run as fast as Nadal.

Dad: Then stop dreaming about being a GOAT.

Son: But Nadal has his skill. I have mine. My forehand has greater power and depth than his.

Dad: Doesn't count. No surface for your talent to shine.

Son: But why?

Dad: Because all surfaces are now clay or clay-like. So you have to learn to run real fast like a sprinter, as for your talents in weilding a racket - just make sure you put the ball on your opponent's side, nothing else really matters. Also, reduce your shots to topspinning everything.

Son: But Dad, I can do so many shots in so many ways with my forehand.

Dad: It doesn't matter. Top spin is all that works on clay and hard and grass. Because that's what sells!

Son: But dad, what about my talents then? Don't I ever get to be great just because I can't run as fast as him?

Dad: Yes. Something like that. It doesn't matter how good you are and how much variety you have in your shots - as long as you can't chase down everything thrown your way, you are not great, certainly not up for a GOAT debate.

Son: But dad, doesn't the game seize to be tennis then?

Dad: Who said it is tennis anymore? Haven't you evolved through the conversation at all?

Son: What is it called now?

Dad: The Moonballer's Ball.

Son: But I can do so many other things besides moonballing.

Dad: For the last time, it does not matter! To become a GOAT does not mean to have great skills, to be able to do all sorts of things, to even create magic. To become a GOAT means to win, no matter what you do to win it - as long as you collect the booty, it doesn't matter how you do it. Tennis is only throwing the ball over the net with a racket.

Son: But isn't tennis then just like badminton with fizz?

Dad: Don't argue with your father.

Son: Does the same GOAT rule apply everywhere else? Like in every other career?

Dad: Wherever GOAT is involved.

Son: So one can be a GOAT author even if his thoughts are not beautiful or inspiring, even if his command over language and form are not perfect, as long as one can write faster than the rest and produce lots of pages?

Dad: Something like that. Form and beauty are overrated. We don't have the time to appreciate it and people after skill, variety and aesthetics need to get a grip. Jump from point A to Z to tell a story. Cut it short! That's the art! Its still a story right?

Son: So such books and authors can covet the Nobel prize?

Dad: Of course! If Nadal can become GOAT on clay with a one-dimensional game, anything is possible. To be a GOAT does not require game, it requires Titles. Win as many as you can. Outlast everyone. Call it your 'style' of playing the game and then rename the game to something else. Call it the evolution of the game. What game? Evolution from tennis to Moonballing! And everyone has accepted it. So must you. Are you ready?

(Dad hands out a babolat nimbus 2020 to the future GOAT)

Son: Thanks for the lesson dad!

Dad: Don't even mention it. Now forget all your so-called inborn talents and do what all the other boys out there are doing. Forsaking everything to moonball...sorry GOATball.

(Dad points out to a board outside the Moonballing Academy. It reads: Transatlantic Moonballing Fest! - A tribute to the pioneer of this new form of tennis: Sir Rafael Nadal.)

Dad and Son remain transfixed. Further away, they can see fluffy tennis balls (now evolved with the lightness of a golf ball to aid them in staying afloat longer duration) traveling from young players' rackets in the grounds to the sky and bouncing on the other side of the net, then thrown back in the air again and so on and so forth.

Son: How did tennis change so quickly dad?

Dad: Shit happens. Live it. Love it. Deal with it. Now go, become a GOAT.

(Son enters the stadium, hellbent on being the next GOAT.
A star is born.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jamoz
05-31-2012, 09:20 PM
Don't say that to the haters of aesthetic evolution.

According to them, tennis is basically a net with a ball going to and fro over it. It doesn't matter if its all top-spin and moonballs. They could watch it for hours and days. We should learn to deal with it. :shrug:

This, they call the evolution of the game. Based on this one-dimensional view, they will decide GOAT status.

If skill level is ever a matter in GOAT debate, Borg with his wooden racket might give actually Nadal a run for his money.


--

Fictional Conversation in 2020 AD when Nadal has 20 GS (fictional!):

Son: Dad! Why is Rafa the GOAT on Clay?

Dad: Because he was the best on clay in his heydays!

Son: The best?

Dad: Yes, the very best!

Son: What defines the best? Even I want to be the best!

Dad: Do anything to win. Don't bother about how you do it. Ethics and aesthetics are overrated, son. As long as you get the thing done, it doesn't matter how you do it! Shove everyone off the line to achieve what you want - then act humble. That's how you become the greatest.

Son: Err ... Bit less on the philosophy, Dad! How do I become the best in tennis?

Dad: Hire uncle Toni.

Son: Uh, what?

Dad: Never mind. Are you serious about being the best?

Son: Yes yes.

Dad: Well then you have to be able to run real fast.

Son: Dad, you've seen me practice. I can hit the ball real fast.

Dad: IT doesn't matter. You have to run fast.

Son: I already do. But no one can run as fast as Nadal.

Dad: Then stop dreaming about being a GOAT.

Son: But Nadal has his skill. I have mine. My forehand has greater power and depth than his.

Dad: Doesn't count. No surface for your talent to shine.

Son: But why?

Dad: Because all surfaces are now clay or clay-like. So you have to learn to run real fast like a sprinter, as for your talents in weilding a racket - just make sure you put the ball on your opponent's side, nothing else really matters. Also, reduce your shots to topspinning everything.

Son: But Dad, I can do so many shots in so many ways with my forehand.

Dad: It doesn't matter. Top spin is all that works on clay and hard and grass. Because that's what sells!

Son: But dad, what about my talents then? Don't I ever get to be great just because I can't run?

Dad: Yes. Something like that. It doesn't matter how good you are and how much variety you have in your shots - as long as you can't chase down everything thrown your way, you are not great, certainly not up for a GOAT debate.

Son: But dad, doesn't the game seize to be tennis then?

Dad: Who said it is tennis anymore? Haven't you evolved through the conversation at all?

Son: What is it called now?

Dad: The Moonballer's Ball.

Son: But I can do so many other things besides moonballing.

Dad: For the last time, it does not matter! To become a GOAT does not mean to have great skills, to be able to do all sorts of things, to even create magic. To become a GOAT means to win, no matter what you do to win it - as long as you collect the booty, it doesn't matter how you do it. Tennis is only throwing the ball over the net with a racket.

Son: But isn't tennis then just like badminton with fizz?

Dad: Don't argue with your father.

Son: Does the same GOAT rule apply everywhere else? Like in every other career?

Dad: Wherever GOAT is involved.

Son: So one can be a GOAT author even if his thoughts are not beautiful or inspiring, even if his command over language and form are not perfect, as long as one can write faster than the rest and produce lots of pages?

Dad: Something like that. Form and beauty are overrated. We don't have the time to appreciate it and people after skill, variety and aesthetics need to get a grip. Jump from point A to Z to tell a story. Cut it short! That's the art! Its still a story right?

Son: So such books and authors can covet the Nobel prize?

Dad: Of course! If Nadal can become GOAT on clay with a one-dimensional game, anything is possible. To be a GOAT does not require game, it requires Titles. Win as many as you can. Outlast everyone. Call it your 'style' of playing the game and then rename the game to something else. Call it the evolution of the game. What game? Evolution from tennis to Moonballing! And everyone has accepted it. So must you. Are you ready?

(Dad hands out a babolat nimbus 2020 to the future GOAT)

Son: Thanks for the lesson dad!

Dad: Don't even mention it. Now forget all your so-called inborn talents and do what all the other boys out there are doing. Forsaking everything to moonball...sorry GOATball.

(Dad points out to a board outside the Moonballing Academy. It reads: Transatlantic Moonballing Fest! - A tribute to the pioneer of this new form of tennis: Sir Rafael Nadal.)

Dad and Son remain transfixed. Further away, they can see fluffy tennis balls (now evolved with the lightness of a golf ball to aid them in staying afloat longer duration) traveling from young players' rackets in the grounds to the sky and bouncing on the other side of the net, then thrown back in the air again and so on and so forth.

Son: How did tennis change so quickly dad?

Dad: Shit happens. Live it. Love it. Deal with it. Now go, become a GOAT.

(Son enters the stadium, hellbent on being the next GOAT.
A star is born.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You should be a writer.

MachineGun
05-31-2012, 09:33 PM
Son: Dad! Why is Rafa the GOAT on Clay?

[...] Dad: Shit happens. Live it. Love it. Deal with it. Now go, become a GOAT.

(Son enters the stadium, hellbent on being the next GOAT.
A star is born.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:worship::worship::worship:

Nole fan
05-31-2012, 10:27 PM
Nadal benefits more from the technology. He wouldn't be able to create such a huge spin, which is the biggest strenght of his game. Other players don't rely on topspin as much as Nadal.

Well, then it's their bad. :shrug:
But it's absurd to say that Nadal is only the champion he is thanks to technology. Only a fedtard of the highest order would say that.

jrm
05-31-2012, 10:35 PM
i'm done watching Nadal's butchering , something new please!

Nole fan
05-31-2012, 10:40 PM
Anyone can use the technology to their advantage today. I imagine the technology used in the 80's was better than that used in the 20's and therefore Borg benefited from improvements in racquet technology in his era. This technology debate is given way too much credence. Nadal is not exclusively benefiting from racquet technology. It could be argued that Nadal faces a far tougher task because technology helps a hell lot of more guys now than it did in the 70's, 80's so in theory there should be far more chances of Nadal being upset than Borg who had to deal with the same players over and over again relatively speaking.

Haters are just trying to find anything they can to undermine Rafa's achievements. Even if he won 20 RG's people would still say Borg > Nadal. It's beyond ridiculous. I mean you do not have to be a fan of the guy to notice what this guy has done on clay.

Exactly. And not just in clay, he's also won Wimbledon twice. It's admirable. He's an all time great by his own merits. People diminishing his success as a result of better technology are just blind fedtards.

Nole fan
05-31-2012, 11:22 PM
Excerpt about McEnroe from Pete Bodo's article (http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/2012/05/notes-from-a-couch.html):

I was interested when Ted asked John, "Which of the Big Three would you choose to play at Roland Garros if you made to make that decision?"

McEnroe hemmed and hawed a bit before he replied, "On this surface, I would say Roger Federer. Just because he's the least . . ." McEnroe paused, searching for the right word, before he added, "damaging."

MIMIC
05-31-2012, 11:32 PM
Well since I'm a fan of Novak's, I'm obviously gonna prefer the former.

But objectively, wouldn't you want to see something that hasn't been accomplished since the 60s?

Looner
05-31-2012, 11:41 PM
What would that be? I mean Laver won the Grand Slam. Novak's cannot win that here. Rogie's taking his 2nd RG. Thanks.

Alex999
06-01-2012, 12:19 AM
What would that be? I mean Laver won the Grand Slam. Novak's cannot win that here. Rogie's taking his 2nd RG. Thanks.
lol, right Looner ... how about I go Nole is winning his first RG, holding 4 slams, blah, blah, . both you and I know it means nothing ... we are all BS on MTF trying to predict this or that. :)

Topspindoctor
06-01-2012, 12:20 AM
I'd prefer Goderer to triple bagel Nadull in the final :shrug:

leng jai
06-01-2012, 12:25 AM
If only there was a way for both events to occur in this tournament :(

@Sweet Cleopatra
06-01-2012, 12:30 AM
Roger the Doger and Wodgy the Dodgy?? :lol:

Any way, I want Rafa to win his 7th Roland Garros. He deserves that record.

MIMIC
06-01-2012, 12:43 AM
What would that be? I mean Laver won the Grand Slam. Novak's cannot win that here. Rogie's taking his 2nd RG. Thanks.

Winning 4 in a row?

SaFed2005
06-01-2012, 12:51 AM
I would prefer a brand new grand slam champion. But that is not going to happen. 99% chance that Nadal wins his 7th.

tripwires
06-01-2012, 01:14 AM
I'd prefer Goderer to triple bagel Nadull in the final :shrug:

Wonderful post. :awww:

Alex999
06-01-2012, 02:20 AM
I'd prefer Godovic ... sure I'm his fan, but I'm also being bored ... let's just derail this thread ... who do you love more ....Godovic, Goderer or Godal, and why? let's talk about nothing, lol. Chuck Norris is still in the game :-)

duchuy89
06-01-2012, 02:35 AM
Nadal's 7th RG. I'm sure!

juan27
06-01-2012, 04:07 AM
this is stupid , it`s clear than nadal will win this!!!

I see the king of clay and he is playing great , very agressive tennis from rafa!!!!!!!!!!!

rafa this year looks like he is backing to 2008 , if he will win rg , for me he will be back to nº1 and for sure he will take wimbledon and maybe the us open or olympics too.

rafa is a beast now.

nole was guilty , he never should played in montecarlo against rafa... he gilfted the confidence and now the beast wake up

shiaben
06-01-2012, 04:08 AM
Both but preferably Nadal winning only to see some tards on hear cry.

Johnbert
06-01-2012, 06:13 AM
neither scenario. but if i have to decide between them, obviously nole-slam.

BroTree123
06-01-2012, 06:17 AM
Who gives a fuck? Find a life everyone.

Ziros
06-01-2012, 06:28 AM
A Nole slam would be a sure sign of the coming of the apocalypse

GSMnadal
06-01-2012, 06:46 AM
Nadal is playing brilliant tennis, Novak might get to a tiebreak again if he meets him. That's as close as he'll get to the Nole slam.

Kat_YYZ
06-01-2012, 06:48 AM
Nadal has 8 MC titles, 7 Barcelona, 6 Rome titles. How many does Borg have? Who has the higher clay winning %? Who has the longest clay streak of 81 straight?

Frankly, tell me something Borg has that Nadal doesn't on clay.

underpants that don't ride up? :shrug:

Time Violation
06-01-2012, 07:11 AM
Who gives a fuck? Find a life everyone.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2uqes7n.png

Kat_YYZ
06-01-2012, 07:17 AM
BroTree has become a boring troll :sad:

safin-rules-no.1
06-01-2012, 07:21 AM
BroTree has become a boring troll :sad:

It was never really an interesting troll tbh.

MTwEeZi
06-01-2012, 07:21 AM
He was always boring. You have to be a real clown to get on my ignore list, but time and again he tried and failed miserably at attempts to be cool and humorous.



He reminds me of Buzz Killington, except Buzz didn't think so highly of himself.

born_on_clay
06-01-2012, 07:28 AM
Nadal's 7th RG without a doubt

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 08:27 AM
http://i49.tinypic.com/2uqes7n.png

hehe

bokehlicious
06-01-2012, 08:31 AM
BroTree must be topsinmoron's double account. He's the only one to kiss his nuts.

paseo
06-01-2012, 08:33 AM
http://i49.tinypic.com/2uqes7n.png

Nice :D

BroTree123
06-01-2012, 08:38 AM
http://i49.tinypic.com/2uqes7n.png

I accept my defeat.

leng jai
06-01-2012, 08:51 AM
Good shit.

sicko
06-01-2012, 09:11 AM
can you imagine Rafole fighting for history in a 7 hour (including butt picking, faking, cheating, mtos, grunting, fist pumping, swearing) 5 set epic in their 4th consecutive GS final?

I think we can then officially conclude tennis as gentleman's sport has died. :wavey:

masterclass
06-01-2012, 09:15 AM
Nadal has 8 MC titles, 7 Barcelona, 6 Rome titles. How many does Borg have? Who has the higher clay winning %? Who has the longest clay streak of 81 straight?

Frankly, tell me something Borg has that Nadal doesn't on clay.

Oh, Mr. GSMNadal, I think you knew the answer, but were just testing us ;) :cool::yeah:

Nadal has 0 wins against the top 10 Clay Court players of the Open Era* according to the ATP Clay Career reliability list (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Clay-Career-List.aspx).
Borg has 32 wins against them (76% pct), higher than his overall top 10 record (vs. contemporaries) (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-10-Career-List.aspx), which tops all players with 70.5%. Nadal is currently 3rd in that list (65.5%). Federer second (67.1%).

Of course one could rightly point out that Nadal never faced one of the top 10 Clay Court players of the Open Era. Not his fault really, as Nadal made the top 10, but none of his contemporaries has so far. ;)

So if we dilute the quality some by including the top 20, then Nadal does better and has 28 wins due to his clay dominance over the 3 players he faced that were able to make the top 20 - #12 Federer (12-2), #14 Djokovic (11-2), and #18 Ferrero (5-1).

And we could keep diluting the list even more and Nadal would do better and better.

But it's rather silly to compare players from different eras anyway, especially the farther back you go in time, don't you think? :) There are simply too many differences and endless debate becomes inevitable. Better to agree they were arguably the best Clay Kings of their own time :worship:

Respectfully,
masterclass

duong
06-01-2012, 09:16 AM
Nole Slam clearly.

What he's done for one year, and especially in slams, is HUGE and still underrated, I'm fed-up of people, esp. players and coaches, saying that "Djokovic is great BUT Nadal and Fed are ahead, something different", I fully disagree : imo the three of them are in the same category, the main difference is that Djokovic has had a little bit less physical condition comparing to those physical monsters, esp. Nadal, his freakish physical nature and the power of his forehand, but on the opposite he can be seen as the most complete player technically imo (at least on modern courts conditions : on quicker conditions, Fed would have been more complete but in modern conditions his backhand is not good enough while Djokovic's is great).

I'm a Fed-lover but I dislike the comments saying that Djokovic is not in the same category, and I do hope that he does the Nole slam to get the reputation which he really deserves.

Moreover, Nadal can win a 7th Roland-Garros later, and I don't like him as you know, but especially I feel he's too eager for records : his real hunger for that had been hidden for long but actually he has shown in recent years more hunger for records than Fed, speaking much more of the rankings and records, etc ... Fed is now more genuine and he has accepted that somebody may soon beat his records (carefully read his words and his mother's ;) )... and this somebody in his eyes has been Nadal from his words (once again from his words and the ones he said after Wimbledon 2007 final).

Personally I would prefer Djokovic to beat Fed's slam record than Nadal because I don't like Nadal being the ultimate representative of this sport, Djokovic would be a more proper one in my eyes

(for those who would not understand, I will say it more clearly : my main concern is not that Fed loses the slam record but that NADAL is the one who would get it, if it was someone else there would be no problem as anyway in my eyes I will more remember Fed for himself than for records/gloryhunting, but Nadal would not be a proper representative of tennis in my eyes and I also don't like his obsessive nature and the ambitions his uncle wanted to fulfill through him - that's also the reason why I always praise Laver more than Fed : because Nadal can be seen as clearly better than Fed in a few years, but than Laver there will always be a debate, I don't really know who's better between Laver and Fed, but I praise Laver more than Fed because I don't want Nadal to be considered as the greatest representative of tennis as a historical sport with all of his dimensions in time, while Laver is a great representative - Fed could also have been but that's impossible because of Nadal and it's OK for me : I like Fed for something else).

BroTree123
06-01-2012, 09:25 AM
Hate or be hated.

masterclass
06-01-2012, 10:53 AM
Nole Slam clearly.

What he's done for one year, and especially in slams, is HUGE and still underrated, I'm fed-up of people, esp. players and coaches, saying that "Djokovic is great BUT Nadal and Fed are ahead, something different", I fully disagree : imo the three of them are in the same category, the main difference is that Djokovic has had a little bit less physical condition comparing to those physical monsters, esp. Nadal, his freakish physical nature and the power of his forehand, but on the opposite he can be seen as the most complete player technically imo (at least on modern courts conditions : on quicker conditions, Fed would have been more complete but in modern conditions his backhand is not good enough while Djokovic's is great).

I'm a Fed-lover but I dislike the comments saying that Djokovic is not in the same category, and I do hope that he does the Nole slam to get the reputation which he really deserves.

Moreover, Nadal can win a 7th Roland-Garros later, and I don't like him as you know, but especially I feel he's too eager for records : his real hunger for that had been hidden for long but actually he has shown in recent years more hunger for records than Fed, speaking much more of the rankings and records, etc ... Fed is now more genuine and he has accepted that somebody may soon beat his records (carefully read his words and his mother's ;) )... and this somebody in his eyes has been Nadal from his words (once again from his words and the ones he said after Wimbledon 2007 final).

Personally I would prefer Djokovic to beat Fed's slam record than Nadal because I don't like Nadal being the ultimate representative of this sport, Djokovic would be a more proper one in my eyes

(for those who would not understand, I will say it more clearly : my main concern is not that Fed loses the slam record but that NADAL is the one who would get it, if it was someone else there would be no problem as anyway in my eyes I will more remember Fed for himself than for records/gloryhunting, but Nadal would not be a proper representative of tennis in my eyes and I also don't like his obsessive nature and the ambitions his uncle wanted to fulfill through him - that's also the reason why I always praise Laver more than Fed : because Nadal can be seen as clearly better than Fed in a few years, but than Laver there will always be a debate, I don't really know who's better between Laver and Fed, but I praise Laver more than Fed because I don't want Nadal to be considered as the greatest representative of tennis as a historical sport with all of his dimensions in time, while Laver is a great representative - Fed could also have been but that's impossible because of Nadal and it's OK for me : I like Fed for something else).

Mr. Duong, I think all reasonable people would agree that Mr. Djokovic's 2011 year was outstanding, and one of the best in the Open Era. And to do it with Federer and Nadal still in the mix made it quite an accomplishment, even if some might argue that those two are "declining". Since they are in the top 3, they are arguably still in their prime years (not peak), and thus are still formidable competition, more than any of the rest.

So I'm not quite sure what "category" context you mean? Maybe it's mixing category of how good a quality player he has become, compared to them, vs. career-wise accomplishments that is leading to some confusion or differences?. The former is difficult to judge as there are so many different things you could bring into play that would favor one over the other, and I would stay away from that type of comparison. He's still the #1 player the last I checked. But his ranking comes from his last 52 week results, which include 3 major victories. The results of the next 3-4 months, and especially the next 3 majors will tell us where they all stand this year.

Mr. Djokovic's accomplishments over his career so far have not yet come close to the careers of Federer and Nadal. But obviously he still has time.;) Let's see where he's at after his career and theirs, then we can make more effective judgements as to which "category" he belongs. 4 consecutive majors in a row over different calendar years, while not a Grand Slam, would certainly add to his list of outstanding accomplishments.

By the way, who holds the record for winning consecutive majors? Answer: Don Budge with 6, who won Wimbledon and the US Open in 1937, prior to winning the Grand Slam in 1938. Of course, Mr. Laver has the most consecutive in the open Era with his Grand Slam of 1969.

The record for most consecutive major finals is held by Federer with 10, winning 8 of them, easily breaking the Open era record of 4 (formerly jointly held by Rod Laver and Andre Agassi), and overcoming Jack Crawford's 7 reached in 1934.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Telegram Sam
06-01-2012, 02:34 PM
can you imagine Rafole fighting for history in a 7 hour (including butt picking, faking, cheating, mtos, grunting, fist pumping, swearing) 5 set epic in their 4th consecutive GS final?

I think we can then officially conclude tennis as gentleman's sport has died. :wavey:

We can also officially conclude that tennis as sport was finally born. Bring it on!

Sophocles
06-01-2012, 03:17 PM
Hmm, let me see - an historic record that will rock the world of sports or a mind-numbingly boring repeat of a dismal annual ritual? Shit, my brain hurts....

Telegram Sam
06-01-2012, 03:30 PM
Four Slams at the same time is "a mind-numbingly boring repeat of a dismal annual ritual"? :confused:

You're definitely right about Rafa's 7 tho. ;)

Looner
06-01-2012, 03:43 PM
Four Slams at the same time is "a mind-numbingly boring repeat of a dismal annual ritual"? :confused:

You're definitely right about Rafa's 7 tho. ;)

And you're not very bright, are you?

Rogie to rock the tennis world with something unseen in the Open Era - winning two of each ;).

Time Violation
06-01-2012, 04:08 PM
I think we can then officially conclude tennis as gentleman's sport has died. :wavey:

Snobbery at its finest :facepalm:

Rogie to rock the tennis world with something unseen in the Open Era - winning two of each ;).

Somebody would have to take out Nadal first, Rogie isn't beating him in the finals

peribsen
06-01-2012, 04:10 PM
Fictional Conversation in 2020 AD when Nadal has 20 GS (fictional!):

Son: Dad! Why is Rafa the GOAT on Clay?

Dad: Because he was the best on clay in his heydays!

Son: The best?

Dad: Yes, the very best!

Son: What defines the best? Even I want to be the best!

Dad: Do anything to win. Don't bother about how you do it. Ethics and aesthetics are overrated, son. As long as you get the thing done, it doesn't matter how you do it! Shove everyone off the line to achieve what you want - then act humble. That's how you become the greatest.

Son: Err ... Bit less on the philosophy, Dad! How do I become the best in tennis?

Dad: Hire uncle Toni.

Son: Uh, what?

Dad: Never mind. Are you serious about being the best?

Son: Yes yes.

Dad: Well then you have to be able to run real fast.

Son: Dad, you've seen me practice. I can hit the ball real fast.

Dad: IT doesn't matter. You have to run fast.

Son: I already do. But no one can run as fast as Nadal.

Dad: Then stop dreaming about being a GOAT.

Son: But Nadal has his skill. I have mine. My forehand has greater power and depth than his.

Dad: Doesn't count. No surface for your talent to shine.

Son: But why?

Dad: Because all surfaces are now clay or clay-like. So you have to learn to run real fast like a sprinter, as for your talents in weilding a racket - just make sure you put the ball on your opponent's side, nothing else really matters. Also, reduce your shots to topspinning everything.

Son: But Dad, I can do so many shots in so many ways with my forehand.

Dad: It doesn't matter. Top spin is all that works on clay and hard and grass. Because that's what sells!

Son: But dad, what about my talents then? Don't I ever get to be great just because I can't run as fast as him?

Dad: Yes. Something like that. It doesn't matter how good you are and how much variety you have in your shots - as long as you can't chase down everything thrown your way, you are not great, certainly not up for a GOAT debate.

Son: But dad, doesn't the game seize to be tennis then?

Dad: Who said it is tennis anymore? Haven't you evolved through the conversation at all?

Son: What is it called now?

Dad: The Moonballer's Ball.

Son: But I can do so many other things besides moonballing.

Dad: For the last time, it does not matter! To become a GOAT does not mean to have great skills, to be able to do all sorts of things, to even create magic. To become a GOAT means to win, no matter what you do to win it - as long as you collect the booty, it doesn't matter how you do it. Tennis is only throwing the ball over the net with a racket.

Son: But isn't tennis then just like badminton with fizz?

Dad: Don't argue with your father.

Son: Does the same GOAT rule apply everywhere else? Like in every other career?

Dad: Wherever GOAT is involved.

Son: So one can be a GOAT author even if his thoughts are not beautiful or inspiring, even if his command over language and form are not perfect, as long as one can write faster than the rest and produce lots of pages?

Dad: Something like that. Form and beauty are overrated. We don't have the time to appreciate it and people after skill, variety and aesthetics need to get a grip. Jump from point A to Z to tell a story. Cut it short! That's the art! Its still a story right?

Son: So such books and authors can covet the Nobel prize?

Dad: Of course! If Nadal can become GOAT on clay with a one-dimensional game, anything is possible. To be a GOAT does not require game, it requires Titles. Win as many as you can. Outlast everyone. Call it your 'style' of playing the game and then rename the game to something else. Call it the evolution of the game. What game? Evolution from tennis to Moonballing! And everyone has accepted it. So must you. Are you ready?

(Dad hands out a babolat nimbus 2020 to the future GOAT)

Son: Thanks for the lesson dad!

Dad: Don't even mention it. Now forget all your so-called inborn talents and do what all the other boys out there are doing. Forsaking everything to moonball...sorry GOATball.

(Dad points out to a board outside the Moonballing Academy. It reads: Transatlantic Moonballing Fest! - A tribute to the pioneer of this new form of tennis: Sir Rafael Nadal.)

Dad and Son remain transfixed. Further away, they can see fluffy tennis balls (now evolved with the lightness of a golf ball to aid them in staying afloat longer duration) traveling from young players' rackets in the grounds to the sky and bouncing on the other side of the net, then thrown back in the air again and so on and so forth.

Son: How did tennis change so quickly dad?

Dad: Shit happens. Live it. Love it. Deal with it. Now go, become a GOAT.

(Son enters the stadium, hellbent on being the next GOAT.
A star is born.)

Somebody here is in dire need of looking up some words in a dictionary: biased, jaundiced, bigoted.

Roger the Dodger
06-01-2012, 08:32 PM
That's not true. Because you don't take into consideration that the technology helps all players EQUALLY, including Federer who has also benefitted from slower courts (at least he said so in an interview). But that doesn't prove anything because the conditions are the SAME for all the players. Sorry but this argument is not valid at all. In what way is Nadal helped by technology or court speed than the others are not? If anything blame the others for not being capable of adapting their games to the conditions. :shrug:


Technology is meant to help the skillful player. Not just the strong player.

----

Better explanation:

Even between Nole and Nadal, the lamest eyes in tennis can see Nole is a more complete player than Nadal. Purely for tennis shotmaking, Nole is greater than Nadal.

Now both Nole and Nadal improved their respective skills over time. Whereas Nole grew physically strong over the years and learned to endure long points and win matches, Nadal improved his game, no doubt he did but he was not naturally like that. I have always maintained Nadal's natural first talent is running like a beast - his first three slams were won purely like that. The only tennis tact he used was to throw the ball from side to side and run down the opponent till he dries up, and make sure from his end that the ball falls into the opponents court no matter how weird and fuck-all his tennis skills might have been. Nadal from 2005-2007 was all about winning - not about playing better tennis. It was only since 2008 that his game grew less physical, he began to control points without having to run all over town.

Nadal's game has visibly evolved a lot since he began, but its not anywhere near the natural game or skill level of other top players to whom all aspects of playing tennis came more naturally than thumping the ball over the net to the opponent. Has he improved? Yes. Does that make him a GOAT? No. Improve your skills with the racket comprehensively first - then become GOAT. Not be supported by great technology to become a GOAT. If Nadal were skilled as well as strong at 19 when he won his first RG, I would never have questioned his credentials in tennis.

Now Guga winning RG, that was GOAT-like! What skills the man had! Technology should help players like him.

Argenbrit
06-01-2012, 08:34 PM
I don't mind either way, but Nadal's 7th would be quite epic.

Poirot123
06-01-2012, 08:39 PM
As a Fedtard, I favour a Nadal 7th RG title. Why? Because Fed and Nadal both failed to hold all 4 at the same time, so I'd hate it that Djokovic did what they could not do. We all know Nadal is a clay beast (in fact the clay GOAT) so why not give him 7 RG titles? Yes it's 11 GS, but he doesn't look like he'll ever get to 16, and if he did, he'll probably have 10 RG in the list, which kind of devalues his effort.

Fireballer
06-01-2012, 08:52 PM
Technology is meant to help the skillful player. Not just the strong player.

----

Better explanation:

Even between Nole and Nadal, the lamest eyes in tennis can see Nole is a more complete player than Nadal. Purely for tennis shotmaking, Nole is greater than Nadal.

Now both Nole and Nadal improved their respective skills over time. Whereas Nole grew physically strong over the years and learned to endure long points and win matches, Nadal improved his game, no doubt he did but he was not naturally like that. I have always maintained Nadal's natural first talent is running like a beast - his first three slams were won purely like that. The only tennis tact he used was to throw the ball from side to side and run down the opponent till he dries up, and make sure from his end that the ball falls into the opponents court no matter how weird and fuck-all his tennis skills might have been. Nadal from 2005-2007 was all about winning - not about playing better tennis. It was only since 2008 that his game grew less physical, he began to control points without having to run all over town.

Nadal's game has visibly evolved a lot since he began, but its not anywhere near the natural game or skill level of other top players to whom all aspects of playing tennis came more naturally than thumping the ball over the net to the opponent. Has he improved? Yes. Does that make him a GOAT? No. Improve your skills with the racket comprehensively first - then become GOAT. Not be supported by great technology to become a GOAT. If Nadal were skilled as well as strong at 19 when he won his first RG, I would never have questioned his credentials in tennis.

Now Guga winning RG, that was GOAT-like! What skills the man had! Technology should help players like him.

Hey bitter tard everyone is free to use the same technology

peribsen
06-01-2012, 08:56 PM
and if he did, he'll probably have 10 RG in the list, which kind of devalues his effort.

Why? That's a pretty weak argument. If it were true, it would also mean Borg, McEnroe and Tilden, who won all their slams on just 2 events, would be even more devalued, which is utter nonsense. While Connors (5 of his 8 were USO), Rosewall and Agassi (half were AO) would be at least as affected as Rafa.

To say that any player who has won all 4 slams can have his effort somehow cheapened by adding up -to what is already by itself a huge result- the fact they were extremely good on a given surface is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

BauerAlmeida
06-01-2012, 09:22 PM
Why? That's a pretty weak argument. If it were true, it would also mean Borg, McEnroe and Tilden, who won all their slams on just 2 events, would be even more devalued, which is utter nonsense. While Connors (5 of his 8 were USO), Rosewall and Agassi (half were AO) would be at least as affected as Rafa.

To say that any player who has won all 4 slams can have his effort somehow cheapened by adding up -to what is already by itself a huge result- the fact they were extremely good on a given surface is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.


Agassi won the four when the surfaces were really different. There's no way you can include it. And in the case of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, etc....the Australian was barely considered a GS back then, different times. And Borg won 6 RG and 5 Wimbledon.

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 09:32 PM
RG # 7 all the way. And it is happening for sure. For some reasons all predictions I make in writing here seem to be spot on - US 2010, RG 2011, Monte Carlo 2012 etc. Others not so good - go figure :)

Novak getting 4 in a row somehow undermines the players in my signature and that I would not like ;). But Novak and Rafa are making the finals.

Rafa stopped the GOAT twice in RG finals from getting 4 in the row. Rafa knows what it takes to deny NCYGS. And on June 10th, 2012 you will see the Majorcan leaving yet another bite mark on the RG trophy.

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 09:38 PM
Hmm, let me see - an historic record that will rock the world of sports or a mind-numbingly boring repeat of a dismal annual ritual? Shit, my brain hurts....




4 in a row has been done several times before - Laver did it twice, Serena did it, Graf did it. But NOBODY has won SEVEN ROLAND GARROS TITLES ever. So what is truly going to rock the sporting world?

And Why do you even want to rock the world of sports? Sun rises and sets daily - people don't have an issue with that. The King of Clay winning in RG yet again another time simply underlines order. Order is good :).

peribsen
06-01-2012, 09:45 PM
Agassi won the four when the surfaces were really different. There's no way you can include it.

Oh yes I can. Rafa won RG when it was still old fashioned clay and WB when it was still faster than today. And 10 beats 8, whichever way you spin it.

And in the case of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, etc....the Australian was barely considered a GS back then, (..). And Borg won 6 RG and 5 Wimbledon.

But none of them managed to win on all slams.

...different times

Which cuts both ways. It's not me who is trying to erode earlier players accomplishments, it's other posters here who will insist in comparing different times to diminish some players.

Take Laver, for example. He won mostly on grass (9 of 11 slams). In his times, that was the way the game was. Anybody arguing that his results are not really that good, because he never won a HC slam would be unfair at best, at worst a fool. Yet I beg somebody to explain why on earth that rather glaring fact (2 surfaces instead of 3) should be discarded when appraising Laver, yet today's more similar (but not at all identical) surfaces should be used as an argument against Nadal.

You either accept that different times are indeed different, or you don't. You can't have it bothways.

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 09:52 PM
Technology is meant to help the skillful player. Not just the strong player.

----

Better explanation:

Even between Nole and Nadal, the lamest eyes in tennis can see Nole is a more complete player than Nadal. Purely for tennis shotmaking, Nole is greater than Nadal.

Now both Nole and Nadal improved their respective skills over time. Whereas Nole grew physically strong over the years and learned to endure long points and win matches, Nadal improved his game, no doubt he did but he was not naturally like that. I have always maintained Nadal's natural first talent is running like a beast - his first three slams were won purely like that. The only tennis tact he used was to throw the ball from side to side and run down the opponent till he dries up, and make sure from his end that the ball falls into the opponents court no matter how weird and fuck-all his tennis skills might have been. Nadal from 2005-2007 was all about winning - not about playing better tennis. It was only since 2008 that his game grew less physical, he began to control points without having to run all over town.

Nadal's game has visibly evolved a lot since he began, but its not anywhere near the natural game or skill level of other top players to whom all aspects of playing tennis came more naturally than thumping the ball over the net to the opponent. Has he improved? Yes. Does that make him a GOAT? No. Improve your skills with the racket comprehensively first - then become GOAT. Not be supported by great technology to become a GOAT. If Nadal were skilled as well as strong at 19 when he won his first RG, I would never have questioned his credentials in tennis.

Now Guga winning RG, that was GOAT-like! What skills the man had! Technology should help players like him.



Wow didnt know just with running people could win grand slams in tennis? So a 100 meter dash olympic specialist could learn basic tennis strokes and win the french? Hmmmm.....

Not sure if you guys who write here actually have played tennis?

Rafa Nadal might or might not be technically gifted like the GOAT. But he figured a way to beat the GOAT again and again and again on the biggest stages. You continue questioning his tennis credentials. And yeah watch him lift #7 next sunday while you are at it.

Certinfy
06-01-2012, 09:53 PM
This question is basically, which of the top 3 do you like the most? :facepalm:

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 09:57 PM
As a Fedtard, I favour a Nadal 7th RG title. Why? Because Fed and Nadal both failed to hold all 4 at the same time, so I'd hate it that Djokovic did what they could not do. We all know Nadal is a clay beast (in fact the clay GOAT) so why not give him 7 RG titles? Yes it's 11 GS, but he doesn't look like he'll ever get to 16, and if he did, he'll probably have 10 RG in the list, which kind of devalues his effort.

devalues his effort? are you serious?
Continue rooting against Rafa. It is second nature for fedtards - don't give it up.

BauerAlmeida
06-01-2012, 09:58 PM
Oh yes I can. Rafa won RG when it was still old fashioned clay and WB when it was still faster than today. And 10 beats 8, whichever way you spin it.



But none of them managed to win on all slams.



Which cuts both ways. It's not me who is trying to erode earlier players accomplishments, it's other posters here who will insist in comparing different times to diminish some players.

Take Laver, for example. He won mostly on grass (9 of 11 slams). In his times, that was the way the game was. Anybody arguing that his results are not really that good, because he never won a HC slam would be unfair at best, at worst a fool. Yet I beg somebody to explain why on earth that rather glaring fact (2 surfaces instead of 3) should be discarded when appraising Laver, yet today's more similar (but not at all identical) surfaces should be used as an argument against Nadal.

You either accept that different times are indeed different, or you don't. You can't have it bothways.


I think that times are different and you can't compare them. I never said Nadal results are not that good.

But if someone proved that can win everywhere is Agassi. Wining Wimbledon in ultra-fast grass defeating players like Ivanisevic and in RG when it was really slow.

peribsen
06-01-2012, 10:00 PM
This question is basically, which of the top 3 do you like the most? :facepalm:

How very rude and brash of you, Certinfy, to say that loud and clear! Don't you know by now that sincerity is frowned upon on MTF? People go to great lengths to spin away any fact they dislike and bury it under tons and tons of convoluted excuses and pseudo-explanations.

If everybody started just blurting out the truth, like you have done, what would become of us?

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 10:02 PM
This question is basically, which of the top 3 do you like the most? :facepalm:


agreed since this forum is mainly infested with fans of top 3.

I say this poll should be only for the people who are neither tards of these three nor hold any negative bais or resentment for either of them. I don't think there is any such individual here on these forums.

Kiedis
06-01-2012, 10:05 PM
I'm happy because after so many time we finally will have a epic final in the clay temple.

70-68
06-01-2012, 10:05 PM
4 in a row has been done several times before - Laver did it twice, Serena did it, Graf did it. But NOBODY has won SEVEN ROLAND GARROS TITLES ever. So what is truly going to rock the sporting world?

If you really want to include women, then Chris Evert won 7 French Open....

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 10:09 PM
If you really want to include women, then Chris Evert won 7 French Open....

Ok - but path to 8 goes through 7 unfortunately. So #7 needs to be in the bag and Borg in rearview. Then we focus on Evert next year.

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:12 PM
Nole has figured Nadal out. As soon as he decides to play again, Nadal will fall.

70-68
06-01-2012, 10:15 PM
Doesn't really matter anyways, achievements between men and women should not be compared like this.

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 10:15 PM
Nole has figured Nadal out. As soon as he decides to play again, Nadal will fall.

Nole thought he had Nadal figured out. If the GOAT could not prevail over Rafa in his quest to complete 4-in-a-row - not once but twice - what chance does Novak have?

Rafa is gonna become the 4-in-a-row terminator.

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:18 PM
Nole thought he had Nadal figured out. If the GOAT could not prevail over Rafa in his quest to complete 4-in-a-row - not once but twice - what chance does Novak have?

Rafa is gonna become the 4-in-a-row terminator.

we can always dream but Nadals time must soon come to an end. Nole will put his grieve behind him and becomes the monster again:

LIGHTS OUT, GAME OVER!

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 10:18 PM
All roads to 4-in-a-row go through Rafael Nadal at Phillip Chatrier.

Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
and now, casualty # 3 Novak Djokovic 2012 :)

THe GOAT may have other plans though. He might want to take Novak out himself in the semis and try his quest of Rafa one more time at RG.

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:20 PM
THe GOAT may have other plans though. He might want to take Novak out himself in the semis and try his quest of Rafa one more time at RG.

OH GOD! please spare me :sobbing::sobbing::sobbing:

Looner
06-01-2012, 10:20 PM
All roads to 4-in-a-row go through Rafael Nadal at Phillip Chatrier.

Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
and now, casualty # 3 Novak Djokovic 2012 :)

THe GOAT may have other plans though. He might want to take Novak out himself in the semis and try his quest of Rafa one more time at RG.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/customavatars/avatar32909_11.gif

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:23 PM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/customavatars/avatar32909_11.gif

:haha:

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 10:23 PM
we can always dream but Nadals time must soon come to an end. Nole will put his grieve behind him and becomes the monster again:

LIGHTS OUT, GAME OVER!

Nadal winning RG is a dream?

No - Novak winning RG this year is a dream.

And if LIGHTS go OUT then the GENERATOR will bring it back on but Rafa will get the job done this time - whatever it takes.

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:25 PM
Nadal winning RG is a dream?

No - Novak winning RG this year is a dream.

And if LIGHTS go OUT then the GENERATOR will bring it back on but Rafa will get the job done this time - whatever it takes.

might take two functional knees :hug:

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 10:27 PM
OH GOD! please spare me :sobbing::sobbing::sobbing:


never rule fed out. His best is better than anybody's best. When he is on he wont even allow Rafa and Novak to get started. Recall WTF from the last two years. The problem is that roger is not consistent any more and prone to errors. But it is not past him to play his best tennis over the span of a weekend to take this title. Sure odds are against him at this stage of his career but never underestimate the heart of a champion. And champion he is of the highest order. Even today.

heya
06-01-2012, 10:27 PM
fed tards say agassi was great on every fast surface but they dumbfound themselves when they bash djokovic's success on grass and clay. it's not like djoko needs luck while in the draw with 31 year old tommy haas, del potro, injured nadal and federer

SERBINATOR
06-01-2012, 10:29 PM
Nole Slam all the way!
Rafa slam all the way (4 runner up trophy)!

If Nole 2.0 kicks in again then Rafa can bid goodbye to his career

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:30 PM
never rule fed out. His best is better than anybody's best. When he is on he wont even allow Rafa and Novak to get started. Recall WTF from the last two years. The problem is that roger is not consistent any more and probe to errors. But it is not past him to play his best tennis over the span of a weekend to take this title. Sure odds are against him at this stage of his career but never underestimate the heart of a champion. And champion he is of the highest order. Even today.

If there is one thing that is given in tennis it is this:
Federer cannot beat Nadal on Chatrier

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:31 PM
Nole Slam all the way!
Rafa slam all the way (4 runner up trophy)!

If Nole 2.0 kicks in again then Rafa can bid goodbye to his career

:rocker:

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 10:32 PM
If there is one thing that is given in tennis it is this:
Federer cannot beat Nadal on Chatrier

ok then maybe Chatrier gets holes in it and final gets moved to Lenglen :) Dont think Rafa has ever beaten Fed there...now has he?

Manequin75
06-01-2012, 10:33 PM
Nole Slam all the way!
Rafa slam all the way (4 runner up trophy)!

If Nole 2.0 kicks in again then Rafa can bid goodbye to his career

Nole 2.0 couldn't even get to the RG final LOL

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:34 PM
fed tards say agassi was great on every fast surface but they dumbfound themselves when they bash djokovic's success on grass and clay. it's not like djoko needs luck while in the draw with 31 year old tommy haas, del potro, injured nadal and federer

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110813220912/tdicamps/images/4/4e/Crazy.gif

Kiedis
06-01-2012, 10:40 PM
:rocker:

If somehow Rafa managed to win RG and Wimbledon, pants of Federer fans will be smelled from miles away :D

And I would pay big money to be able of enjoy so delicious odor

Commander Data
06-01-2012, 10:44 PM
ok then maybe Chatrier gets holes in it and final gets moved to Lenglen :) Dont think Rafa has ever beaten Fed there...now has he?

that might work

arm
06-01-2012, 11:11 PM
This question is basically, which of the top 3 do you like the most? :facepalm:

So Nole is the most popular? :speakles:

:lol:

guga2120
06-01-2012, 11:11 PM
fed tards say agassi was great on every fast surface but they dumbfound themselves when they bash djokovic's success on grass and clay. it's not like djoko needs luck while in the draw with 31 year old tommy haas, del potro, injured nadal and federer

:yeah:

rocketassist
06-02-2012, 12:52 AM
fed tards say agassi was great on every fast surface but they dumbfound themselves when they bash djokovic's success on grass and clay. it's not like djoko needs luck while in the draw with 31 year old tommy haas, del potro, injured nadal and federer

None of Djoker's slams have been won on a fast surface.

Even Nadal has one of those.

Fireballer
06-02-2012, 01:26 AM
None of Djoker's slams have been won on a fast surface.

Even Nadal has one of those.

yes Wimbledon is slow

duong
06-02-2012, 01:26 AM
So I'm not quite sure what "category" context you mean? Maybe it's mixing category of how good a quality player he has become, compared to them, vs. career-wise accomplishments that is leading to some confusion or differences?.

I don't speak of something "objective" : I speak of his aura or reputation :

- I've read quite many players saying that he didn't have Fed/Nadal's aura in the locker-room

- I think journalists have spoken much more of Nadal's 2010 and Fed's 2009 while Djoko's 2011 was much better (imo, Djoko's 2011 is even better than Fed's 2006, the difference is that Fed played 3 huge years 2004-2005-2006)

- on this forum you can read the same : Djokovic had beaten Nadal 7 times in a row and against Fed 4-1 yet many eople were expecting Nadal to beat Djokovic in MonteCarlo/Roma and as soon as Nadal has beaten Djokovic in Roma, many people think that Djokovic has hardly a chance. Against Fed you keep on reading "Fed beats Djokovic who beats Nadal who beats Fed" which is objectively wrong for Fed-Djokovic even though Fed can give him many problems (he could easily have won both US Open semifinals).

etc etc (for instance how Fed speaks of Nadal and Djokovic relatively) ... what I mean about the reputation and aura is clear imo : people are unfair with Djokovic imo :shrug:

I say that in all honesty, because you know I'm a Fed-fan and not a Djoko-fan although I like him.

Topspindoctor
06-02-2012, 01:30 AM
- I think journalists have spoken much more of Nadal's 2010 and Fed's 2009 while Djoko's 2011 was much better (imo, Djoko's 2011 is even better than Fed's 2006, the difference is that Fed played 3 huge years 2004-2005-2006)
.

Well you have to be fair to Olderer here. His 2006 was much better.

Olderer 2006 = reached all 4 slam finals
Djoker 2011 = didn't reach all 4 slam finals

Olderer 2006 = 12 titles
Djoker 2011 = 10 titles

Olderer 2006 W/L = 92-5
Djoker 2011 W/L = 70-6

Olderer in 2006 won TMC
Djoker in 2011 didn't make TMC semis

duong
06-02-2012, 01:40 AM
Well you have to be fair to Olderer here. His 2006 was much better.

Olderer 2006 = reached all 4 slam finals
Djoker 2011 = didn't reach all 4 slam finals

Olderer 2006 = 12 titles
Djoker 2011 = 10 titles

Olderer 2006 W/L = 92-5
Djoker 2011 W/L = 70-6

Olderer in 2006 won TMC
Djoker in 2011 didn't make TMC semis

I know all of the stats you give me and I think I've followed and loved Fed's 2006 more than you :lol: , but I have my own opinion, it's tight but I give Djokovic's year something more especially because what he did against Nadal was great.

But as I said what was special about Fed is that he had 3 great years in a row 2004-2005-2006.

Anyway the 3 of them are great imo Fed, Nadal and Djokovic.

ossie
06-02-2012, 01:54 AM
I don't speak of something "objective" : I speak of his aura or reputation :

- I've read quite many players saying that he didn't have Fed/Nadal's aura in the locker-room

- I think journalists have spoken much more of Nadal's 2010 and Fed's 2009 while Djoko's 2011 was much better (imo, Djoko's 2011 is even better than Fed's 2006, the difference is that Fed played 3 huge years 2004-2005-2006)

- on this forum you can read the same : Djokovic had beaten Nadal 7 times in a row and against Fed 4-1 yet many eople were expecting Nadal to beat Djokovic in MonteCarlo/Roma and as soon as Nadal has beaten Djokovic in Roma, many people think that Djokovic has hardly a chance. Against Fed you keep on reading "Fed beats Djokovic who beats Nadal who beats Fed" which is objectively wrong for Fed-Djokovic even though Fed can give him many problems (he could easily have won both US Open semifinals).

etc etc (for instance how Fed speaks of Nadal and Djokovic relatively) ... what I mean about the reputation and aura is clear imo : people are unfair with Djokovic imo :shrug:

I say that in all honesty, because you know I'm a Fed-fan and not a Djoko-fan although I like him.agreed, the djoker doesn't get enough credit for what he has achieved and i'm not only talking about titles/results but him surpassing both nadal and federer. fedtards want us to believe there is some triangle rock paper scissors action going and they are propagating this false notion every chance they get but we all know the djoker spanks their god just as hard as he does nadal. about his two recent losses to nadal, while i think nadal is now the favourite for a potential french open final between these two i don't believe it will make a difference for the future of their rivalry. the djoker will keep dominating them until they improve their game and by the looks of it they don't plan to do it anytime soon.

Manequin75
06-02-2012, 02:07 AM
agreed, the djoker doesn't get enough credit for what he has achieved and i'm not only talking about titles/results but him surpassing both nadal and federer. fedtards want us to believe there is some triangle rock paper scissors action going and they are propagating this false notion every chance they get but we all know the djoker spanks their god just as hard as he does nadal. about his two recent losses to nadal, while i think nadal is now the favourite for a potential french open final between these two i don't believe it will make a difference for the future of their rivalry. the djoker will keep dominating them until they improve their game and by the looks of it they don't plan to do it anytime soon.


ossie - unless my memory fails me you used to be a rafa fan too earlier. What happened? You switched to novak camp? (Lets leave delpo on the side for this one :)...

rocketassist
06-02-2012, 02:15 AM
ossie - unless my memory fails me you used to be a rafa fan too earlier. What happened? You switched to novak camp? (Lets leave delpo on the side for this one :)...

Divide and conquer, RFK style. See who looks like they're going to win the big 'uns and then start raving off them, to make them look bigtime.

Topspindoctor
06-02-2012, 02:16 AM
Divide and conquer, RFK style. See who looks like they're going to win the big 'uns and then start raving off them, to make them look bigtime.

Definition of a gloryhunter :shrug:

rocketassist
06-02-2012, 02:17 AM
Definition of a gloryhunter :shrug:

Yup.

tripwires
06-02-2012, 02:25 AM
Well you have to be fair to Olderer here. His 2006 was much better.

Olderer 2006 = reached all 4 slam finals
Djoker 2011 = didn't reach all 4 slam finals

Olderer 2006 = 12 titles
Djoker 2011 = 10 titles

Olderer 2006 W/L = 92-5
Djoker 2011 W/L = 70-6

Olderer in 2006 won TMC
Djoker in 2011 didn't make TMC semis

T-Doc...did you really write this post?

BroTree123
06-02-2012, 02:28 AM
Well you have to be fair to Olderer here. His 2006 was much better.

Olderer 2006 = reached all 4 slam finals
Djoker 2011 = didn't reach all 4 slam finals

Olderer 2006 = 12 titles
Djoker 2011 = 10 titles

Olderer 2006 W/L = 92-5
Djoker 2011 W/L = 70-6

Olderer in 2006 won TMC
Djoker in 2011 didn't make TMC semis

However you failed to mention Olderer taking advantage of an extremely weak era at the time, where even your 250-year old grandma could do even better (hence Nole 2011, being far more superior). How disappointing of you :o

Topspindoctor
06-02-2012, 02:28 AM
However you failed to mention Olderer taking advantage of an extremely weak era at the time, where even your grandma could do even better (hence Nole 2011, being far more superior). How disappointing of you :o

My grandma is a great tennis player :shrug:

BauerAlmeida
06-02-2012, 07:31 AM
I don't speak of something "objective" : I speak of his aura or reputation :

- I've read quite many players saying that he didn't have Fed/Nadal's aura in the locker-room

- I think journalists have spoken much more of Nadal's 2010 and Fed's 2009 while Djoko's 2011 was much better (imo, Djoko's 2011 is even better than Fed's 2006, the difference is that Fed played 3 huge years 2004-2005-2006)

- on this forum you can read the same : Djokovic had beaten Nadal 7 times in a row and against Fed 4-1 yet many eople were expecting Nadal to beat Djokovic in MonteCarlo/Roma and as soon as Nadal has beaten Djokovic in Roma, many people think that Djokovic has hardly a chance. Against Fed you keep on reading "Fed beats Djokovic who beats Nadal who beats Fed" which is objectively wrong for Fed-Djokovic even though Fed can give him many problems (he could easily have won both US Open semifinals).

etc etc (for instance how Fed speaks of Nadal and Djokovic relatively) ... what I mean about the reputation and aura is clear imo : people are unfair with Djokovic imo :shrug:

I say that in all honesty, because you know I'm a Fed-fan and not a Djoko-fan although I like him.

Fed played 4 straight years in a row at a huge level (2004-2007). If reaching 4 Gs finals, wining 3 and wining the TMC and a couple Masters 1000 isn't a fantastic year, then I don't know what it is.

masterclass
06-02-2012, 08:13 AM
I don't speak of something "objective" : I speak of his aura or reputation :

- I've read quite many players saying that he didn't have Fed/Nadal's aura in the locker-room

- I think journalists have spoken much more of Nadal's 2010 and Fed's 2009 while Djoko's 2011 was much better (imo, Djoko's 2011 is even better than Fed's 2006, the difference is that Fed played 3 huge years 2004-2005-2006)

- on this forum you can read the same : Djokovic had beaten Nadal 7 times in a row and against Fed 4-1 yet many eople were expecting Nadal to beat Djokovic in MonteCarlo/Roma and as soon as Nadal has beaten Djokovic in Roma, many people think that Djokovic has hardly a chance. Against Fed you keep on reading "Fed beats Djokovic who beats Nadal who beats Fed" which is objectively wrong for Fed-Djokovic even though Fed can give him many problems (he could easily have won both US Open semifinals).

etc etc (for instance how Fed speaks of Nadal and Djokovic relatively) ... what I mean about the reputation and aura is clear imo : people are unfair with Djokovic imo :shrug:

I say that in all honesty, because you know I'm a Fed-fan and not a Djoko-fan although I like him.

Ok, Mr. duong, thanks for clarifying. I think it is not so much unfairness, as much as a fluctuating overall perception. I think there can be temporary "Aura" akin to momentum, and a more permanent "Aura" that is akin to a bank vault of success, where temporary "Aura" is deposited. There is no doubt Mr. Djokovic had a heavy dose of temporary "Aura" during Jan-Aug 2011. He fed off confidence and success like most good players. Then the matter comes down to whether that temporary "Aura" builds into more and more permanent "Aura". And I think that simply takes time and success upon success to establish, without major reversals. Also, I think most would agree that a player's "Aura" is gained by winning, and solidified and enhanced by winning majors.

Nole's history works a bit against him. He won his first major in the 2008 Australian Open, so a fair measure went into his permanent bank. But then he didn't win another for almost 3 years, so his permanent "Aura" dissipated to a large extent, where people questioned his stamina, dedication, quality, etc. But in 2011, he essentially tore the roof off, and put a huge pile of "Aura" into the permanent bank.

In 2012, Novak started off well, and won at the Australian Open. That made a bridge to repair and continue his huge "Aura" from 2011 - (it was needed due to curtail his severe tail off from Sept to Nov 2011). Once he did that, he had enough permanent "Aura" to continue his "Aura" level, and it was evident in all the successive talk and predictions by pundits. Seven consecutive wins over Nadal, 3 straight majors, etc. People were already talking about him winning at Roland Garros, despite not having played on the clay in 2012, and despite him never making a final at Roland Garros. This to me, was mostly due to the "Aura" which came from his continued success, especially at the majors. The same thing can come from having a large amount of "Aura" in the permanent bank. Nadal and Federer will be said to always have a good chance wherever they have achieved a great deal of success.

But tennis fluctuates, and has a lot of variables, and sometimes even success at a great cost can be one's enemy. After the Australian Open, there was distinct evidence that Novak (and Nadal) had lost something. Maybe that match took too much out of them in both a physical and/or psychological sense. Whatever the reason, they didn't play at the same level after that for quite a while and were not winning. Meanwhile, Federer took advantage of that. So all this served to take some temporary "Aura" away from Djokovic, and thus slow down or halt the increase in permanent "Aura". Yet no additional major had been played, so his "Aura" was still there to a great extent.

Mr. Djokovic gained a bit back with his Miami win, but it was a tad empty in that he hadn't faced either Nadal or Federer. And then the serious clay season began, and Nadal regained much of his clay "Aura". Mr. Djokovic could not continue his hold over Nadal. That, in my opinion halted Mr. Djokovic's gain on permanent "Aura" and even diminished it to an extent, as he could no longer claim current superiority over Nadal. After Rome especially, most pundits naturally reversed their previous thoughts that Djokovic could win at Roland Garros. Nadal winning at Roland Garros would serve to increase his already almost invincible clay permanent "Aura". An unlikely win by either Djokovic or Federer at Roland Garros, would obviously diminish Nadal's and increase their "Auras".

As far as Mr. Federer goes, since his permanent "Aura" is so high by virtue of his success over the years, it doesn't take a lot of current success to restore it to it's previous height (same goes for Nadal). By doing so well in the last 8 months, including winning his 6th Year End Championships title, and 3 Masters, he did a lot to keep himself in the "Aura" playing field and has heightened his temporary "Aura". But in my opinion, he needs to win a major to get his "Aura" back to where it was, no matter if he beat Nadal at Indian Wells, or if he won in Madrid where Djokovic and Nadal were unable to contend. If Federer is able to do that, say at Wimbledon or perhaps the US Open, then everybody will be talking about Federer, and he will have the Federer "Aura" back in place and even enhanced due to the relative prowess of Djokovic near peak and Nadal still at prime level.

Anyway, I've gone on far too long here as usual :shrug: :). I think you can see it comes down to this:
Federer and Nadal (especially on clay), have a tremendous bank of "Aura". Therefore it doesn't take much additional success to put them back at that level. Djokovic, despite his high temporary "Aura" of 2011 and 2012 (AO), doesn't have so much in the permanent bank, so he needs much more continued success to put him on the Federer-Nadal level of overall "Aura".

Respectfully,
masterclass

ossie
06-02-2012, 09:31 AM
ossie - unless my memory fails me you used to be a rafa fan too earlier. What happened? You switched to novak camp? (Lets leave delpo on the side for this one :)...yes i switched camp..to the delpo camp. if you read my post carefully you will see that i am just stating the truth. i will never be a fan of the djoker but unlike some people who accuse me of gloryhunting i can be objective and commend players i don't like.

Orka_n
06-02-2012, 10:12 AM
I'd prefer a Berdych win.

yes i switched camp..to the delpo camp. if you read my post carefully you will see that i am just stating the truth. i will never be a fan of the djoker but unlike some people who accuse me of gloryhunting i can be objective and commend players i don't like.Good one.

arm
06-02-2012, 10:30 AM
- I think journalists have spoken much more of Nadal's 2010 and Fed's 2009 while Djoko's 2011 was much better (imo, Djoko's 2011 is even better than Fed's 2006, the difference is that Fed played 3 huge years 2004-2005-2006)

Where were you last year? :scratch: Locked in a cave? Nole got plenty of attention. IMO, more than Rafa did in 2010, because it wasn't so unexpected.

Filo V.
06-02-2012, 11:19 AM
i enjoy a more unpredictable event too. I wont deny that im sitting here hoping that we get some sort of upset that makes things a little more interesting

but at the same time the challengers are so often just such a mess that i do enjoy a slam more. You get these nice stories at slams that you dont get at the challengers. Plus i can see the players i like on tv, i dont have to watch some crappy little video on my computer
I agree with you about the nice stories in slams, but since I'm not a sentimental person it doesn't have much of an affect with me :lol:

Challengers are usually a mess, which makes them more interesting! You just never know what's gonna happen. And the matches are definitely more competitive, and more dramatic. Also, I think with slams, there are actually too many matches and you can't just focus on one or two players. And then when you have favorites on outside courts, over horrible matches. With most challengers that's not an issue. You can watch two matches at the same time and those are the two main matches being played at that time. For me, it's simply more spontaneous and more fun, but you have good reasons for why you have a different opinion.

Nole fan
06-02-2012, 12:03 PM
Where were you last year? :scratch: Locked in a cave? Nole got plenty of attention. IMO, more than Rafa did in 2010, because it wasn't so unexpected.

I agree with almost everything duong said, but Raquel has a point here.
I feel like last year Nole got all the attention he deserved and journalists and pundits talked non-stop about him and celebrated his achievements, alaso the legends started telling everyone who cared to listen how imrpessive and great Djokovic was. I don't think it was a lack of attention or good press, but it's more a general demand for him to prove himself contantly. That's the main difference in respect to Nadal and Federer, obviously because these two don't need to prove anything. But I also feel like Djokovic doesn't need to prove anything anymore. :shrug:

munZe konZa
06-02-2012, 12:50 PM
Ok, Mr. duong, thanks for clarifying. I think it is not so much unfairness, as much as a fluctuating overall perception. I think there can be temporary "Aura" akin to momentum, and a more permanent "Aura" that is akin to a bank vault of success, where temporary "Aura" is deposited. There is no doubt Mr. Djokovic had a heavy dose of temporary "Aura" during Jan-Aug 2011. He fed off confidence and success like most good players. Then the matter comes down to whether that temporary "Aura" builds into more and more permanent "Aura". And I think that simply takes time and success upon success to establish, without major reversals. Also, I think most would agree that a player's "Aura" is gained by winning, and solidified and enhanced by winning majors.

Nole's history works a bit against him. He won his first major in the 2008 Australian Open, so a fair measure went into his permanent bank. But then he didn't win another for almost 3 years, so his permanent "Aura" dissipated to a large extent, where people questioned his stamina, dedication, quality, etc. But in 2011, he essentially tore the roof off, and put a huge pile of "Aura" into the permanent bank.

In 2012, Novak started off well, and won at the Australian Open. That made a bridge to repair and continue his huge "Aura" from 2011 - (it was needed due to curtail his severe tail off from Sept to Nov 2011). Once he did that, he had enough permanent "Aura" to continue his "Aura" level, and it was evident in all the successive talk and predictions by pundits. Seven consecutive wins over Nadal, 3 straight majors, etc. People were already talking about him winning at Roland Garros, despite not having played on the clay in 2012, and despite him never making a final at Roland Garros. This to me, was mostly due to the "Aura" which came from his continued success, especially at the majors. The same thing can come from having a large amount of "Aura" in the permanent bank. Nadal and Federer will be said to always have a good chance wherever they have achieved a great deal of success.

But tennis fluctuates, and has a lot of variables, and sometimes even success at a great cost can be one's enemy. After the Australian Open, there was distinct evidence that Novak (and Nadal) had lost something. Maybe that match took too much out of them in both a physical and/or psychological sense. Whatever the reason, they didn't play at the same level after that for quite a while and were not winning. Meanwhile, Federer took advantage of that. So all this served to take some temporary "Aura" away from Djokovic, and thus slow down or halt the increase in permanent "Aura". Yet no additional major had been played, so his "Aura" was still there to a great extent.

Mr. Djokovic gained a bit back with his Miami win, but it was a tad empty in that he hadn't faced either Nadal or Federer. And then the serious clay season began, and Nadal regained much of his clay "Aura". Mr. Djokovic could not continue his hold over Nadal. That, in my opinion halted Mr. Djokovic's gain on permanent "Aura" and even diminished it to an extent, as he could no longer claim current superiority over Nadal. After Rome especially, most pundits naturally reversed their previous thoughts that Djokovic could win at Roland Garros. Nadal winning at Roland Garros would serve to increase his already almost invincible clay permanent "Aura". An unlikely win by either Djokovic or Federer at Roland Garros, would obviously diminish Nadal's and increase their "Auras".

As far as Mr. Federer goes, since his permanent "Aura" is so high by virtue of his success over the years, it doesn't take a lot of current success to restore it to it's previous height (same goes for Nadal). By doing so well in the last 8 months, including winning his 6th Year End Championships title, and 3 Masters, he did a lot to keep himself in the "Aura" playing field and has heightened his temporary "Aura". But in my opinion, he needs to win a major to get his "Aura" back to where it was, no matter if he beat Nadal at Indian Wells, or if he won in Madrid where Djokovic and Nadal were unable to contend. If Federer is able to do that, say at Wimbledon or perhaps the US Open, then everybody will be talking about Federer, and he will have the Federer "Aura" back in place and even enhanced due to the relative prowess of Djokovic near peak and Nadal still at prime level.

Anyway, I've gone on far too long here as usual :shrug: :). I think you can see it comes down to this:
Federer and Nadal (especially on clay), have a tremendous bank of "Aura". Therefore it doesn't take much additional success to put them back at that level. Djokovic, despite his high temporary "Aura" of 2011 and 2012 (AO), doesn't have so much in the permanent bank, so he needs much more continued success to put him on the Federer-Nadal level of overall "Aura".

Respectfully,
masterclass
People , don't read this clap trap

sweetkit
06-02-2012, 02:08 PM
Nole Slam I prefer. Just for a brand new "How I won my first Nole Slam" monography sake.

ossie
06-02-2012, 02:25 PM
I'd prefer a Berdych win.

Good one.thanks

Commander Data
06-02-2012, 02:26 PM
What do you prefer: Flu or Diarrhea?

EliSter
06-02-2012, 02:41 PM
What do you prefer: Flu or Diarrhea?

Flu, tyvm.

Commander Data
06-02-2012, 03:31 PM
tyvm.

:hatoff:

sweetkit
06-02-2012, 04:14 PM
Swine flu is more dangerous methinks, so again can't go with Rafa here.

abraxas21
06-02-2012, 04:17 PM
thats like asking: what do you prefer, shit or piss?

sicko
06-02-2012, 04:18 PM
thats like asking: what do you prefer, shit or piss?

piss, most definitely.

habibko
06-02-2012, 04:35 PM
tough one, on one hand I'd laugh my ass off seeing Djokovic completing the Piggy Slam (beating Nadal in 4 different GS finals in a row), such unprecedented and pure ownage lulz

on the other hand it would be absolutely hilarious to see Djokovic failing once again to put his own distinct mark in tennis history and watch his ugly smug face turn into the loser hugging-shrugging one we all know and love

Nole fan
06-02-2012, 08:48 PM
tough one, on one hand I'd laugh my ass off seeing Djokovic completing the Piggy Slam (beating Nadal in 4 different GS finals in a row), such unprecedented and pure ownage lulz

on the other hand it would be absolutely hilarious to see Djokovic failing once again to put his own distinct mark in tennis history and watch his ugly smug face turn into the loser hugging-shrugging one we all know and love

Man, those semifinals lost at USO must really hurt, you've become quite an insufferable hater lately. :o

fede37
06-02-2012, 09:01 PM
obviously Nole Slam :angel::angel:

sunsfuns
06-02-2012, 09:08 PM
If I have to choose between Rafa and Nole then I prefer Rafa. Any other tournament it would be Nole, but not here.

peribsen
06-02-2012, 10:11 PM
thats like asking: what do you prefer, shit or piss?

Well, coprophages are decidedly out of vogue, but urolagnia does have its followers.

duong
06-02-2012, 10:53 PM
Ok, Mr. duong, thanks for clarifying. I think it is not so much unfairness, as much as a fluctuating overall perception. I think there can be temporary "Aura" akin to momentum, and a more permanent "Aura" that is akin to a bank vault of success, where temporary "Aura" is deposited. There is no doubt Mr. Djokovic had a heavy dose of temporary "Aura" during Jan-Aug 2011. He fed off confidence and success like most good players. Then the matter comes down to whether that temporary "Aura" builds into more and more permanent "Aura". And I think that simply takes time and success upon success to establish, without major reversals. Also, I think most would agree that a player's "Aura" is gained by winning, and solidified and enhanced by winning majors.

Nole's history works a bit against him. He won his first major in the 2008 Australian Open, so a fair measure went into his permanent bank. But then he didn't win another for almost 3 years, so his permanent "Aura" dissipated to a large extent, where people questioned his stamina, dedication, quality, etc. But in 2011, he essentially tore the roof off, and put a huge pile of "Aura" into the permanent bank.

In 2012, Novak started off well, and won at the Australian Open. That made a bridge to repair and continue his huge "Aura" from 2011 - (it was needed due to curtail his severe tail off from Sept to Nov 2011). Once he did that, he had enough permanent "Aura" to continue his "Aura" level, and it was evident in all the successive talk and predictions by pundits. Seven consecutive wins over Nadal, 3 straight majors, etc. People were already talking about him winning at Roland Garros, despite not having played on the clay in 2012, and despite him never making a final at Roland Garros. This to me, was mostly due to the "Aura" which came from his continued success, especially at the majors. The same thing can come from having a large amount of "Aura" in the permanent bank. Nadal and Federer will be said to always have a good chance wherever they have achieved a great deal of success.

But tennis fluctuates, and has a lot of variables, and sometimes even success at a great cost can be one's enemy. After the Australian Open, there was distinct evidence that Novak (and Nadal) had lost something. Maybe that match took too much out of them in both a physical and/or psychological sense. Whatever the reason, they didn't play at the same level after that for quite a while and were not winning. Meanwhile, Federer took advantage of that. So all this served to take some temporary "Aura" away from Djokovic, and thus slow down or halt the increase in permanent "Aura". Yet no additional major had been played, so his "Aura" was still there to a great extent.

Mr. Djokovic gained a bit back with his Miami win, but it was a tad empty in that he hadn't faced either Nadal or Federer. And then the serious clay season began, and Nadal regained much of his clay "Aura". Mr. Djokovic could not continue his hold over Nadal. That, in my opinion halted Mr. Djokovic's gain on permanent "Aura" and even diminished it to an extent, as he could no longer claim current superiority over Nadal. After Rome especially, most pundits naturally reversed their previous thoughts that Djokovic could win at Roland Garros. Nadal winning at Roland Garros would serve to increase his already almost invincible clay permanent "Aura". An unlikely win by either Djokovic or Federer at Roland Garros, would obviously diminish Nadal's and increase their "Auras".

As far as Mr. Federer goes, since his permanent "Aura" is so high by virtue of his success over the years, it doesn't take a lot of current success to restore it to it's previous height (same goes for Nadal). By doing so well in the last 8 months, including winning his 6th Year End Championships title, and 3 Masters, he did a lot to keep himself in the "Aura" playing field and has heightened his temporary "Aura". But in my opinion, he needs to win a major to get his "Aura" back to where it was, no matter if he beat Nadal at Indian Wells, or if he won in Madrid where Djokovic and Nadal were unable to contend. If Federer is able to do that, say at Wimbledon or perhaps the US Open, then everybody will be talking about Federer, and he will have the Federer "Aura" back in place and even enhanced due to the relative prowess of Djokovic near peak and Nadal still at prime level.

Anyway, I've gone on far too long here as usual :shrug: :). I think you can see it comes down to this:
Federer and Nadal (especially on clay), have a tremendous bank of "Aura". Therefore it doesn't take much additional success to put them back at that level. Djokovic, despite his high temporary "Aura" of 2011 and 2012 (AO), doesn't have so much in the permanent bank, so he needs much more continued success to put him on the Federer-Nadal level of overall "Aura".

Respectfully,
masterclass

there are other reasons for that aura : the fact that both Federer and Nadal have had their myth built, not Djokovic (yet).

Crazy stories have been written about both Fed and Nadal.

For Fed, it was because he was a very beautiful player then you read things saying he has such a talent he could do whatever shot he wanted, he only lost to Nadal because he didn't really want ... "Fed as a religious experience" blablabla.

For Nadal, it was the myth of the guy succeeding only by his hard work (while he's the guy eating chocolate paste before sleeping and not practicing before the Australian Open and Monte-Carlo because of injury and yet playing great, rather tell me about Ferrer or Mathieu if you want to speak of the "toughest hardworkers" :rolleyes: ) and mental ... the supposedly "greatest mental of all times" whereas Djokovic is better than him in every stat on breakpoints and tiebreaks despite Nadal having the advantage of being a lefthander on the ad-side.
It was also the story of the "unbelievable adaptation" because he had been categorized only as a claycourter, a "new Muster" yet won on grass (despite him beating Ancic in Wimbledon at 17 years old :rolleyes: and Wimbledon not being at all the same as in Muster's time).
I've read such crazy things about Nadal's mental, that "he would win everywhere, including on sand" thanks to his mental and adaptative abilities (by the coordinator of young French players"), that it was unbelievable how humble he was taking all of his opponents seriously (tell me who doesn't, including Fed :confused: ).
I've even read that Nadal's backhand was a "second forehand" thanks to his right hand, and something like the best backhand of all times :lol:

And the fact is that Nadal (Fed as well, but less) got his aura mostly because he beat Fed and the story which could be associated with what happened about them and about Nadal winning on grass :shrug:

And then comes Djokovic : what story can you write about him ?? as he said himself, people can't even say what his best shot is :shrug: (oh yes after the AO a story has started about his unbelievable return whereas it's not clear to me if his return is really better than Murray's).
he's "complete" : does it make a story ?
He's Serbian : does it make a story out of the ex-Yuguslavia ?
he was for several years blocked by Nadal and Fed : he was the "3rd one", the one people like to joke about his inferiority to the "big stars".

Now what story can you write about him ?

So far the story is missing, the journalists, tennis writers have not been able to write one as they did for Fed and Nadal, as stupid and wrong the stories written about both of them were you need these to create a "myth" then an aura. It's still missing for them, as it was missing for Lendl in the 80s.

duong
06-02-2012, 11:00 PM
Another reason why I want Djokovic to win this one :

people like a lot talking about "history" and "numbers", it makes people talk a lot.

I love numbers myself, it takes a big part of my free time playing with numbers about tennis :shrug:

But ... in the end what I love most is just ... watching sport being played on court.

And I would like watching that : Djokovic defeating Nadal in Roland-Garros, it would just be a beautiful and interesting moment whatever "records" are about.

Whereas Nadal winning Roland-Garros is just ... :zzz:

This afternoon Nadal was playing on centre court ... but the people who could were just watching what was happening on court 1 with Mathieu and Granollers.

Like Borg in his time, Nadal winning in Roland-Garros is mostly boring.

Roland-Garros was much more fun when Borg and Nadal were not there.

duong
06-02-2012, 11:03 PM
Fed played 4 straight years in a row at a huge level (2004-2007). If reaching 4 Gs finals, wining 3 and wining the TMC and a couple Masters 1000 isn't a fantastic year, then I don't know what it is.

I've watched Fed play 2007 and it was obvious for me that it was a declining player.

In 2007 Fed didn't play better than he did in the last 2 years. It was disappointing times after how he had played and made me dream previous 3 years, except for a few matches like the WTF final.

tektonac
06-02-2012, 11:05 PM
"neither scenario" is not happening.

duong
06-02-2012, 11:05 PM
Where were you last year? :scratch: Locked in a cave? Nole got plenty of attention. IMO, more than Rafa did in 2010, because it wasn't so unexpected.

sorry : I read a lot, and it was not true for what I read, more of crazy bullshit gloryhunting stories were written about Nadal in 2010 whereas Djokovic's 2011 was much more impressive.

About Djokovic it was often as if journalists were embarrassed, had lost their inspiration :shrug:

One example : in France, Nadal got the award of the "Sportsman of the year" (all sports combined) by the French reference sports newspaper "L'Equipe" ... as Fed had also had 3 years in a row.
Djokovic despite having a greater year than many of these years didn't have this award, Messi had it despite being not especially better than previous years imo, there was not even a world cup or anything like that that year :shrug:

PS : I speak about what I read, in France and some American sites.

Mr. Oracle
06-03-2012, 05:50 AM
Tennis will win if champ wins RG. Simply because the semi-albatross of RG will be removed from his shoulders and he will be free to focus on improving into 3.0 and showing us some amazing and exciting stuff for the next 5 years. Even though some have questioned his recent form in 2012, noting that it's not up to last year's standard, I sense that he is ready to take his game to the next level. His game has eclipsed Fed's by a considerable margin, and I'm not sure how much longer Nadal will be around. Outside of these two, his game is light years beyond the competition with no challengers on the horizon.

I see him winning at least 16+ slams over his career (unless monfils steps up to the plate).

Mr. Oracle
06-03-2012, 06:29 AM
Put down the bong, General Mr. Oracle.


I don't know what's more ridiculous, the serbian slayer winning seventeen slams, or the thought of Monfils challenging him for them :drink:


I forgot the sarcasm icon after "Monfils." C'mon son ;)

christallh24
06-03-2012, 08:17 AM
:sobbing:

I love them both! Nole has had such an outstanding year and some change, so I'm going to have to say....Rafa 7th. Then Novak can start next by defending AO, which he would then go on to win all the majors completing the Nole Slam!

:hysteric:

Dammit, I hate this! It's like splitting the baby!

:bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry: :bigcry:

Moose Limb
06-03-2012, 08:56 AM
Comical, farcical poll. Ask which you prefer and then throw in another option. Hysterical.

Anyway, despite the garbage poll, Djoker Slam for me. Lesser of the evils.

gulzhan
06-03-2012, 09:17 AM
tough one, on one hand I'd laugh my ass off seeing Djokovic completing the Piggy Slam (beating Nadal in 4 different GS finals in a row), such unprecedented and pure ownage lulz

on the other hand it would be absolutely hilarious to see Djokovic failing once again to put his own distinct mark in tennis history and watch his ugly smug face turn into the loser hugging-shrugging one we all know and love

Quintessential fedtardism.

I suggest MTF to look at the Livescore thread for the following two days and watch: Fedtards cheering for Seppi, Wawrinka, Berdych (tough one but I still think they fear Del Potro more :unsure:), then-- heavily-- Ferrer, Murray and Almagro (also, a questionable one, but I think they'd chose Nico cause they don't believe Tipsa would be able to do anything against Rafa in 1/4 plus they never forgave Janko for that AO match when he, supposedly, forced Federer into his highest level too early for a Slam tourney :rolls:).

I can put the names of those who will be cheering meanly and crazy for these players NO MATTER what their preferences in other tournaments are, but Haboob will definitely be the leader there! :devil:


:zzz:

Oh, I prefer Nadal to win of course. Because I hope he wins 10 RGs and he needs to make next step towards this record :p

Alex999
06-03-2012, 09:31 AM
well Nole fans will vote for Nole, Rafa fans for Rafa ... I'll try to be objective here ... the both accomplishments will be amazing for sure, but nobody since Laver in the open era (almost 50 years ago ... and Laver won on grass and clay only) was holding 4 slams at the same time. not even Jesus Fed. If Djokovic somehow manages to win RG this year .... it is going to be big, like really, really big. I'm not saying this as his fan. Nadal winning his 7th, and 'beating Borg's record' is still great but in IMHO it doesn't come even close to Djoko holding all 4 slams at the same time.

tripwires
06-03-2012, 10:20 AM
I can't believe I'm really saying this, but - Nadal's 7th. :facepalm:

cinny
06-03-2012, 10:24 AM
Nadal still has many chances for another RG. Novak too of course, though this one is so special it can't be missed. Nadal winning RG sounds so boring also. I vote Novak slam in a heartbeat.

Kiedis
06-03-2012, 12:00 PM
I can't believe I'm really saying this, but - Nadal's 7th. :facepalm:

You are starting to see the light :hug:

tripwires
06-03-2012, 12:02 PM
You are starting to see the light :hug:

No.

Kiedis
06-03-2012, 12:10 PM
No.

Come to the light, girl, don't be shy :D

tripwires
06-03-2012, 01:07 PM
Come to the light, girl, don't be shy :D

The light? I am already bathing in it. JesusFed shines his light on me. :hearts:

reery
06-03-2012, 03:22 PM
Neither.

Chirag
06-03-2012, 03:42 PM
well Nole fans will vote for Nole, Rafa fans for Rafa ... I'll try to be objective here ... the both accomplishments will be amazing for sure, but nobody since Laver in the open era (almost 50 years ago ... and Laver won on grass and clay only) was holding 4 slams at the same time. not even Jesus Fed. If Djokovic somehow manages to win RG this year .... it is going to be big, like really, really big. I'm not saying this as his fan. Nadal winning his 7th, and 'beating Borg's record' is still great but in IMHO it doesn't come even close to Djoko holding all 4 slams at the same time.

Hi Alex happy to see you are being objective but remember 7 Roland garros title has never ever happenned or at least after the challenge era it hasnt .Something that hasnt occurred ever should be higher than something that occurred 50 years ago .Also since this is clay and requires a huge amount of strength and stamina to succeed on this surface ,to think someone can even win this title for the 7th time itself is preposterous ,let alone do it in 8 years :eek: That truly is above Novak's achievement in my eyes :)

Kiedis
06-03-2012, 05:50 PM
The light? I am already bathing in it. JesusFed shines his light on me. :hearts:

But that is a twilight, mate. Very soon go out :secret:

Mr. Oracle
06-03-2012, 06:18 PM
I suppose nadal deserves to have every record under the sun here. Then embalm him like Lenin and put him on display at the gate for all generations to see. I'm serious.

BauerAlmeida
06-03-2012, 06:24 PM
Hi Alex happy to see you are being objective but remember 7 Roland garros title has never ever happenned or at least after the challenge era it hasnt .Something that hasnt occurred ever should be higher than something that occurred 50 years ago .Also since this is clay and requires a huge amount of strength and stamina to succeed on this surface ,to think someone can even win this title for the 7th time itself is preposterous ,let alone do it in 8 years :eek: That truly is above Novak's achievement in my eyes :)

But a player already won 7 times the same slam (Sampras in Wimbledon).

4 in a row in ""different"" surfaces didn't happen. Although Agassi's career slam is more impressive for me because although they weren't in a row there was a huge difference between surfaces.

duong
06-04-2012, 01:30 AM
Quintessential fedtardism.

I suggest MTF to look at the Livescore thread for the following two days and watch: Fedtards cheering for Seppi, Wawrinka, Berdych (tough one but I still think they fear Del Potro more :unsure:), then-- heavily-- Ferrer, Murray and Almagro (also, a questionable one, but I think they'd chose Nico cause they don't believe Tipsa would be able to do anything against Rafa in 1/4 plus they never forgave Janko for that AO match when he, supposedly, forced Federer into his highest level too early for a Slam tourney :rolls:).

I can put the names of those who will be cheering meanly and crazy for these players NO MATTER what their preferences in other tournaments are, but Haboob will definitely be the leader there! :devil:


:zzz:

Oh, I prefer Nadal to win of course. Because I hope he wins 10 RGs and he needs to make next step towards this record :p

for your information and despîte your usual hypocrisy ("mauvaise foi" in French is better I don't know how to say that in English and have no time looking for it at this time), this afternoon Nadal was invited by French Tv to celebrate his birthday, and the commentators (the main one being a huge Nadal lover) said that Nadal was heavily looking at Djoko's court and had a huge smile.

Same kind of comments had been made last year when Federer was ahead against Djokovic.

And let me remind you the comments by Uncle Toni, Moya and Nadal that Nadal had been very unlucky that ... Fed couldn't convert the match points against Djokovic in the US Open.

Personally I'm a Fedtard but was heavily cheering for Djokovic this afternoon.

leng jai
06-04-2012, 01:36 AM
I love how the top 3 tard bases keep trying to argue over which is the most insufferable. They are as bad as each other - it just depends which player is winning the most at the time.

tripwires
06-04-2012, 01:42 AM
But that is a twilight, mate. Very soon go out :secret:

Greatness lasts forever dear. As a Nadal fan you should know that.

heya
06-04-2012, 01:59 AM
beating cowards and boys on clay isn't as impressive as having federer and nadal lose with hatred in their eyes.

tripwires
06-04-2012, 02:10 AM
I love how the top 3 tard bases keep trying to argue over which is the most insufferable. They are as bad as each other - it just depends which player is winning the most at the time.

No; clearly some are worse than others.

Looner
06-04-2012, 02:13 AM
No; clearly some are worse than others.

You only need to look as far as who starts RF threads, both results and WWWs, to know whose fanbases are worse. Two are full of haters and the other one feels the need to respond (which I firmly support) :angel:.

leng jai
06-04-2012, 02:14 AM
Looner you are one of the most biased tards so it's not like you can complain.

tripwires
06-04-2012, 02:28 AM
Any tard that denigrates the achievements of his/her favourite's rival(s) is an annoying tard.

Looner
06-04-2012, 02:33 AM
Looner you are one of the most biased tards so it's not like you can complain.

Lol, I am not that biased in real life. But the amount of hate towards Federer is just amazing. I just express my disdain at the other two's antics and especially their fans. If they didn't bother intruding upon Federer (and his "era" in general which I love, including Hass :o), I would not care. If you try to talk smack about my fave, you get what you deserve. I believe idiots should be called out but I am saying this now - I'll try to be more conservative from here on out.

leng jai
06-04-2012, 02:36 AM
I'm touched you are going to attempt some subtlety just for me dear.

Looner
06-04-2012, 02:40 AM
I'm touched you are going to attempt some subtlety just for me dear.

No need to be touched, it's not for you. I'll just try to express my opinion better and put the full power of my ignore list to work. I think I come across as too unfair to some players. Nadal I hate though and that I can't change :shrug:.

Mr. Oracle
06-04-2012, 02:44 AM
beating cowards and boys on clay isn't as impressive as having federer and nadal lose with hatred in their eyes.

Raferminator?

Clay Death
06-04-2012, 02:57 AM
let the legless blind hate flow freely.

viva-rafa
06-04-2012, 03:45 AM
Lol, I am not that biased in real life. But the amount of hate towards Federer is just amazing. I just express my disdain at the other two's antics and especially their fans. If they didn't bother intruding upon Federer (and his "era" in general which I love, including Hass :o), I would not care. If you try to talk smack about my fave, you get what you deserve. I believe idiots should be called out but I am saying this now - I'll try to be more conservative from here on out.

Well! I've been following MTF and other tennis forums for quite sometimes (just never bothered to post or join until recently), and I've never seen a player more loved and adored than Federer. In fact, the most hated player out there is Nadal ( of course by same Federer lovers). I personally have nothing against Federer ( of course I don't personally know him unlike some of you fans). But I would never be liked to call his supporter because of the general attitude of his fans on internet.They think he's the most perfect human being. It's like a new cult or religion out there, and I don't want to be a part of it. I've only encountered only one or two nice Federer fans. On the other hand, fans of other players are generally nicer and lack the negativity of Federer fans. It's just puzzling the way Federer fans degrade other players especially Rafa given the success their idol has had. How hard it is to like and support your player while showing respect for their rivals.
I'm a die-hard Rafa fan, but I absolutely respect his opponents. If they beat him, they beat him fair and square. I don't like Federer's game or his sports persona, but I acknowledge that he's a great champion and a great player. Similarly you don't have to like Rafa, but how hard it is to acknowledge that he is a great player. Just cheer for your player, and let others cheer for theirs.

rocketassist
06-04-2012, 04:12 AM
I love how the top 3 tard bases keep trying to argue over which is the most insufferable. They are as bad as each other - it just depends which player is winning the most at the time.

Yep that's pretty much it. Fedtards are the least annoying by far now but perhaps it's wisening with age and showing some of his old rivals some overdue respect- Roddick and co used to get rinsed here back in 2006.

Mr. Oracle
06-04-2012, 04:20 AM
Well! I've been following MTF and other tennis forums for quite sometimes (just never bothered to post or join until recently), and I've never seen a player more loved and adored than Federer. In fact, the most hated player out there is Nadal ( of course by same Federer lovers). I personally have nothing against Federer ( of course I don't personally know him unlike some of you fans). But I would never be liked to call his supporter because of the general attitude of his fans on internet.They think he's the most perfect human being. It's like a new cult or religion out there, and I don't want to be a part of it. I've only encountered only one or two nice Federer fans. On the other hand, fans of other players are generally nicer and lack the negativity of Federer fans. It's just puzzling the way Federer fans degrade other players especially Rafa given the success their idol has had. How hard it is to like and support your player while showing respect for their rivals.
I'm a die-hard Rafa fan, but I absolutely respect his opponents. If they beat him, they beat him fair and square. I don't like Federer's game or his sports persona, but I acknowledge that he's a great champion and a great player. Similarly you don't have to like Rafa, but how hard it is to acknowledge that he is a great player. Just cheer for your player, and let others cheer for theirs.

Fedtards learned this behaviour from their idol. He denigrates the success of players who beat him and ridicules their game, whether its rafa's strategy or novak's choice of winners. The fact that they call a great champion such as nadal "piggy" is evidence of their bitterness and lack of class.

Then there's the mentality that Fed only loses when he's sick, tired, or disinterested. It's always about him, and never about what's done TO HIM. He's been in supposed decline ever since rafa started to dominate him, and losing to Novak just adds to their cognitive dissonance. The success of quality players such as Berdych and Del Potro against hero is met with equal scorn; comments such as "Fed has declined since 2006" regularly replaces praise which is due these players. You see, it's always about Roger Federer.

These tards are the types that wear the RF clothing: the hats with the gay initials, and the nike sweatshop shirts. Most of them suck so bad on the court that it's inevitable that they resort to vicarious glory hunting.

I like that they're on MTF because they amuse me so.

tripwires
06-04-2012, 04:31 AM
Fedtards learned this behaviour from their idol. He denigrates the success of players who beat him and ridicules their game, whether its rafa's strategy or novak's choice of winners. The fact that they call a great champion such as nadal "piggy" is evidence of their bitterness and lack of class.

Then there's the mentality that Fed only loses when he's sick, tired, or disinterested. It's always about him, and never about what's done TO HIM. He's been in supposed decline ever since rafa started to dominate him, and losing to Novak just adds to their cognitive dissonance. The success of quality players such as Berdych and Del Potro against hero is met with equal scorn; comments such as "Fed has declined since 2006" regularly replaces praise which is due these players. You see, it's always about Roger Federer.

These tards are the types that wear the RF clothing: the hats with the gay initials, and the nike sweatshop shirts. Most of them suck so bad on the court that it's inevitable that they resort to vicarious glory hunting.

I like that they're on MTF because they amuse me so.

Wah wah wah. Just stop trolling already.

Nole fan
06-04-2012, 10:01 AM
Well! I've been following MTF and other tennis forums for quite sometimes (just never bothered to post or join until recently), and I've never seen a player more loved and adored than Federer. In fact, the most hated player out there is Nadal ( of course by same Federer lovers). I personally have nothing against Federer ( of course I don't personally know him unlike some of you fans). But I would never be liked to call his supporter because of the general attitude of his fans on internet.They think he's the most perfect human being. It's like a new cult or religion out there, and I don't want to be a part of it. I've only encountered only one or two nice Federer fans. On the other hand, fans of other players are generally nicer and lack the negativity of Federer fans. It's just puzzling the way Federer fans degrade other players especially Rafa given the success their idol has had. How hard it is to like and support your player while showing respect for their rivals.
I'm a die-hard Rafa fan, but I absolutely respect his opponents. If they beat him, they beat him fair and square. I don't like Federer's game or his sports persona, but I acknowledge that he's a great champion and a great player. Similarly you don't have to like Rafa, but how hard it is to acknowledge that he is a great player. Just cheer for your player, and let others cheer for theirs.

I agree. Fedtards are insufferable. Unfortunately Federer has few fans, but a lot of tards who are just gloryhunters and will go to lenghts to descredit any other player's achievements, most specially nadal's. It's like they believe Federer's success is transferred to them. I still have to meet a federer fan that is not arrogant.

MIMIC
06-04-2012, 10:42 AM
Well! I've been following MTF and other tennis forums for quite sometimes (just never bothered to post or join until recently), and I've never seen a player more loved and adored than Federer. In fact, the most hated player out there is Nadal ( of course by same Federer lovers). I personally have nothing against Federer ( of course I don't personally know him unlike some of you fans). But I would never be liked to call his supporter because of the general attitude of his fans on internet.They think he's the most perfect human being. It's like a new cult or religion out there, and I don't want to be a part of it. I've only encountered only one or two nice Federer fans. On the other hand, fans of other players are generally nicer and lack the negativity of Federer fans. It's just puzzling the way Federer fans degrade other players especially Rafa given the success their idol has had. How hard it is to like and support your player while showing respect for their rivals.
I'm a die-hard Rafa fan, but I absolutely respect his opponents. If they beat him, they beat him fair and square. I don't like Federer's game or his sports persona, but I acknowledge that he's a great champion and a great player. Similarly you don't have to like Rafa, but how hard it is to acknowledge that he is a great player. Just cheer for your player, and let others cheer for theirs.

Reminds me of how fans behave when it comes to Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and the like. They don't treat Fed like an athlete; rather more like a celeb pop star. The behavior is deplorable and embarrassing.

"Stan Wars" is what I've heard people call it.

leng jai
06-04-2012, 10:44 AM
Reminds me of how fans behave when it comes to Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and the like. They don't treat Fed like an athlete; rather more like a celeb pop star. The behavior is deplorable and embarrassing.

"Stan Wars" is what I've heard people call it.

Yeah like Pop-GAF bro. Every fanbase has tards that act the same way, stop trying to make out Nole's one is somehow above that.

tripwires
06-04-2012, 10:47 AM
Fed IS a celebrity obviously so just get the fuck used to it and stop bitching.

leng jai
06-04-2012, 10:49 AM
They all have celeb status in their home country and well Asians treat all their idols as celebrities.

tripwires
06-04-2012, 10:54 AM
For the avoidance of doubt I was talking to mImic.

duong
06-04-2012, 11:02 AM
I agree. Fedtards are insufferable. Unfortunately Federer has few fans, but a lot of tards who are just gloryhunters and will go to lenghts to descredit any other player's achievements, most specially nadal's. It's like they believe Federer's success is transferred to them. I still have to meet a federer fan that is not arrogant.

not what you said in PMs, you said it's a game blablabla.

Why this game ? I don't know, an evidence of weakness I guess when one cannot have sincere conversations one choses to play the easy game like the others :shrug:

But I know that it hurts some like Viva_Rafa who shouldn't take these seriously, guys and girls like Nolefan and Samanosuke just chose to play a stupid game :rolleyes:

At least Samanosuke is sometimes funny, but Looner even for a Fedfan like me is often unsufferable :rolleyes: thanks to guys like that I'm called many names as being a Fedfan, the same as Nadalfans are called many names because of Start Da Game, Topspindoctor and a few others, and Djokofans have munze_konza :rolleyes:

leng jai
06-04-2012, 11:04 AM
Looner doesn't know the intricacies of trolling but he tries hard.

Nearco
06-04-2012, 11:05 AM
I don't think Novak is good enough to get a career slam. It devalues the achievement somewhat if he achieves it because it can only happen if Nadal gets injured.

tripwires
06-04-2012, 11:10 AM
I don't think Novak is good enough to get a career slam. It devalues the achievement somewhat if he achieves it because it can only happen if Nadal gets injured.

Classic mtf logic right there. If he gets it it's a great achievement period. Who the fuck cares whether Nadal is injured or not?