Mens Tennis Forums banner

41 - 60 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,753 Posts
WTF is a glorified high paying exho, even biggest Nadal hater has to admit the event lost a lot of the prestige when they went away from the 5 set final after 2008 or was it 07

Plus any tourney where you can lose a match or even 2 and still win the event is ridiculous

.. Hahahahahahaha :).. Has the dam finally burst with you Johnny now that it looks all but certain Nadal won't ever win a WTF title.You were one of the only Nadal fans that never ever went down that route.


.. And your comment about a tournament where a player can lose a match or 2 and still win the event is ridiculous stands out even more in regards to Nadal's failure is more prudent because even with a second bite of the cherry.. or a mulligan.... Nadal STILL CAN'T WIN THE EVENT.

Hahahaha :)

I now ask any Nadal fan on this board to stand up like a Spartacus supporter and announce here & then that they still think the WTF is the real mccoy and will not ever belittle it because their Rafito hasn't won it ever... ever once.

Is there 1 single solitary one of you on this board? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
.. Hahahahahahaha :).. Has the dam finally burst with you Johnny now that it looks all but certain Nadal won't ever win a WTF title.You were one of the only Nadal fans that never ever went down that route.


.. And your comment about a tournament where a player can lose a match or 2 and still win the event is ridiculous stands out even more in regards to Nadal's failure is more prudent because even with a second bite of the cherry.. or a mulligan.... Nadal STILL CAN'T WIN THE EVENT.

Hahahaha :)

I now ask any Nadal fan on this board to stand up like a Spartacus supporter and announce here & then that they still think the WTF is the real mccoy and will not ever belittle it because their Rafito hasn't won it ever... ever once.

Is there 1 single solitary one of you on this board? :)
Dulltards and their excuses just cause he ain’t good enough to win the tourney.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Yes, but they weren't up against Federer (10 ATF finals and 6 titles) and Djokovic (7 ATF finals and 5 titles). There was only once in 13 years that one of them wasn't in the final.

If you look at titles alone then you could argue that Jim Courier is a better clay courter than Federer or Djokovic, as he's won RG twice. I'm sure no-one believes that, I'm sure Courier doesn't believe that. Federer and Djokovic kept running into Nadal every year at RG. The one year Federer won it was when Nadal got knocked out, and the one year Djokovic won it was the year that Nadal was just playing terrible tennis. But Federer and Djokovic are both easily among the best ever on clay IMO.
Precisely, I remind who these players: Borg, Kuerten and Corretja fought to win the Masters.
On his way, among others, Borg beats Connors (1 Masters but who has often beaten, especially at Masters), McEnroe (3 Masters) Lendl (5 Masters .. 9 finals .. from 81 to 89 ..); Kuerten beats Sampras (5 M even if it was in 2000, Sampras can play indoor ..), Agassi (1 M and is still very competitive), Corretja also beats Sampras and .. Moya (who beat Henman .. Corretja -Moya, it's the final of the French Open of the same year ....

Now, I don't mind saying that Courier, Kuerten, yes and Ferrero or Bruguera were better on clay than Federer ... in any case, the era was more consistent with players specifically from clay, Federer alone or even Djokovic is not enough to hide the much less consistent competition that Nadal encountered on clay.

Finally, the 2 years when Nadal joined the Masters final, 2010 and 2013 are among his best, they are not far from there, the best of Federer and Djokovic, and he was not beaten only by these 2 players. . when he went there ... he also has 6 packages (05-08-12-14-16-18 .. a withdrawal in the pool after a defeat (2017), 3 eliminations in the pool (including one in 2009 with 3 losses and no set won), 2011 and 2019 (where he finished with YE1)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,402 Posts
Now, I don't mind saying that Courier, Kuerten, yes and Ferrero or Bruguera were better on clay than Federer
Courier only has 5 clay titles. 2 at Paris, 2 at Rome and Orlando. He also has another Final at Nice and Final at the FO, just 8 finals.

Fed has 5 finals just at RG, and over 10 clay titles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Courier only has 5 clay titles. 2 at Paris, 2 at Rome and Orlando. He also has another Final at Nice and Final at the FO, just 8 finals.

Fed has 5 finals just at RG, and over 10 clay titles.
This does not contradict my point, on the competition on clay at the time
from Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, Ferrero up to Coria itself.

The Courier peak on clay is short, but high by the standards of the time. Excluding clay too thanks to a big mind. When he loses motivation, he quickly declines everywhere.

Federer knows how to play on clay, he also learned to play it early, his first MS are on clay, in Hamburg 2002, but he did not wait for Nadal to experience famous defeats there .. Rome vs Mantilla .. Roland Garros vs Luis Horna etc ... even vs Guga Kuerten declined and returned surgery, because clay is the surface where he is most susceptible to frustration.

This does not detract from his finals, nor of course to his 2009 title, fully deserved, having overcome his failures in Paris, like Djokovic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
No misunderstanding about my words.

I often read, without Nadal, Federer wins 5 or 6 French Open, so would be as much equal to Borg ... we must consider that even in 2008, Federer is in the final of Roland Garros, even in 2013 .. he is in the final of Rome and that says more about the global competition on clay than on Federer's performance level of those years.

And I would be tempted to say of 2019 too, when he returns to the semi-final at RG at almost 38 old ... after 4 years of absence on clay ...

Even if I am convinced that Federer remains the player who adapts most easily and quickly to changing conditions, like blue clay Madrid 2012, it is not the least of his talent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,816 Posts
Everyone knows Nadal got lucky with this clay era, even though he is a great clay player of course. But he would have had many more difficult matches in early rounds during previous eras, which would have added to his mileage and made it more difficult to stay winning at his current age. But he did extremely well to transfer to grass and somehow win Wimb twice, especially looking at his subsequent defeats to Darcis, Brown, Rosol etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,194 Posts
.. And your comment about a tournament where a player can lose a match or 2 and still win the event is ridiculous stands out even more in regards to Nadal's failure is more prudent because even with a second bite of the cherry.. or a mulligan.... Nadal STILL CAN'T WIN THE EVENT.
One of the main reasons why I think Nadal has always been a contender for the trophy. You said it, you don't have to win all the time which gives players more margin of error.

As a two time finalist, he was close to winning it so there is absolutely no reason for his fans to belittle the event. To me, it makes his ATP Finals career look worse whereas it's still above average given the fact most players don't get to play the event, let alone reach the finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
Fed fans crying that there will be no grass season, and now wishing for the entire season to be cancelled lol.

Don’t worry Fed fans. US Open and RG will be played, Nadal/Novak will win them, and your tears will be delicious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
... If we go by that then we have to immediately go by Federer 'would've had multiple French Opens now If Nadal wasn't around in the finals + also have at least a calendar year Grand Slam as well'.That pretty much would've made his GOAT status unequivocal.'
There is no doubt that Federer won have multiple French Opens, probably 25 GS, and probably have the CYGS more than once without Nadal. Equally, I suppose Nadal would have 23 or 24 GS by now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
Now, I don't mind saying that Courier, Kuerten, yes and Ferrero or Bruguera were better on clay than Federer ... in any case, the era was more consistent with players specifically from clay, Federer alone or even Djokovic is not enough to hide the much less consistent competition that Nadal encountered on clay.
Federer and Djokovic would destroy all of these players, with the possible exception of Kuerten. There is no doubt that Kuerten deserves respect, but having said that his level of consistency was absolutely nowhere near that of either Federer or Djokovic. Apart from the years that he won it, he never made the SF once. Federer made the semi-final last year, at 38, having not played on clay for several years. IMO Federer and Djokovic would both beat Kuerten more often than not on clay. As for Nadal, it wouldn't matter what opposition you put up against him, he would just beat them all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
There is no doubt that Federer could beat these players on a match on clay, and besides, he beat them all, but my initial intention was not there.

I was talking about the overall consistency of the clay circuit and I also mentioned above my point of view on the Federer's course at 38 at RG after 4 years of absence and his ability to adapt quickly.

Obviously, neither Federer nor Djokovic are typical clay players while many of those mentioned can claim this status.

Even Thiem, despite his 2 final French Open .. which now has an MS title on hard, an Australian final and 1 WTF final.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
One of the main reasons why I think Nadal has always been a contender for the trophy. You said it, you don't have to win all the time which gives players more margin of error.

As a two time finalist, he was close to winning it so there is absolutely no reason for his fans to belittle the event. To me, it makes his ATP Finals career look worse whereas it's still above average given the fact most players don't get to play the event, let alone reach the finals.

Yes, but as i said, he is in the final 2010 and 2013, 2 of his best seasons, these are not by far, the best of Federer (2010) or Djokovic (2013).

Neither Federer (for 8 years ..), nor Djokovic have not won the Masters for 4 years now, Nadal has since finished the season with 2 more YE1s but still no Masters titles when it should be his most options open when Federer and Djokovic are not essential keepers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,402 Posts
This does not contradict my point, on the competition on clay at the time
from Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, Ferrero up to Coria itself.
If not for probably the greatest claycourter ever, Federer would have 5 or 6 FO. So I don't see how the competition argument is better for Courier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras should be considered in the goat debate. I have a hard time considering 3 players that play all at the same time as the best of all time.
Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras were clearly the best of their era. They dominated their era. They had the most slams by far up to that time.
Over time it became easier and easier to accumulate slams.
Bjorn Borg did not only dominate on clay but at the same time in the same year with hardly and time for transfer. At a time where grass played like grass and clay played like clay. He won both Wimbledon and Roland Garros. He did all that in a time period of only about eight years.
He did all that against two other greats Jimmy Connors and John Mcenroe.
Three great players playing against each others just like now. But he far surpassed them in winning slams in a much shorter time period.
 
41 - 60 of 66 Posts
Top