[17-6-302]

won the same number of slams in the said period?

Since 2012(if you want to include 2011 then include 2010 as well!), Nadal and Djokovic have won the same number of slams(4). Bear in mind that Nadal has been absent for large parts of this period. Even disregarding that, can someone be called dominant when all they've done is win the same number of slams in the said period?

Best player from 2012-2014 sure(on the basis of out of Slams exploits) but dominant player when your greatest rival has won the same number of slams? Impossible IMO.

 

[SuchBrainMuchWow]

Yes, you can call someone like that a dominant champion.

 

[arod3425]

All this Nadal/Djokovic talk on MTF is mind-numbing.

It's time for Roger to win Wimbledon so it can shift back to "Can you be GOAT with a losing H2H against your main rival?" debate.

 

[RedHotRafa49]

He is a champion. But as it stands right now. the 2010s are Nadal's decade. 8 Slams > 7 Slams.

 

[Master Yoda]

I believe Djokovic was awarded the player of the year during that period. Djokovic was simply a better player, not only in grandslams, but in other tournies overall. Ofcourse for a biased poster lke yourself you wouldnt mention that Djokovic has reached finals of a grandslam many times, as where Rafa has exit in 2nd rounds.

 

[SaFed2005]

All this Nadal/Djokovic talk on MTF is mind-numbing.

It's time for Roger to win Wimbledon so it can shift back to "Can you be GOAT with a losing H2H against your main rival?" debate.

LOL that was funny!

 

[romismak]

don´t get this, what is here to discuss, fact is since 2011 Novak is the best player - overall for time period, also basically overall if we look at this, only in 2013 Rafa was as good as him, but Novak is generally acknowledged as the best player, the player to beat since 2011. So based on this we can say this is Novak´s era - because he is known as the best player in the world for long time, just like Roger was best player in 2004-07 period we can say Roger´s era no matter that Rafa was No.2, Roger was the player to beat for most of the tour and the guy winning most big titles.

 

[Floki]

Lol at this toll of OP. Since 2011 and beginning of current decade, it is Djokovic era. The sooner he learns to accept it the better for him.

Sad to look at him embarrassing himself like this.

 

[Marfrilau]

don´t get this, what is here to discuss, fact is since 2011 Novak is the best player - overall for time period, also basically overall if we look at this, only in 2013 Rafa was as good as him, but Novak is generally acknowledged as the best player, the player to beat since 2011. So based on this we can say this is Novak´s era - because he is known as the best player in the world for long time, just like Roger was best player in 2004-07 period we can say Roger´s era no matter that Rafa was No.2, Roger was the player to beat for most of the tour and the guy winning most big titles.

Are you seriously comparing those two periods? Federer had 4 multiple slam years (3 of them he won 3) while Djokovic had just a single year. On top of that Djokovic let two different players snatch the nr. 1 ranking from him during "his" period.

There's a huge difference between being the overall better player and being the dominant player in a time period. Djokovic was the former and Federer was the latter.

 

[KeiranLee]

He is a champion. But as it stands right now. the 2010s are Nadal's decade. 8 Slams > 7 Slams.

and as it stands now, the 2015s decade are Novak's decade :haha: :haha: :haha:
we can start a decade from whichever year it suits us :facepalm:

 

[KeiranLee]

I'd rather have Nadal lose 2R than in Slam final

Goat sentence after goat sentence...
Man, the butthurt is strong these days with Novak winning everything :superlol:

 

[17-6-302]

Lol at this toll of OP. Since 2011 and beginning of current decade, it is Djokovic era. The sooner he learns to accept it the better for him.

Sad to look at him embarrassing himself like this.

Nice to see you posting again after chickening out of accepting my RG bet Also, good that you ran away from the thread where you claimed Djokovic had more winners than Fed in their matches and I asked you to prove it

I know Djokotards don't like dealing with facts but the current decade started in 2010, not 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s

Thank me later. :wavey:

 

[thrust]

won the same number of slams in the said period?

Since 2012(if you want to include 2011 then include 2010 as well!), Nadal and Djokovic have won the same number of slams(4). Bear in mind that Nadal has been absent for large parts of this period. Even disregarding that, can someone be called dominant when all they've done is win the same number of slams in the said period?

Best player from 2012-2014 sure(on the basis of out of Slams exploits) but dominant player when your greatest rival has won the same number of slams? Impossible IMO.

Slams are NOT the only criteria of a players record or dominance. The fact IS that Novak has been ranked YE #1 in 11,12,14 and probably will also end 15 at #1 as well. If Nadal has been absent for some of that time, due to injuries, that is his problem as the injuries are probably caused by the way he plays the game. Facts ARE Facts, whether one likes them or not. Deal with them!

 

[17-6-302]

If you are dominating it has to show in the number of slams, period. Everything else is secondary. If you are level pegging there then you can't have been DOMINANT, PERIOD. Best player sure, dominant NO.

 

[RedHotRafa49]

and as it stands now, the 2015s decade are Novak's decade :haha: :haha: :haha:
we can start a decade from whichever year it suits us :facepalm:

You do realize decades go from 10 to 20 to 30 and so on correct? Right now we are in the 10s of the 2nd millennium. That is how decades work. Sure you could say a decade starts today and ends 10 years from today but that's not how people commonly use the word decade.

2000s was Federer
1990s Sampras
so on

Edit: To clear things up for idiots that believe new decades start in the 01 year.... :haha: that's not how this work, that's not how any of this works.

 

[Noleoleoleole]

"It's been a decade since rafa was any fun to watch." There, decade used properly in a sentence. So instead of redefining the word to better sniff Nadal's butt with, why not explain how no one ever said decade and how Novak's 7 since '11 is worse than the porca from Mallorca's 5?

 

[JoWilly]

How many times has Djoker won ITF player of the year in a row? 4. No wonder so many Dull fans are crying

 

[f1yer]

Yes - most definitely.

And it doesnt have to be equal number either .. somewhere is the ballpark will do as well.

 

[Fatima]

You do realize decades go from 10 to 20 to 30 and so on correct? Right now we are in the 10s of the 2nd millennium. That is how decades work. Sure you could say a decade starts today and ends 10 years from today but that's not how people commonly use the word decade.

2000s was Federer
1990s Sampras
so on

Edit: To clear things up for idiots that believe new decades start in the 01 year.... :haha: that's not how this work, that's not how any of this works.

Yeah,but what happens if someone is dominating the tour at the turn of the decade. He can be the best for several years, the first few falling in one decade, the other part in the next decade. It becomes pointless to deny the player his GOATD status just because years didn't align well with his performances.

 

[Matt01]

How many times has Djoker won ITF player of the year in a row? 4. No wonder so many Dull fans are crying

Yep, we Nadal fans are crying over such a meaningless thing :rolls: