Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
edjr

Rafael Nadal wins 11th French Open - 3 majors behind Federer. Will he catch him?

Recommended Posts

Federer - 20

Rafa - 17

 

Federer is 36 (37 in August)

Rafa is 32 (June 3)

 

 

Assuming Feds doesn't win another (which is not a given won 2 last year)

 

Do you think Rafa will run him down?

 

 

When does Federer come out with the RF20 method and try to hawk anything he can to make some extra coin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still wouldn't be as impressive to me even if he catches him. Federer won the Australian 6 times, Wimbledon 8 times, French once, US 5 times (and 6 tour finals wins). Nadal has 1, 11, 2, 3 (and 0 tour finals wins). Nadal is the GOAT on clay, but not for all of tennis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still wouldn't be as impressive to me even if he catches him. Federer won the Australian 6 times, Wimbledon 8 times, French once, US 5 times (and 6 tour finals wins). Nadal has 1, 11, 2, 3 (and 0 tour finals wins). Nadal is the GOAT on clay, but not for all of tennis.

 

100%

 

Roger is my dude. Greatest of all time in any sport. Freak of nature. Seems like the most down to earth, greatest, most humble dude too.

 

Just trying to bring a new thread to the board and see what people think, if Rafa will catch him. You have to assume Rafa wins another, 2 French at minimum? Joker won't be back till 2019 maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf those guys are young as hell. Seems like I have been hearing about them for decades. Yes he can catch Fed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf those guys are young as hell. Seems like I have been hearing about them for decades. Yes he can catch Fed.

 

30 used to be the end when it came to Tennis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100%

 

Roger is my dude. Greatest of all time in any sport. Freak of nature.

Hold on there, Gretzky would like a word. As you are well aware, his list of records and stats sound like grossly exaggerated pranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still wouldn't be as impressive to me even if he catches him. Federer won the Australian 6 times, Wimbledon 8 times, French once, US 5 times (and 6 tour finals wins). Nadal has 1, 11, 2, 3 (and 0 tour finals wins). Nadal is the GOAT on clay, but not for all of tennis.

 

How come we say GOAT instead of BOAT...I think Nadal is the BOAT on clay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on there, Gretzky would like a word. As you are well aware, his list of records and stats sound like grossly exaggerated pranks.

 

Gretzky was amazing. I am a huge hockey nut. Mario Lemieux is right there with him. Look at the stats from that era, that were SO out of whack.

Record for goals in one season. Hull 86, 72? you telling me Ovechkin isn't as good as Hull?

 

1. Wayne Gretzky* 92 1981-82

2. Wayne Gretzky* 87 1983-84

3. Brett Hull* 86 1990-91

4. Mario Lemieux* 85 1988-89

5. Phil Esposito* 76 1970-71

Alexander Mogilny 76 1992-93

Teemu Selanne* 76 1992-93

8. Wayne Gretzky* 73 1984-85

9. Brett Hull* 72 1989-90

10. Wayne Gretzky* 71 1982-83

Jari Kurri* 71 1984-85

12. Mario Lemieux* 70 1987-88

Bernie Nicholls 70 1988-89

Brett Hull* 70 1991-92

15. Mike Bossy* 69 1978-79

Mario Lemieux* 69 1992-93

Mario Lemieux* 69 1995-96

18. Phil Esposito* 68 1973-74

Mike Bossy* 68 1980-81

Jari Kurri* 68 1985-86

21. Phil Esposito* 66 1971-72

Lanny McDonald* 66 1982-83

23. Steve Yzerman* 65 1988-89

Alex Ovechkin 65 2007-08

 

 

During those years, a player could score a goal by flat shooting at the net. No need for deflections. It so hard for players to score now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I feel,you, it was a def era. I just think Wayne’s records are so ludicrous it’s hard to put anyone above him. Stuff like he would still be the all time points leader even if he didn’t score a single career goal. Just silly stuff that boggles the mind. I’ll def let Federer sit at the table, no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that scoring was before goalie equipment became a joke

 

 

I just google imaged NHL Goalie 1986

 

 

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/calgary-flames-goalie-mike-vernon-in-action-making-save-vs-news-photo/84331380#/hockey-nhl-finals-calgary-flames-goalie-mike-vernon-in-action-making-picture-id84331380

 

 

Look at this picture of Mike Vernon.... Should be all you need to know about hockey scoring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I feel,you, it was a def era. I just think Wayne’s records are so ludicrous it’s hard to put anyone above him. Stuff like he would still be the all time points leader even if he didn’t score a single career goal. Just silly stuff that boggles the mind. I’ll def let Federer sit at the table, no doubt.

 

Stats only don't make legends.

 

He still only won 4 cups in 9 years with Edmonton

0 with the Kings for 7 years and the rest of his career

 

Not sure why being the greatest ever wasn't able to win in LA :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stats only don't make legends.

 

He still only won 4 cups in 9 years with Edmonton

0 with the Kings for 7 years and the rest of his career

 

Not sure why being the greatest ever wasn't able to win in LA :dunno:

 

That's it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go with Jerry Rice. He owns all the stats by such a wide margin, yet did it in an era in which QBs lead the league in TD Passes with 27-28 and about a thousand less yards per season as the modern QBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Floyd Mayweather is the GOAT of all time, all sports.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just ask him. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go with Jerry Rice. He owns all the stats by such a wide margin, yet did it in an era in which QBs lead the league in TD Passes with 27-28 and about a thousand less yards per season as the modern QBs.

 

He's a great one. Sadly, for him, he doesn't throw himself the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried watching some of Nadal's final... his obscenely loud groans after each shot quickly became too annoying to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried watching some of Nadal's final... his obscenely loud groans after each shot quickly became too annoying to take.

 

I learned to ignore that long ago (women started it)

 

What I hate is Nadal takes 30 seconds between serves.

 

His OCD is so far out of whack now. Supposed to receive a penalty if you take more than 25 seconds between serves. They showed he was averaging 30. That needs to be dealt with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't catch Roger. As noted, Roger still has the chance to win more. But Rafa has dealt with a lot of injuries the last few years. I don't see him staying healthy enough to even contend for that many more. Maybe at the French because Clay is easier on the body. Wimbledon is as well but he's not as good on grass. I just think that when you factor everything in the odds are against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't catch Roger. As noted, Roger still has the chance to win more. But Rafa has dealt with a lot of injuries the last few years. I don't see him staying healthy enough to even contend for that many more. Maybe at the French because Clay is easier on the body. Wimbledon is as well but he's not as good on grass. I just think that when you factor everything in the odds are against him.

Most likely this.

Still wouldn't be as impressive to me even if he catches him. Federer won the Australian 6 times, Wimbledon 8 times, French once, US 5 times (and 6 tour finals wins). Nadal has 1, 11, 2, 3 (and 0 tour finals wins). Nadal is the GOAT on clay, but not for all of tennis.

 

And this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a peer who is going to end up with similar titles to Feds.

 

Yet some how Feds is above Tiger who had no peers.

 

It is simple for the top guys to win in Tennis. Old men still run a sport that is supposed to be for the youth.

 

Feds can be better than Tiger for longevity. But lets not compare them at their best. Tiger did the unthinkable. Feds did about what Nadal has done. Has a losing record to him as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a peer who is going to end up with similar titles to Feds.

 

Yet some how Feds is above Tiger who had no peers.

 

It is simple for the top guys to win in Tennis. Old men still run a sport that is supposed to be for the youth.

 

Feds can be better than Tiger for longevity. But lets not compare them at their best. Tiger did the unthinkable. Feds did about what Nadal has done. Has a losing record to him as well.

 

Take it to the Federer > Tiger thread :D

 

 

237 Consecutive weeks at World #1

Winning two Grand Slams 5 times consecutively

Oldest World #1 in the history of Tennis

8 Wimbledon titles

14 year gap being #1 in the world

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15-23 record vs. His biggest rival.

 

3-6 in finals

 

Tennis is set up yo have 2 or 3 guys win everything for years. Golf is not.

 

His longevity is impressive though. Has to be on PEDs no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15-23 record vs. His biggest rival.

 

 

2 and 13 on clay

 

tiger never played different surfaces. that people were better on

 

Nadal is the goat on clay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15-23 record vs. His biggest rival.

 

3-6 in finals

 

Tennis is set up yo have 2 or 3 guys win everything for years. Golf is not.

 

His longevity is impressive though. Has to be on PEDs no?

 

Disagree with this. Just because it's been that way lately doesn't mean it's always been that way. In particular, the Agassi/Sampras/Courier/Becker era which overlapped the Connors/McEnroe/Lendl era was a time when there were always at least 3-4 contenders for any Grand Slam. There is no reason there can't be more top players in Tennis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Disagree with this. Just because it's been that way lately doesn't mean it's always been that way. In particular, the Agassi/Sampras/Courier/Becker era which overlapped the Connors/McEnroe/Lendl era was a time when there were always at least 3-4 contenders for any Grand Slam. There is no reason there can't be more top players in Tennis.

 

Who was the 2nd best player during Tiger's dominance? Phil? Ernie? never once had to play them head to head while one of them played defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Roger Federer vs. Tiger Woods debate is now ancient history

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/the-roger-federer-vs-tiger-woods-debate-is-now-ancient-history/news-story/ba308f2e422b9fc45641d2a5346328c4

 

 

 

Cast your mind back to the dim, dark ages of 2008-09. As sports fans, we used to play a game back then. It went like this. Who’s the greatest? Tiger or Roger?

I know, this seems absurd now. But remember, they were different times. Tweeting was generally something birds did and the age of the selfie had yet to begin.

In July 2008, before Michael Phelps won his magic eight gold medals and Usain Bolt set his first world record, Tiger Woods and Roger Federer bestrode the sports world as twin giants.

Theirs was a friendly rivalry, forged through their common sponsor Nike and built on mutual appreciation of each other’s skills.

Woods had famously just won his 14th major title, the US Open, effectively on one leg, to draw one ahead of Federer in the major stakes and seemingly on course to sail past golf legend Jack Nicklaus’s record haul of 18 major titles.

Federer also won the US Open in 2008, to take him to 13 grand slam wins, one shy of the record of Pete Sampras. And it did not take the Swiss champion long to go past that record, with two more slams added to his trophy list in 2009 at the French Open and then Wimbledon.

In late 2009, an Associated Press poll of American sports editors selected Woods as the athlete of the decade, ahead of the yet-to-be disgraced Lance Armstrong. Even accounting for local bias, it’s astonishing to recall that Federer only finished third on the list.

That poll was published just weeks after Woods was involved in a minor car crash near his home in Florida and as lurid revelations of his extramarital activities began to surface.

However, no one thought that the upset in his personal life, combined with an ongoing back injury, would so thoroughly derail his professional career. Almost 10 years later, Woods remains stuck on 14 majors and at 42, having been off the tour for most of the last two years, Nicklaus’ record seems well beyond his reach.

 

 

 

:banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta give it to Federer. He's the most well rounded tennis player of all time. Has adapted his style as needed. Best movement on the court I've ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then lets discuss Nadal vs Tiger.

 

If it is easily Feds over Tiger then Nadal probably is as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it to the Federer > Tiger thread :D

 

 

237 Consecutive weeks at World #1

Winning two Grand Slams 5 times consecutively

Oldest World #1 in the history of Tennis

8 Wimbledon titles

14 year gap being #1 in the world

 

 

 

 

 

No effing kidding. How much longer does Tiger have to be mediocre before these loons abandon the argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take tiger. He plays a much much much much much more mentally demanding sport against much much much much much better competition and bigger fields under differentiating conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take tiger. He plays a much much much much much more mentally demanding sport against much much much much much better competition and bigger fields under differentiating conditions.

 

Dustin Johnson, #1 in the world. dumber than rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. Serena too.

Sure keep going. Djokovic has a winning record vs Feds and has like 12 slams. Chalk him up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No effing kidding. How much longer does Tiger have to be mediocre before these loons abandon the argument?

If you read or comprehended my post I said Feds can be better than him for longevity. Has the better overall career. At their best Ill take Tiger. What he did for a strech was almost impossible in golf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read or comprehended my post I said Feds can be better than him for longevity. Has the better overall career. At their best Ill take Tiger. What he did for a strech was almost impossible in golf.

The same can be said about stretches of Fed's career, the difference being his dominance has lasted much longer. Never mind that its easier to play golf for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same can be said about stretches of Fed's career, the difference being his has lasted longer. Never mind that its much easier to play golf for a long time.

Nah. What feds did in tennis for any stretch seems possible when his 2 rivals have 12 and 17 slams (they are younger).

 

The best tennis player ever has a losing record when playing either of his only 2 rivals.

 

We have obviously been over this a bunch. But golf is much harder to win at the rate Tiger was for a stretch. It isnt even a comparison. That isnt taking much of anything away from Feds. It is just the nature of both sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. What feds did in tennis for any stretch seems possible when his 2 rivals have 12 and 17 slams (they are younger).

 

The best tennis player ever has a losing record when playing either of his only 2 rivals.

 

We have obviously been over this a bunch. But golf is much harder to win at the rate Tiger was for a stretch. It isnt even a comparison. That isnt taking much of anything away from Feds. It is just the nature of both sports.

Yeah, we have been over this. You guys continue to minimize the head-to-head format versus group tournaments in individual sports. Golf is a little bit harder to win on a per tournament basis, but that doesn't vault Tiger over Fed's level of sustained dominance.

 

What would a tennis player need to accomplish for you to consider them better than Tiger? What would Federer have to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we have been over this. You guys continue to minimize the head-to-head format versus group tournaments in individual sports. Golf is a little bit harder to win on a per tournament basis, but that doesn't vault Tiger over Fed's level of sustained dominance.

 

What would a tennis player need to accomplish for you to consider them better than Tiger? What would Federer have to do?

I agree. Plus tennis is insanely hard just to play and keep up physically. Fat guys and the elderly can win golf tournaments. You need to be at peak performance to even make it through a tennis match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×