• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

What does Nadal need to do to overtake Federer as the GOAT?

When will Nadal be considered as a greater player than Federer?

  • He already is! Just look at the HTH.

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Needs to surpass Fed's 17 majors

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Needs to win the end of year championship

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • He will never be as good as Feder

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
the big bambino

the big bambino

International Captain
The only reason why Nadal is ahead is down to the bias in contests occurring on clay. What that means is Fed was good enough to meet Nadal in finals on that surface. Whereas Nadal, until more recently was eliminated before he could match against Fed on other surfaces in finals. the hth is distorted that way and if anything shows Fed as the better player on all surfaces over their careers.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
We all know Federer lost to Tommy Robredo at the US Open because he wanted to duck Nadal.
 
Riggins

Riggins

International Captain
How can you nadal fans explain him not winning the 2009 french open if he's so good. didn't even make the semis, the hack.
 
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nadal once again dogging the biggest stage - Davis Cup - in order to dodge Fed and Stan. Weak as piss.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Switzerland - a country that has never won the Davis Cup, despite having the GOAT.

Who can ever forget Federer losing to known clay court specialist John Isner on clay, at home, in 2012 to let Stan Wawrinka down, and allow Switzerland to get knocked out.

Weird that Roger Federer would want to play on clay to get an advantage as well, considering its a surface no one cares about (other than all of Europe, who run and dominate tennis).
 
Last edited:
the big bambino

the big bambino

International Captain
Ever forget it? Didn't even know or care it happened. Now that I do I'll forget it all right. Fed's pretty useful on clay but lets face it; it is a **** surface. They only have clay on the continent bcos they cant grow grass.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
the big bambino said:
Ever forget it? Didn't even know or care it happened.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, it was obvious you don't watch much tennis from your earlier posts.

Funnily enough Federer 2006-07 is still the greatest tennis player I've ever seen along with Novak 2011, and Federer is still in my mind the GOAT ahead of Sampras. But the **** Federer die-hards say to bring down Nadal is just pathetic. And writing off all of clay tennis and claiming Nadal is "lucky" to have a strong head-to-head against Federer is a nice solid give-away that your opinion on tennis is biased and uninformed.
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

International Captain
Jono said:
Oh I know, it was obvious you don't watch much tennis from your earlier posts.

Funnily enough Federer 2006-07 is still the greatest tennis player I've ever seen along with Novak 2011, and Federer is still in my mind the GOAT ahead of Sampras. But the **** Federer die-hards say to bring down Nadal is just pathetic. And writing off all of clay tennis and claiming Nadal is "lucky" to have a strong head-to-head against Federer is a nice solid give-away that your opinion on tennis is biased and uninformed.
Click to expand...
Hey Jono, can't we be friends or at least friendly? I don't want our exchange degenerate to antagonism. First up I'll correct the record. I didn't say Nadal's hth v Fed is lucky. You said I did and that's the distinction and its not appreciated.

So if you want to take issue with anything I've said you can use the following instead. Its true I don't rate clay. My opinion is influenced by the no. of champions there who didn't win (much if at all) anywhere else. So I came to think of RG as the no name slam. Whereas the other surfaces reflected quality any kind of journey man could win on clay. So I never held it against the likes of Sampras failing there. At Garros everyone was a potential Sampras or Agassi. Alternatively those 2 fell to the level of the journeymen.

It may appear a contradiction but while I don't rate French open winners the exception is Nadal. The reason being that since everyone is a potential winner at Garros imo, then Nadal's consistency there is meritorious. I also rate Fed on account of his consistency there and second only to his frequent conqueror.

If you think I'm running down Nadal then you have misread what I've said. I'm neither a die hard for one or the other. I just rate Fed higher as I think he's better over all surfaces, Nadal's dominance on clay notwithstanding. It is on the record that the discrepancy in the HTH can be explained on the bias towards clay in their contests. That is why I don't rate the HTH as definitive in separating the 2. It is a reasonable conclusion whether you agree with it or not but it isn't fair to say it is uninformed if you don't agree.
 
Last edited:
grecian

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
the big bambino said:
Hey Jono, can't we be friends or at least friendly? I don't want our exchange degenerate to antagonism. First up I'll correct the record. I didn't say Nadal's hth v Fed is lucky. You said I did and that's the distinction and its not appreciated.

So if you want to take issue with anything I've said you can use the following instead. Its true I don't rate clay. My opinion is influenced by the no. of champions there who didn't win (much if at all) anywhere else. So I came to think of RG as the no name slam. Whereas the other surfaces reflected quality any kind of journey man could win on clay. So I never held it against the likes of Sampras failing there. At Garros everyone was a potential Sampras or Agassi. Alternatively those 2 fell to the level of the journeymen.

It may appear a contradiction but while I don't rate French open winners the exception is Nadal. The reason being that since everyone is a potential winner at Garros imo, then Nadal's consistency there is meritorious. I also rate Fed on account of his consistency there and second only to his frequent conqueror.

If you think I'm running down Nadal then you have misread what I've said. I'm neither a die hard for one or the other. I just rate Fed higher as I think he's better over all surfaces, Nadal's dominance on clay notwithstanding. It is on the record that the discrepancy in the HTH can be explained on the bias towards clay in their contests. That is why I don't rate the HTH as definitive in separating the 2. It is a reasonable conclusion whether you agree with it or not but it isn't fair to say it is uninformed if you don't agree.
Click to expand...
Honestly bumswizzled why anyone would ask that question who would want to be either?:unsure:
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not surprised uvelocity refuses to respect the great man's wishes and call him Muhammad Ali
 
uvelocity

uvelocity

International Coach
well it was that joke or going with something about nadal being a terracotta warrior. happy with my decision.
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He'd probably need to overtake the 17 Slam mark (and make sure that some of those wins are off the dirt).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top