Can Rafael Nadal match Roger Federer's mark of 16 Grand Slam singles titles?

First topic message reminder :

Sampras won four titles after he turned 26. Federer won five. Lendl six.
Can Rafael Nadal catch Roger Federer?

To be accurate, it shouldn't have restarted at 5-3 in the 2nd. Rafa could hardly take the first three then be off!

Fair point BB.
Either way, the organisation was a shambles.

Hopefully not. It won't be good for the game to have boring slugger as the sport's finest. In the same way Agassi couldn't get past Sampras, it would be better if Nadal didn't get past Federer's mark.

Super D Boon wrote:Hopefully not. It won't be good for the game to have boring slugger as the sport's finest. In the same way Agassi couldn't get past Sampras, it would be better if Nadal didn't get past Federer's mark.

People have different metrics as to what is good for the game. I am sure the metrics for tennis as a business are all good, despite the economical downturn in the West.

If Djokovic gets run over by a bus and Nadal wins the next seven slam titles - the bottom line will be is the sport as a business still making money, still making a profit.

Nore Staat wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Hopefully not. It won't be good for the game to have boring slugger as the sport's finest. In the same way Agassi couldn't get past Sampras, it would be better if Nadal didn't get past Federer's mark.

People have different metrics as to what is good for the game. I am sure the metrics for tennis as a business are all good, despite the economical downturn in the West.

If Djokovic gets run over by a bus and Nadal wins the next seven slam titles - the bottom line will be is the sport as a business still making money, still making a profit.

Do you really want Djokovic to be run over by a bus?

luciusmann wrote:

Tom_____ wrote: Its still a silly statement. As you're stating the improbable as impossible.

Yet still your post above is also flawed in a hilariously ironic way, because it was Federer himself who took out Sampras in R4, when for the previous 9 years at Wimbers Sampras had won 7 times, made one SF and one QF exit. He couldn't do worse than a QF also by your logic, yet very clearly he did.

Silly.

If you're highly pedantic as you are, then yes. I remember you're thing for being pedantic last year when you posted more frequently too. I haven't stated the improbable as impossible, that's your choice of interpretation, not mine. I've asserted that in my view it's highly unlikely he can do worse than last year based on his results. Obviously there's always a possibility I might be wrong, that's built into my configuration and into anyone else's. I'm not god after all. If I must get the exact wording correct to please you're insistent protestations, I may consider it, but I believe everyone else understood me clearly.

Sampras? What a poor example. You can't compare inconsistent Sampras in 2001 with Federer now. In the same year he was knocked out by Federer he'd only made R4 @ the Aussie Open & R2 @ RG. Sampras's inconsistency was already apparent in that year and so in hindsight his knock out by Federer isn't shocking (but it became symbolic subsequently). Fed hasn't had that inconsistently in any of the slams. Unless you have information which suggests some reason for an early exit then please forward it but my statement isn't silly at all. You're interruption of it is though.

Its not being pedantic at all, its simply being factual - clearly you are stating the improbable as impossible - i believe that is silly. Also the example of Sampras is made using the flawed logic your yourself highlighted. Therefore by saying Sampras is a bad example due to his results elsewhere you are weakening any argument for using the 'Wimbledon only' Logic for Fed, as if you spread the logic to other players you are finding yourself having to look at results elsewhere.

gboycottnut wrote:Nadal was very lucky to win the Final yesterday, as had play had to continue or resume late on during Sunday with Djokovic playing well and up a break in the 4th set, I believe that Djokovic would have won that match. Nadal's only hope yesterday of winning was to make a rip roaring start out of the blocks and win that 4th set to prevent the match heading into a decider of which usually Djokovic always wins them.

True, but obviously you can use the same logic to say that Djokovic was lucky the Match didn't end in 3 sets had the first rain delay not occurred when he was facing a wall before they came out and had to play in gradually dampening/drab slow conditions for a long period that effected Nadals ability to get topspin. As much as i hate rain, the conditions remain the same for both players and ultimately Nadal coped better with the overall surface conditions, mental stress and physical requirements of the Final.

Yes it is pedantic. Definition of pedantic? Overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

Factual or anal? I let others decide. You latched onto one particular detail of the overall point I made. The thrust of the point I was making was that Fed stands a good chance of gaining points @ Wimbledon compared to Nadal or Djokovic since he has a lower base of points. That's the main point which you've completely overlooked and not discussed and instead latched onto one minor detail and decided to take issue with, ignoring the overall thrust of the point. Pedantic indeed. If you wanted clarification of what I meant, very easy to ask instead of labelling points silly which clearly you've misunderstood and decided to anally take apart.

I haven't used the 'Wimbledon logic': now you're making things up. I used his performance @ Wimbledon in the last 2 years as a benchmark (which have been weaker overall). I didn't look at the other slams, because as other posters know, his performance has been stronger at them. In Sampras's case, his Wimbledon performances were his strongest, in Fed's case it's the opposite, how is any comparison valid? Your idea of arguing is selectively cherry picking, as evidenced by ignoring the main point I made above. The exact definition of pedantic.

Lucius your logic is twisted flawed warped when it
comes to Wimbledon and Sampras. Tom's argument is
much stronger.

luciusmann wrote:Yes it is pedantic. Definition of pedantic? Overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

Factual or anal? I let others decide. You latched onto one particular detail of the overall point I made. The thrust of the point I was making was that Fed stands a good chance of gaining points @ Wimbledon compared to Nadal or Djokovic since he has a lower base of points. That's the main point which you've completely overlooked and not discussed and instead latched onto one minor detail and decided to take issue with, ignoring the overall thrust of the point. Pedantic indeed. If you wanted clarification of what I meant, very easy to ask instead of labelling points silly which clearly you've misunderstood and decided to anally take apart.

I haven't used the 'Wimbledon logic': now you're making things up. I used his performance @ Wimbledon in the last 2 years as a benchmark (which have been weaker overall). I didn't look at the other slams, because as other posters know, his performance has been stronger at them. In Sampras's case, his Wimbledon performances were his strongest, in Fed's case it's the opposite, how is any comparison valid? Your idea of arguing is selectively cherry picking, as evidenced by ignoring the main point I made above. The exact definition of pedantic.

Given that your main point was based around saying Federer CAN'T lose before the QF of wimbledon, it wasn't a minute point and therefore wasn't pedantic.

You have just used Fed's Wimbledon record in your main point beyond two years regarding the 'can't do worse than that statement': here is your post plainly as its written by yourself.

luciusmann wrote:
Silly? A statement based on his results since 2003 when he first won Wimbledon. Certainly he can exit early (anything is possible, same is true for Nadal and Djokovic) but he hasn't since 2002. Since then his earliest exit was in 2010 & 2011 and even then in the quarters. Therefore in context, he can be relied on to get to the quarters, maybe not the semis but certainly the quarters, hence my statement he can't do worse than that.

Therefore i am not making things up and you're now just being even more silly; bordering ridiculous.

Faust wrote:Lucius your logic is twisted flawed warped when it
comes to Wimbledon and Sampras. Tom's argument is
much stronger.

'Twisted' and 'flawed': keep your opinions to yourself, you've offered nothing to support your own views (like explaining why Nadal will be #2 for USO), rather like jersey. Instead of replying to my posts which discredit your points earlier, you contribute more incoherent babble supporting the pedantic points of another poster who only seems to make an appearance when either Nadal wins or Federer loses and has an a near unhealthy obsession with Federer (from what I remember of him last year) Classy stuff. I can see why you post so little.

Guys, no need for this to get personal

Nore Staat wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Hopefully not. It won't be good for the game to have boring slugger as the sport's finest. In the same way Agassi couldn't get past Sampras, it would be better if Nadal didn't get past Federer's mark.

People have different metrics as to what is good for the game. I am sure the metrics for tennis as a business are all good, despite the economical downturn in the West.

If Djokovic gets run over by a bus and Nadal wins the next seven slam titles - the bottom line will be is the sport as a business still making money, still making a profit.

That's the problem for me. Tennis is now all about profit.

Unfortunately it seems profitable that the tennis calendar is designed around the wishes of Nadal and Djokovic, the surfaces ALL play the way they want them to and if they don't they get into a hissy fit and threaten not to come back ever and ever again unless the surface is changed back. At least Federer showed an ability to adapt his game to cope with modern day demands, Nadal and Djokovic don't have to. It's all laid out on a plate for them.

Would love to see how Nadal copes with a prime Sampras, with proper fast grass??

No it wasn't, the original post was about rankings and points, that was the main point. Clearly how well Fed does is related to that. His job is easier than Nadal or Djokovic, that's a fact because he starts from a lower points base. The original point is about that. Again, stop ignoring the original point and bring up subsequent posts which isn't what you took issue with. There's always the possibility players can become injured or something unforeseen can happen, however those caveats don't need repeating on every post, everyone knows them who follows tennis. It is a minute point because the overall point is he can gain points more easily. You're suggesting the main point I made is that he cant lose before the Quarters. No, the main point is he can gain more points easily than Nadal or Djokovic and my posts have been primarily concerned with that. Get over it.

You're bordering on being anally pedantic here. You can't accept that you've missed the overall thrust of the point I was making so you latch onto a minute detail, which is what it is.

For the record I believe that it is very unlikely, but not impossible that Federer loses before the quarters. It would require Fed to have a very bad day, and an outsider to play a blinder.
Secondly I believe the seedings for USO mainly depend on Wimbledon, and who wins there. I think Djoko and Nadal, being the top two seeds, are probably the two favourites heading into Wimbledon, although both Federer and Murray can win.

I hope everyone can atleast agree with my post.

Would love to see how Nadal copes with a prime Sampras, with proper fast grass??

Like I would like to see how a Sampras would cope with Nadal on Clay

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Would love to see how Nadal copes with a prime Sampras, with proper fast grass??

Like I would like to see how a Sampras would cope with Nadal on Clay

Or on a medium paced high-bouncing outdoor hard-court.

PS Legend you didn't reply to my PM

It Must Be Love wrote:Guys, no need for this to get personal

I agree with you, although I find it strange how some posters who are intermittent posters at most only make an appearance or make posts responding to something to do with Federer or when he loses or soon after (when Nadal wins). Clearly these posters arn't coming here for tennis but more with a personal agenda.

I agree, Fed's chances of departing before the quarters of Wimbledon would be the upset of the tournament.

IMBL

I shall reply to it

For what it's worth, Federer has potentially most to gain at Wimbledon in terms of ranking points when compared to Djokovic and Nadal and I think that is luciusmann's point. Could a shock early loss happen? Sure, it could, but there haven't been many in recent years. We are talking about getting to #1 and implict in that is that all players are doing pretty well, obviously all bets are off if someone gets sent packing in R1!

legendkillarV2 wrote:IMBL

I shall reply to it

luciusmann wrote:

luciusmann wrote:Given that your main point was based around saying Federer CAN'T lose before the QF of wimbledon, it wasn't a minute point and therefore wasn't pedantic.

Therefore i am not making things up and you're now just being even more silly; bordering ridiculous.

No it wasn't, the original post was about rankings and points, that was the main point. Clearly how well Fed does is related to that. His job is easier than Nadal or Djokovic, that's a fact because he starts from a lower points base. The original point is about that. Again, stop ignoring the original point and bring up subsequent posts which isn't what you took issue with. There's always the possibility players can become injured or something unforeseen can happen, however those caveats don't need repeating on every post, everyone knows them who follows tennis. It is a minute point because the overall point is he can gain points more easily. You're suggesting the main point I made is that he cant lose before the Quarters. No, the main point is he can gain more points easily than Nadal or Djokovic and my posts have been primarily concerned with that. Get over it.

You were talking earlier about respective point gains prior to the USO and built into that you were talking about Federer's point tally. It was flawed of you to put that he can't fail to make the QF and therefore it was not pedantic at all to mention it, because his performance at Wimbers 2012 formed part of your basis for having Fed at #2 by the USO.

The post below is started with the QF statement:


"
He can't do worse than last year (last year was bad enough). Thankfully Fed fans like myself and others don't expect much from Fed @ Wimbledon (thanks to his two quarter finals in a row) and so he can't lose much in terms of points although he can gain a lot through doing better. So he's ideally placed out of the top 3 to gain.
"

Tom, I don't see Federer losing before the Quarters. That is what Lucius was trying to say, but he didn't word it well.

It Must Be Love wrote:Tom, I don't see Federer losing before the Quarters. That is what Lucius was trying to say, but he didn't word it well.

I think its very unlikely also.

Good we all agree on this

luciusmann wrote:

Faust wrote:Lucius your logic is twisted flawed warped when it
comes to Wimbledon and Sampras. Tom's argument is
much stronger.

'Twisted' and 'flawed': keep your opinions to yourself, you've offered nothing to support your own views (like explaining why Nadal will be #2 for USO), rather like jersey. Instead of replying to my posts which discredit your points earlier, you contribute more incoherent babble supporting the pedantic points of another poster who only seems to make an appearance when either Nadal wins or Federer loses and has an a near unhealthy obsession with Federer (from what I remember of him last year) Classy stuff. I can see why you post so little.

Lucius you are losing your temper. The reason I do no post
here often is because I run a company with over a hundred
employees. As to why I do not qualify my argument Nadal being
no 2 in the USO is because is self evident.
Nadal is about a 1000 points ahead not many points to defend (from last season) and since he has not not
lost to Federer in any major since 2007 " I like his chances".
That is what I said. " I like his chances".
Time to stop with semantics, pedantics etc.

Tom_____ wrote: You were talking earlier about respective point gains prior to the USO and built into that you were talking about Federer's point tally. It was flawed of you to put that he can't fail to make the QF and therefore it was not pedantic at all to mention it, because his performance at Wimbers 2012 formed part of your basis for having Fed at #2 by the USO.

The post below is started with the QF statement:


"
He can't do worse than last year (last year was bad enough). Thankfully Fed fans like myself and others don't expect much from Fed @ Wimbledon (thanks to his two quarter finals in a row) and so he can't lose much in terms of points although he can gain a lot through doing better. So he's ideally placed out of the top 3 to gain.
"

Just because QF statement was made first doesn't mean that was the main point. As IMBL said, it could have be phrased better. This isn't an essay that requires perfect clarity though, everyone else, besides you understood the thrust of my point, you do too but it appears you're choosing to be pedantic, (not for the first time either). It's been made subsequently clearer by me what I exactly meant, which you were at liberty to ask about but instead you choose to go over it anally again and again, which seems to show an unhealthy obsession on your part. If you wish to be anal about this, just getting to the semis gets Fed an extra 360, it's Cinci and Canada which will be more important for him to get to No.2, not Wimbledon, because he has a better chance of winning Cinci since it's a fast surface and his record there recently is better. Wimbledon isn't the big factor (not that you asked), it's more the performances elsewhere that matter for him, Wimbledon forms a small part of that, but has he isn't likely to win it, so not a big part.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with your conclusion and I won't agree with you. Simple. Get over it. You're point is pedantic (because you're focusing on one detail, regardless of whether the detail was stated before or after the point was made), if it makes you feel better to repeat it countless times to yourself, by all means do.

Faust wrote: Lucius you are losing your temper. The reason I do no post
here often is because I run a company with over a hundred
employees. As to why I do not qualify my argument Nadal being
no 2 in the USO is because is self evident.
Nadal is about a 1000 points ahead not many points to defend (from last season) and since he has not not
lost to Federer in any major since 2007 " I like his chances".
That is what I said. " I like his chances".
Time to stop with semantics, pedantics etc.

I'm perfectly calm. Running you're company has nothing to do with why you choosing not to qualify your points (explains your lack of posts perhaps). You do need to qualify your points because it isn't self evident, hence why I took issue with you.

You clearly don't even know the details, Nadal isn't 1000 points ahead, he's 750 ahead. Again, more inaccurate statements, Nadal has few points to defend, but what he's defending is double what Fed is defending. You're point isn't self evident at all because it's undermined by Nadal's own record post Wimbledon, 4 titles over 9 years. Fed winning either Cinci or Canada pushes Nadal down to No.3, far more likely than Nadal winning one of them (given his record).

This is all relative however, what you're post has shown is this:

a) You don't know how many points Nadal is exactly ahead of Fed by
b) You seem to think Nadal has few points to defend when in fact he has twice as many to defend compared to Federer
c) You make irrelevant points like Fed not beating Nadal in a major. What's that got to do with Fed being #2 for the USO? He doesn't need to win Wimbledon to be #2, he just needs to do better than his performances last year (and gain points). Simple.

If you're going to say you like his chances, basis it on solid information instead of inaccurate information.

Lucius you have lost your temper...
All I said was that "I like Nadal's chances"
for god's sake. Your arguments are specious
pedantic (not 1000 buy 750 points) and narrow-minded.
As for qualifying and supporting arguments
how about if I decide for myself and you for
yourself?

Faust wrote:Lucius you have lost your temper...
All I said was that "I like Nadal's chances"
for god's sake. Your arguments are specious
pedantic (not 1000 buy 750 points) and narrow-minded.
As for qualifying and supporting arguments
how about if I decide for myself and you for
yourself?

Look faust, your point is basically 'I feel Nadal will be #2 seed', that's the crux of your point. No data or evidence to support your case, just a 'feeling'. This probably explains why you've gone on about me losing my temper when in fact I'm reasonably asking you to defend your view which you seem incapable of.

Faust, you didn't say you liked Nadal's chances alone, you asserted he's got a good chance of being #2 seed compared to Fed. My argument is based on reason and evidence, yours is based on feeling. You're better off expressing them in the pub over a drink to others rather than a forum concerned with tennis. You even brought up the most irrelevant evidence: Fed hasn't beaten Nadal in a major. And? How is that important to the #2 seeding for the USO? You then, quite unnecessarily gave your view on another discussion with another poster, labeling my views (again with more of your feeling than actual reason)which did rather irritate me (that's all though). Completely irrelevant to the points we disagreed on.

The fact you're unable to cite accurate info or support your point of view underlines your own narrow minded in this context. I'm happy to debate this and hear what your interruption of why Nadal's chances are good are but you haven't given strong ones which stand up to scrutiny. As I said, better off making them in a pub.

I would get into this debate, but you can't really win as we don't know what will happen.
All I know is Nadal is currently number 2, hence if exactly the same results happen as last year from now till the US Open, Nadal will be seeded second for US.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Would love to see how Nadal copes with a prime Sampras, with proper fast grass??

Like I would like to see how a Sampras would cope with Nadal on Clay

3 of the 4 slams Nadal would be toast. Sampras would not be concerned with the one that allows boring moonball tactics which is more about endurance and defence than ability and skill.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Would love to see how Nadal copes with a prime Sampras, with proper fast grass??

Like I would like to see how a Sampras would cope with Nadal on Clay

3 of the 4 slams Nadal would be toast. Sampras would not be concerned with the one that allows boring moonball tactics which is more about endurance and defence than ability and skill.

So if Nadal were to play on 90's Sampras would have boycotted the matches against Rafa considering boring tennis ?

Seifer Almasy wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Would love to see how Nadal copes with a prime Sampras, with proper fast grass??

Like I would like to see how a Sampras would cope with Nadal on Clay

3 of the 4 slams Nadal would be toast. Sampras would not be concerned with the one that allows boring moonball tactics which is more about endurance and defence than ability and skill.

In conditions that favour Sampras or today's courts?

Oh the irony!

luciusmann wrote:

Tom_____ wrote: You were talking earlier about respective point gains prior to the USO and built into that you were talking about Federer's point tally. It was flawed of you to put that he can't fail to make the QF and therefore it was not pedantic at all to mention it, because his performance at Wimbers 2012 formed part of your basis for having Fed at #2 by the USO.

The post below is started with the QF statement:


"
He can't do worse than last year (last year was bad enough). Thankfully Fed fans like myself and others don't expect much from Fed @ Wimbledon (thanks to his two quarter finals in a row) and so he can't lose much in terms of points although he can gain a lot through doing better. So he's ideally placed out of the top 3 to gain.
"

Just because QF statement was made first doesn't mean that was the main point. As IMBL said, it could have be phrased better. This isn't an essay that requires perfect clarity though, everyone else, besides you understood the thrust of my point, you do too but it appears you're choosing to be pedantic, (not for the first time either). It's been made subsequently clearer by me what I exactly meant, which you were at liberty to ask about but instead you choose to go over it anally again and again, which seems to show an unhealthy obsession on your part. If you wish to be anal about this, just getting to the semis gets Fed an extra 360, it's Cinci and Canada which will be more important for him to get to No.2, not Wimbledon, because he has a better chance of winning Cinci since it's a fast surface and his record there recently is better. Wimbledon isn't the big factor (not that you asked), it's more the performances elsewhere that matter for him, Wimbledon forms a small part of that, but has he isn't likely to win it, so not a big part.

I'm sorry, I don't agree with your conclusion and I won't agree with you. Simple. Get over it. You're point is pedantic (because you're focusing on one detail, regardless of whether the detail was stated before or after the point was made), if it makes you feel better to repeat it countless times to yourself, by all means do.

The QF statement was the first and only point made in that post, so being anal or pedantic did not come into it from my side; debatably yours. However, since it is clear your argument has totally fallen apart and you have been scrabbling around for a long period of time since, i think its time to stop posting on this subject. In particular, because it was always at a tangent to the main thrust of the thread. I suggest just every once in a while you take a step back and admit that you have made unsubstantiated claims based on ill thought out judgement and that upon reflection the comments were baseless. People appreciate that kind of thing in my experience.

Assuming that Federer does not win anymore majors or manages to pick up one more at the most, that would be 16 or 17, considering Nadal is 26, it is theoretically possible for the latter to catch.

To do so, Nadal will have to win 4 more (at least 3) French titles.

With Rafa's style of play, one would think he's highly injury-prone. He has surprised me by surviving this long.

Tom_____ wrote:

The QF statement was the first and only point made in that post, so being anal or pedantic did not come into it from my side; debatably yours. However, since it is clear your argument has totally fallen apart and you have been scrabbling around for a long period of time since, i think its time to stop posting on this subject. In particular, because it was always at a tangent to the main thrust of the thread. I suggest just every once in a while you take a step back and admit that you have made unsubstantiated claims based on ill thought out judgement and that upon reflection the comments were baseless. People appreciate that kind of thing in my experience.

In you're opinion yes (that's what you consider the only point (not me). Again, a tacit acceptance again on your part that this is your interruption. Clear only to you. You're the one who's been going off at a tangent, not me, since you've gone on endlessly. I don't know you personally, so I have no idea why you're so utterly anal, although having studied at a good university myself and got a good degree, your utter obsession with minor details wouldn't get you far (that's if you gone recently).

Unsubstantiated claims? Oh, so now there's more than one according to you? I thought you said there was only one? Now you're alleging more? You've chosen to interrupt it in your own way, rather like how extremists often choose to latch onto a small detail to take offence to. You're the only person who's chosen to misinterrupt (besides another disgruntled poster) so you're lame attempt at claiming my argument has 'fallen apart' is sweet but more a sad reflection on your need to feel superior, which is itself is pathetic. You've had more posters trying to explain what I actually meant (which is what I actually meant) than the way you've chosen to take it.

It's interesting what you can potentially learn from the way people post, especially you, but this was self evident last year when I joined the forum and it's become even more obvious now. What I do know is you usually post regularly on here when a) Federer loses b) when Nadal wins. Rather supports your need to feel superior a) over Federer fans b) because your man won.

For someone that went to a good university your interupt of interpretation is bizarre

legendkillarV2 wrote:For someone that went to a good university your interupt of interpretation is bizarre

Haha, yeh, it's one of those words I just can't spell correctly so I'm reliant on spell check to give me the right word (if that's what you mean)!

luciusmann wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For someone that went to a good university your interupt of interpretation is bizarre

Haha, yeh, it's one of those words I just can't spell correctly so I'm reliant on spell check to give me the right word (if that's what you mean)!

Similar to Hawky's Opponont and Tenez's the

luciusmann wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For someone that went to a good university your interupt of interpretation is bizarre

Haha, yeh, it's one of those words I just can't spell correctly so I'm reliant on spell check to give me the right word (if that's what you mean)!

A bit of a misapropos from me there, happened to me last year too! Thankfully you and other posters know what I mean. though:)