Why does Lebron meticulously pick the best teams to sit against?

[stalkerforlife]

OKC - At OKC, Durant was back, and Lebron knew he couldn't beat him. The entire basketball world wanted to see the match up. Sits.

Hawks - At ATL and the Hawks are on fire. Lebron concedes loss. Sits.

But he will play any scrub team on any night.

BS like this is why he'll never crack my top 15 list.

Zero competitive drive.

[Budadiiii]

He would be the GOAT cherry picker.

Pick those cherries, boy!

[gilalizard]

http://www.albany.com/byesline/check%20my%20stats2.jpg

[JT123]

Best teams? :biggums:
Last I checked the Thunder are below .500, and Bron has owned KD his entire career. :no:

[Budadiiii]

Best teams? :biggums:
Last I checked the Thunder are below .500, and Bron has owned KD his entire career. :no:
Holy shit... Durant is more valuable than I thought.

Durant owns Lebron individually but playing on the stacked Cavs and Heat his whole career skews the team record in his favor, and Durant is 4 years younger. If you role reverse then I don't think Lebron would have ever gotten a win over a Durant led team.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

LMAO.


Im the furthest thing from a LeBron fan but you guys should learn to use Occam's razor.

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.


Occam's razor is your friend, fellas. Try using your brain instead of looking for a "take" in every thing LeBron does, no matter how nondescript it is.

1. The Cavs are 18-12. 18-12. Do you REALLY think LeBron wants to risk his team losing another game unless he had to? If the Cavs lose today, 18-13 is laughable for a team with their talent and everyone, including LeBron, knows it.

2. He's missed, what, 30-40 games in his career? And his teams have, like, a losing record in the games that he's missed?

Yeah, what an evasive douche.

3. OK, he doesn't have the competitive zeal that MJ or Kobe have (that is probably your angle, right?) Who does? Kobe just missed three games, against GSW, Dallas, and Chicago, all legitimately great teams, citing "tiredness".

Mind you, I'm not hating on him. It was totally legit. He's 36 and he could use some rest. But LeBron's two missed games are also legit unless there is a reason to think otherwise.

[Twiens]

Bran taking the easy way out, shocking :oldlol:

[SouBeachTalents]

Holy shit... Durant is more valuable than I thought.

Durant owns Lebron individually but playing on the stacked Cavs and Heat his whole career skews the team record in his favor, and Durant is 4 years younger. If you role reverse then I don't think Lebron would have ever gotten a win over a Durant led team.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=jamesle01&p2=duranke01

[Budadiiii]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=jamesle01&p2=duranke01
The **** is that? :facepalm

I watch basketball. I don't study the numbers and come up with conclusions based off of them. It's well known that Lebron has never been as great as his stats suggest so why do people continue to bring them up?

I watch Durant murder Lebron when Lebron is guarding him and the opposite when Durant is guarding Lebron.

Most of the wins came playing on a stacked Heat roster with insanely good perimeter D.

Texas > Oklahoma? Nadal > Federer? Bird > Jordan?

No, no, and no.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

The **** is that? :facepalm

I watch basketball. I don't study the numbers and come up with conclusions based off of them. It's well known that Lebron has never been as great as his stats suggest so why do people continue to bring them up?

I watch Durant murder Lebron when Lebron is guarding him and the opposite when Durant is guarding Lebron.

Most of the wins came playing on a stacked Heat roster with insanely good perimeter D.

Texas > Oklahoma? Nadal > Federer? Bird > Jordan?

No, no, and no.


You were a little irksome until you stated your preference for Federer :cheers: :applause:

[Milbuck]

The **** is that? :facepalm

I watch basketball. I don't study the numbers and come up with conclusions based off of them. It's well known that Lebron has never been as great as his stats suggest so why do people continue to bring them up?

I watch Durant murder Lebron when Lebron is guarding him and the opposite when Durant is guarding Lebron.

Most of the wins came playing on a stacked Heat roster with insanely good perimeter D.

Texas > Oklahoma? Nadal > Federer? Bird > Jordan?

No, no, and no.
This is KD-Lebron exactly as you described it, Nadal being KD. Nadal has owned Federer completely since he wasn't even the legal drinking age, you can see the fear dripping off Federer's face the second he steps on court and sees Nadal on the other side of the net :lol

[SouBeachTalents]

This is KD-Lebron exactly as you described it, Nadal being KD. Nadal has owned Federer completely since he wasn't even the legal drinking age, you can see the fear dripping off Federer's face the second he steps on court and sees Nadal on the other side of the net :lol

Except Nadal is 23-10 against Federer, while Durant is 4-14 against LeBron

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

This is KD-Lebron exactly as you described it, Nadal being KD. Nadal has owned Federer completely since he wasn't even the legal drinking age, you can see the fear dripping off Federer's face the second he steps on court and sees Nadal on the other side of the net :lol

we've gone back and forth on this one already hahaha.

70% of his slams were won on a surface where 25% of the slams are played, and hes completely inept indoors, where he hasn't won a title in 10 years. As well as being the beneficiary of a homogenized era where all the surfaces were slowed down, carpet was abolished, the Wimbledon grass was changed and slowed down, Rebound Ace at the Australian Open was replaced by the slower Plexicushion, and poly strings allowed players like Nadal to impart spin on the ball that they never could have with the racquets of yesteryear.

I won't say Nadal is COMPLETELY the product of an era tailormade to his strengths, as he would be a great champ any era. But it is a big factor. Pure baseliners that hit with extreme topspin simply couldn't succeed on grass and fast HC before 10-15 years ago. It just wasn't possible.

and, Federer is still the more accomplished player; 302 weeks at number 1 to 148, 17 slams to 14, 6 World Tour Finals to 0, etc. As well as winning the most prestigious event on tour 7 times, compared to 2 for Rafa.

AND, try to answer this one: other than clay, on which surface is Nadal the superior player? Grass? No. Indoors? No. Fast hard courts? No. Slow hard courts? No. Carpet? No.

On every surface other than clay, Federer is INDISPUTABLY the better player. Indisputably, slam-dunk, no-questions-asked better.


So, while I respect your opinion, it is NOT absurd to believe Federer is the greater player, and it is NOT like LeBron-Durant.


(and if you wanna rehash the whole "weak era" argument, c + p/quote my last post in that thread where we argued it, the one addressing your points because as I recall, you were the one that stopped replying. I don't say that to be a braggart, I only bring it up because I don't wanna start from scratch when I spent such a long time responding to those claims)

[senelcoolidge]

Lebron is all about his image. He can't afford to look bad. So he sits out against the good teams. Let his coach and teammates take the blame.

[SouBeachTalents]

we've gone back and forth on this one already hahaha.

70% of his slams were won on a surface where 25% of the slams are played, and hes completely inept indoors, where he hasn't won a title in 10 years. As well as being the beneficiary of a homogenized era where all the surfaces were slowed down, carpet was abolished, the Wimbledon grass was changed and slowed down, Rebound Ace at the Australian Open was replaced by the slower Plexicushion, and poly strings allowed players like Nadal to impart spin on the ball that they never could have with the racquets of yesteryear.

I won't say Nadal is COMPLETELY the product of an era tailormade to his strengths, as he would be a great champ any era.

But, Federer is still the more accomplished player; 302 weeks at number 1 to 148, 17 slams to 14, 6 World Tour Finals to 0, etc.

AND, try to answer this one: other than clay, which surface is Nadal the superior player? Grass? No. Indoors? No. Fast hard courts? No. Slow hard courts? No. Carpet? No.

On every surface other than clay, Federer is INDISPUTABLY the better player. Indisputably, slam-dunk, no-questions-asked better.


So, while I respect your opinion, it is NOT absurd to believe Federer is the greater player, and it is NOT like LeBron-Durant.


(and if you wanna rehash the whole "weak era" argument, c + p/quote my last post in that thread where we argued it, the one addressing your points because as I recall, you were the one that stopped replying. I don't say that to be a braggart, I only bring it up because I don't wanna start from scratch when I spent such a long time responding to those claims)

Federer's the better player, I agree, but having another player own him and beat him almost every single time is a serious black mark on another wise perfect resume. Nadal's beaten him SIX straight times in Grand Slams, with Federer last beating Nadal in a Grand Slam in 2007. It's a very unique circumstance, where a GOAT player in a sport gets beaten by another opponent throughout his career

[Milbuck]

we've gone back and forth on this one already hahaha.

70% of his slams were won on a surface where 25% of the slams are played, and hes completely inept indoors, where he hasn't won a title in 10 years. As well as being the beneficiary of a homogenized era where all the surfaces were slowed down, carpet was abolished, the Wimbledon grass was changed and slowed down, Rebound Ace at the Australian Open was replaced by the slower Plexicushion, and poly strings allowed players like Nadal to impart spin on the ball that they never could have with the racquets of yesteryear.

I won't say Nadal is the product of an era tailormade to his strengths, as he would be a great champ any era.

But, Federer is still the more accomplished player; 302 weeks at number 1 to 148, 17 slams to 14, 6 World Tour Finals to 0, etc.

AND, try to answer this one: other than clay, which surface is Nadal the superior player? Grass? No. Indoors? No. Fast hard courts? No. Slow hard courts? No. Carpet? No.

On every surface other than clay, Federer is INDISPUTABLY the better player. Indisputably, slam-dunk, no-questions-asked better.


So, while I respect your opinion, it is NOT absurd to believe Federer is the greater player, and it is NOT like LeBron-Durant.


(and if you wanna rehash the whole "weak era" argument, c + p/quote my last post in that thread where we argued it, the one addressing your points because as I recall, you were the one that stopped replying. I don't say that to be a braggart, I only bring it up because I don't wanna start from scratch when I spent such a long time responding to those claims)
Haven't been following this thread much, not getting into the KD-Lebron stuff.

But I'll come back to this later when I get home and expand on this..

I never said Nadal was greater. I currently have Federer higher on the all-time list, the GOAT. But best player ever is a different story. Nadal may not have the consistency of Federer but his top level play is as good or better than anything Federer has done and he has dominated all his main rivals a way Federer hasn't done to anyone outside of the weak ass era he played in. Nadal has owned Federer on nearly all surfaces.

Clay record is obviously laughable....13-2, one of those wins by Nadal being one of the most thorough, complete dismantling of one all-time great of another in tennis history.

Hard courts Nadal is 9-6, 3-0 in HC slams.

Grass Nadal is 1-2, and 2 of those losses were teenage Nadal going against absolute peak Federer on his (arguably) best surface. In the 2nd loss and 1st win in that 3rd match Nadal took Federer to 5 sets, the latter of which is generally considered the great match ever played. We're talking about baby Nadal on his weakest (at the time his 2nd weakest) surface going toe to toe with apex Federer on his best surface.

We can go back and forth about career accomplishments and overall legacies..but what isn't disputable is that Nadal has dominated Federer completely throughout multiple surfaces through different eras. Nadal has dominated him when he was a teenager, when he himself was on the top of the tennis world, and obviously now.

Hell, we might as well bring Djokovic into the discussion. Djokovic in 2011 did something Federer never did in his life - he dominated not only the tennis world, but Nadal as well. As far as I'm concerned Djokovic's 2011 is more impressive than Federer ever was. Literally the only thing that could stop him on his rampage was Federer going into complete god mode for one match and Djokovic not playing at his unstoppable level.

[Milbuck]

Federer's the better player, I agree, but having another player own him and beat him almost every single time is a serious black mark on another wise perfect resume. Nadal's beaten him SIX straight times in Grand Slams, with Federer last beating Nadal in a Grand Slam in 2007. It's a very unique circumstance, where a GOAT player in a sport gets beaten by another opponent throughout his career
How is he the better player when he is thoroughly dominated by his biggest rival?

This isn't basketball where two players can have completely different supporting casts, circumstances, coaching, etc.

It's one player against another player, nothing but your own hard work, skill, talent manifesting itself on the court, against the same from another player.

The closest basketball comparison you can come up with, would be taking two similar level players the exact same surrounding talent level (molded to their style of play) and two coaches on the same level, suited to that players' style...if one of those players' teams comes out on top 75% of the time and the player visibly looks more dominant than the losing player...that player has earned the distinction of being the better player.

PejaTheSerbSnip makes some very valid points about Nadal's less than stellar all-court resume compared to Federer.

But it's not like Nadal is some total scrub on other surfaces by ATG standards..like Sampras was on clay...Nadal has 2 slams on grass, 3 slams on HC..dude has 5 slams off his best surface...forget the other slams, 5 slams by itself is an incredible accomplishment..and he did it in a career constantly hampered by injury, playing in one of the toughest eras of competition with the GOAT in Federer, another top tier ATG in Djokovic, and another elite multiple time slam champion in Murray.

[ArbitraryWater]

Don't need to turn this into a tennis thread also lol.. just continue here with the same discussion http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=352349&page=10

[Milbuck]

Don't need to turn this into a tennis thread also lol.. just continue here with the same discussion http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=352349&page=10
Peja feel free to copy/paste my post into ^this thread and quote if you want to.

[SouBeachTalents]

How is he the better player when he is thoroughly dominated by his biggest rival?

This isn't basketball where two players can have completely different supporting casts, circumstances, coaching, etc.

It's one player against another player, nothing but your own hard work, skill, talent manifesting itself on the court, against the same from another player.

The closest basketball comparison you can come up with, would be taking two similar level players the exact same surrounding talent level (molded to their style of play) and two coaches on the same level, suited to that players' style...if one of those players' teams comes out on top 75% of the time and the player visibly looks more dominant than the losing player...that player has earned the distinction of being the better player.

PejaTheSerbSnip makes some very valid points about Nadal's less than stellar all-court resume compared to Federer.

But it's not like Nadal is some total scrub on other surfaces by ATG standards..like Sampras was on clay...Nadal has 2 slams on grass, 3 slams on HC..dude has 5 slams off his best surface...forget the other slams, 5 slams by itself is an incredible accomplishment..and he did it in a career constantly hampered by injury, playing in one of the toughest eras of competition with the GOAT in Federer, another top tier ATG in Djokovic, and another elite multiple time slam champion in Murray.

I think Federer in his prime was much more consistent than Nadal has been. Federer had some insane streaks, like making 19/20 Grand Slam Finals, 23 consecutive semifinals in a row, 36 consecutive quarterfinals etc. The only player who could beat Federer in his prime was Nadal on clay, who is unquestionably the GOAT clay court player.

And while this is somewhat nitpicking, Nadal has had some very early Grand Slam defeats, including his back to back 2nd and 1st round exits in Wimbledon. Not to mention his durability, Nadal's missed 3 of the past 9 Grand Slams due to injury, Federer has NEVER missed a Grand Slam.

Factoring all that in, I believe Federer has been the greater tennis player, and imo the GOAT

[Milbuck]

I think Federer in his prime was much more consistent than Nadal has been. Federer had some insane streaks, like making 19/20 Grand Slam Finals, 23 consecutive semifinals in a row, 36 consecutive quarterfinals etc. The only player who could beat Federer in his prime was Nadal on clay, who is unquestionably the GOAT clay court player.

And while this is somewhat nitpicking, Nadal has had some very early Grand Slam defeats, including his back to back 2nd and 1st round exits in Wimbledon. Not to mention his durability, Nadal's missed 3 of the past 9 Grand Slams due to injury, Federer has NEVER missed a Grand Slam.

Factoring all that in, I believe Federer has been the greater tennis player, and imo the GOAT
This all goes into the GOAT discussion. And greatest is different from best to me. Which is why I won't be calling Nadal the GOAT and higher than Federer on the all-time list until he's got 16 slams at least, with certainty until he's at 17.

Nadal's injury problems, lack of Federer's consistency has been a black mark of his own legacy. But when he's healthy and in-form he dominated at the highest level. And he's had to go through peak Federer, peak Djokovic, peak Murray.

How badly would Nadal have decimated the tour if he was the one at his peak going against Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, old Agassi...and teenage Federer as his biggest rival? Again, what about peak Djokovic? 43 match winning streak only stopped by god mode Federer playing out of his skin for one match that year, overall 21-3 against the top 10 players on tour.

[navy]

How is he the better player when he is thoroughly dominated by his biggest rival?

Hmmm think of it like this. If one player is better vs the mast majority of players but his kryptonite is another player who isnt as good vs the majority, but routinely beats him does that automatically make his kryptonite the best?

Bosh has been dominated by Vucecic since his rookie season, did that make V > Bosh?

[Cocaine80s]

****ing nerds arguing over tennis :biggums:

[ArbitraryWater]

Hmmm think of it like this. If one player is better vs the mast majority of players but his kryptonite is another player who isnt as good vs the majority, but routinely beats him does that automatically make his kryptonite the best?

Bosh has been dominated by Vucecic since his rookie season, did that make V > Bosh?


...................... seriously? :hammerhead:

How is this a valid comparison?

We have TWO ATG's, probably the 2 GOAT's, in their PEAK, HEAD-TO-HEAD.... IN AN INDIVIDUAL SPORT....

And one has routinely beaten the other, on all surfaces, even as teenager..... of course its gonna make a difference.

I mean, the only times he lost was as 20-21 y/old, in the '06 and '07 Wimbledon finals... won every single Major match since (9).

[navy]

...................... seriously? :hammerhead:

How is this a valid comparison?

We have TWO ATG's, probably the 2 GOAT's, in their PEAK, HEAD-TO-HEAD.... IN AN INDIVIDUAL SPORT....

And one has routinely beaten the other, on all surfaces, even as teenager..... of course its gonna make a difference.
It was just the most recent matchup l remember. You can insert any player any sport there with different names where one player is better vs the majority except vs another opponent or two.

[Milbuck]

Hmmm think of it like this. If one player is better vs the mast majority of players but his kryptonite is another player who isnt as good vs the majority, but routinely beats him does that automatically make his kryptonite the best?

Bosh has been dominated by Vucecic since his rookie season, did that make V > Bosh?
This logic might make sense if Nadal didn't:

1) have a better win% than Federer against the rest of the big of 4 the last decade. Federer up until recently had a losing record to Andy Murray as well, and is 2 matches away from losing his H2H advantage with Djokovic. It's entirely plausible, if not likely (considering the ages of Djokovic/Murray/Federer), that Federer could have a losing record against literally all 3 of his biggest rivals of the big 4.

2) the highest career win% (against all players) in tennis history. For all his consistent dominance and whatnot, Federer isn't in the top 5, by the way.

Like I said, Nadal isn't some one surface scrub and his dominance isn't limited to Federer.

So many players, multiple legends of the sport, from decades ago to recent years have raved about Nadal's presence on the tour.

He's had his share of weird, inexplicable early losses..but all in all there are literally only 2 things that have been serious obstacles for him - injuries, and Novak Djokovic. And even then he's gotten the better of both of them. Can't say the same with Federer with Nadal.

[Megabox!]

OKC - At OKC, Durant was back, and Lebron knew he couldn't beat him.
:roll: stop making threads

[ArbitraryWater]

It was just the most recent matchup l remember. You can insert any player any sport there with different names where one player is better vs the majority except vs another opponent or two.

Can you? Try it... under similar circumstance.

Find me 2 contenders for GOAT in an Individual sport, and one has destroyed the other for his career, the point that the only losses he had came as 20-year old in 5-set matches in the other's most comfortable surface....

And then of course, to prove your point, show me people NOT using that as a valid argument..

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Haven't been following this thread much, not getting into the KD-Lebron stuff.

But I'll come back to this later when I get home and expand on this..

I never said Nadal was greater. I currently have Federer higher on the all-time list, the GOAT. But best player ever is a different story. Nadal may not have the consistency of Federer but his top level play is as good or better than anything Federer has done and he has dominated all his main rivals a way Federer hasn't done to anyone outside of the weak ass era he played in. Nadal has owned Federer on nearly all surfaces.

Clay record is obviously laughable....13-2, one of those wins by Nadal being one of the most thorough, complete dismantling of one all-time great of another in tennis history.

Hard courts Nadal is 9-6, 3-0 in HC slams.

Grass Nadal is 1-2, and 2 of those losses were teenage Nadal going against absolute peak Federer on his (arguably) best surface. In the 2nd loss and 1st win in that 3rd match Nadal took Federer to 5 sets, the latter of which is generally considered the great match ever played. We're talking about baby Nadal on his weakest (at the time his 2nd weakest) surface going toe to toe with apex Federer on his best surface.

We can go back and forth about career accomplishments and overall legacies..but what isn't disputable is that Nadal has dominated Federer completely throughout multiple surfaces through different eras. Nadal has dominated him when he was a teenager, when he himself was on the top of the tennis world, and obviously now.

Hell, we might as well bring Djokovic into the discussion. Djokovic in 2011 did something Federer never did in his life - he dominated not only the tennis world, but Nadal as well. As far as I'm concerned Djokovic's 2011 is more impressive than Federer ever was. Literally the only thing that could stop him on his rampage was Federer going into complete god mode for one match and Djokovic not playing at his unstoppable level.

Fair enough. Also on my phone so I can understand that.
Good points but many of them are very very disputable. A few counters I have.

1. Nadal, for his mastery of Federer on most surfaces, is still only better than him on one surface, and that is clay. That's it. While he got the better of Fed in their h2h on hard courts, it would be crazy to even suggest he is in the same universe as Federer on ANY non-clay surface. Heck, since Nadal has won his first non-clay slam, guess how many non-clay slams he has won? 4. That's the same amount as Federer has won since then, despite being well past his peak. So, I respect your opinion, but I personally can never believe a player like Nadal, being DECISIVELY inferior on every single surface bar one, can be greater than Fed, just like you can't bring yourself to believe that Fed could be better than Nadal even with his 10-23 record against him. Nadal has bested Federer in their h2h, point conceded, but against the field, and overall, he is only better on clay. Grass, slow hc, fast hc, carpet and indoors.....Fed is better. let me emphasize this again: it is totally ridiculous to rate Nadal as being better than Federer on ANY surface other than clay. How can one reconcile this with the opinion that Nadal is superior? 22 year old to present prime Nadal could only MATCH a post-prime Federers accomplishments on non-clay surfaces from 2008 to 2014 (and arguably lags behind overall because of Federers dominance indoors) . Wrap your head around that if you wanna argue that Nadal is better on anything sans clay.

2. We KNOW Federer exited his peak in 2008, if you dispute that, because not only did he start losing to fellow members of the top 4, he also started losing to a wealth of lower-ranked players, guys like stepanek, roddick, karlovic and Blake, guys who are around his age or older and were like 2-40 against him pre-2008. He contracted
mono, missed several training blocks, and while still formidable, has never been the same since.

3. Tennis players peak at different times on different surfaces. Nadals grass peak was 2007-2011. He certainly wasn't a baby in 2007 on grass. I guess Becker was a baby on grass as a teenager, when he won 2 of his Wimbys? Not at all.

Nadal is worse on grass NOW, from 2012-present than he was in 2006/07, yet he is a superior OVERALL player NOW. Since 2011 he is 5-6 on grass. From 2006-2008 he was 24-2. Those two victories Fed had over Nadal were legitimate. No asterisk.

[navy]

This logic might make sense if Nadal didn't:

1) have a better win% than Federer against the rest of the big of 4 the last decade. Federer up until recently had a losing record to Andy Murray as well, and is 2 matches away from losing his H2H advantage with Djokovic. It's entirely plausible, if not likely (considering the ages of Djokovic/Murray/Federer), that Federer could have a losing record against literally all 3 of his biggest rivals of the big 4.

2) the highest career win% (against all players) in tennis history. For all his consistent dominance and whatnot, Federer isn't in the top 5, by the way.

Like I said, Nadal isn't some one surface scrub and his dominance isn't limited to Federer.

So many players, multiple legends of the sport, from decades ago to recent years have raved about Nadal's presence on the tour.

He's had his share of weird, inexplicable early losses..but all in all there are literally only 2 things that have been serious obstacles for him - injuries, and Novak Djokovic. And even then he's gotten the better of both of them. Can't say the same with Federer with Nadal.
Cant say I follow tennis that much, but how much stock are you putting into Federer's performance vs the rest of the field. Are you suggesting that circumstances equal Nadal would have a similar resume?

[edrick]

Can you? Try it... under similar circumstance.

Find me 2 contenders for GOAT in an Individual sport, and one has destroyed the other for his career, the point that the only losses he had came as 20-year old in 5-set matches in the other's most comfortable surface....

And then of course, to prove your point, show me people NOT using that as a valid argument..

It's pointless arguing this. Some people believe that the dominance over many players means more than one matchup, and then you have people that believe the opposite.

[FLDFSU]

I thought you idiots said that all the good teams play out West?

[ArbitraryWater]

Cant say I follow tennis that much, but how much stock are you putting into Federer's performance vs the rest of the field. Are you suggesting that circumstances equal Nadal would have a similar resume?

What would you say...

Federer/Djokovic/Murray vs. Baghdatis/Safin/Roddick/Gonzales

[pauk]

Whats the logic behind being a Lebron hater such as yourself acting like you are more disappointed than even any other Lebron stan because he didnt play and act like he is also anywhere near your top 15 all-time list better yet top 50 list?

[navy]

It's pointless arguing this. Some people believe that the dominance over many players means more than one matchup, and then you have people that believe the opposite.
This is what Im thinking it boils down too.

[ArbitraryWater]

It's pointless arguing this. Some people believe that the dominance over many players means more than one matchup, and then you have people that believe the opposite.

But Rafa has won just 3 less GS's WHILE dominating him head-to-head.... so obviously its a plus.

Usually I try to wait with this debate for Rafa to tie him in Majors... I do still believe it will happen since I doubt Fed ever winning one. When that happens...

Rafa will have won as much, against stronger competition, while dominating him individually....

There won't be an argument. So if now, you still have Roger > all-time, fine, but you're not gonna be able to do much if/when Rafa wins 3 more.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

This logic might make sense if Nadal didn't:

1) have a better win% than Federer against the rest of the big of 4 the last decade. Federer up until recently had a losing record to Andy Murray as well, and is 2 matches away from losing his H2H advantage with Djokovic. It's entirely plausible, if not likely (considering the ages of Djokovic/Murray/Federer), that Federer could have a losing record against literally all 3 of his biggest rivals of the big 4.

2) the highest career win% (against all players) in tennis history. For all his consistent dominance and whatnot, Federer isn't in the top 5, by the way.

Like I said, Nadal isn't some one surface scrub and his dominance isn't limited to Federer.

So many players, multiple legends of the sport, from decades ago to recent years have raved about Nadal's presence on the tour.

He's had his share of weird, inexplicable early losses..but all in all there are literally only 2 things that have been serious obstacles for him - injuries, and Novak Djokovic. And even then he's gotten the better of both of them. Can't say the same with Federer with Nadal.[/QUOTE[QUOTE=Milbuck]This logic might make sense if Nadal didn't:

1) have a better win% than Federer against the rest of the big of 4 the last decade. Federer up until recently had a losing record to Andy Murray as well, and is 2 matches away from losing his H2H advantage with Djokovic. It's entirely plausible, if not likely (considering the ages of Djokovic/Murray/Federer), that Federer could have a losing record against literally all 3 of his biggest rivals of the big 4.

2) the highest career win% (against all players) in tennis history. For all his consistent dominance and whatnot, Federer isn't in the top 5, by the way.

Like I said, Nadal isn't some one surface scrub and his dominance isn't limited to Federer.

So many players, multiple legends of the sport, from decades ago to recent years have raved about Nadal's presence on the tour.

He's had his share of weird, inexplicable early losses..but all in all there are literally only 2 things that have been serious obstacles for him - injuries, and Novak Djokovic. And even then he's gotten the better of both of them. Can't say the same with Federer with Nadal.

1. Federer is 5-6 years older than them and 70% of his matches with them occurred post -2008.

2. They hit their strides at different times. Nadal was an early bloomer, Federer a late one. Since they both won their first slam, though (2003-present for Fed, 2005-present for Nadal) Federers win % is 86.5%, Nadals 84%. Over their best 5 year span it is 92% for Federer, 87% for Nadal. Pretty humongous difference.


What sense is there in putting much weight behind their results that occurred before they were even elite players?
That's like hating on Jordan's 1-9 PS record before Pippen hit his stride, when comparing him to LeBron. There were extenuating circumstances.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

What would you say...

Federer/Djokovic/Murray vs. Baghdatis/Safin/Roddick/Gonzales
What would you say...

Federer/Djokovic/Murray vs. Baghdatis/Safin/Roddick/Gonzales
What would you say...

Federer/Djokovic/Murray vs. Baghdatis/Safin/Roddick/Gonzales


LOLLL. you can't fault Federer for not being able to face himself, can you?

Hewitt is about equal to Murray, accomplishments-wise and as a player is comparable. Both alltime great returners and movers. Hewitt had the better serve, their net game was comparable and both had uber consistent groundies.

Djokovic I will give you. But it is a myth that this era is stronger. Because there is no well of young talent. The tour is actually the oldest it has ever been. EVER. the average top 100 player is older now than at any point in tennis history. Think about that for a second. How can this era be stronger when there are rarely ever any new faces and not exactly an influx of young talent?

So while the top 5 is stronger, depth wise it is

[Milbuck]

Fair enough. Also on my phone so I can understand that.
Good points but many of them are very very disputable. A few counters I have.

1. Nadal, for his mastery of Federer on most surfaces, is still only better than him on one surface, and that is clay. That's it. While he got the better of Fed in their h2h on hard courts, it would be crazy to even suggest he is in the same universe as Federer on ANY non-clay surface. Heck, since Nadal has won his first non-clay slam, guess how many non-clay slams he has won? 4. That's the same amount as Federer has won since then, despite being well past his peak. So, I respect your opinion, but I personally can never believe a player like Nadal, being DECISIVELY inferior on every single surface bar one, can be greater than Fed, just like you can't bring yourself to believe that Fed could be better than Nadal even with his 10-23 record against him. Nadal has bested Federer in their h2h, point conceded, but against the field, and overall, he is only better on clay. Grass, slow hc, fast hc, carpet and indoors.....Fed is better. let me emphasize this again: it is totally ridiculous to rate Nadal as being better than Federer on ANY surface other than clay. How can one reconcile this with the opinion that Nadal is superior? 22 year old to present prime Nadal could only MATCH a post-prime Federers accomplishments on non-clay surfaces from 2008 to 2014 (and arguably lags behind overall because of Federers dominance indoors) . Wrap your head around that if you wanna argue that Nadal is better on anything sans clay.

How exactly is it crazy?

“Not in the same universe” is what is crazy, imo. Peak Nadal was every bit in the same conversation as Federer as a hard court player, in highest level. In his last healthy HC swing in 2013 he went on a 27 match winning streak on hard court, winning 3 straight Masters 1000 and a slam..a sweep of the North American tour (Montreal, Cincy, USO). Was utterly dominant in doing so.

You keep bringing up career consistency as if I haven’t already told you that I have Federer ahead on the all-time list precisely for this reason. Nadal hasn’t been as consistent, oftentimes because of his own failings but also frequently because of health.

It just has nothing to do with his dominance at his peak, which was an insanely high level of dominance.

2. We KNOW Federer exited his peak in 2008, if you dispute that, because not only did he start losing to fellow members of the top 4, he also started losing to a wealth of lower-ranked players, guys like stepanek, roddick, karlovic and Blake, guys who are around his age or older and were like 2-40 against him pre-2008. He contracted
mono, missed several training blocks, and while still formidable, has never been the same since.
So what’s his excuse for going to 5 sets with 20 year old Nadal the year prior, when he was in his peak and healthy?

Would 2010 Nadal who was an even more complete and mature player, who won Wimbledon, not beat Federer any of those three years from 2006-2008?

3. Tennis players peak at different times on different surfaces. Nadals grass peak was 2007-2011. He certainly wasn't a baby in 2007 on grass. I guess Becker was a baby on grass as a teenager, when he won 2 of his Wimbys? Not at all.He might not have been a baby but he wasn’t entirely developed as a player. That was back when Nadal was insanely gifted physically, and was giving Federer severe trouble primarily because of the matchup nightmare posed by his style of play. He didn’t master his all-court game the way he would just a few years later.

Again I ask, you put 2010 Nadal in that 2006, 2007, 2008 final, which of those does he not win?

Nadal is worse on grass NOW, from 2012-present than he was in 2006/07, yet he is a superior OVERALL player NOW. Since 2011 he is 5-6 on grass. From 2006-2008 he was 24-2. Those two victories Fed had over Nadal were legitimate. No asterisk.
Nadal’s complete inconsistency on grass in recent years means little to nothing to me..if we’re going to give Federer the mono excuse in 2008, what makes Nadal’s very real knee problems any less significant? It’s been well documented how Nadal’s knee problems are at their absolute worst on grass - you don’t have the firm positioning of HC, you don’t have the forgivingness of clay, it’s a completely unpredictable and irregular surface both in terms of movement and response to the ball, it puts incredible strain on your knees when you have existing near-chronic knee issues.

Do you honestly think that Nadal just “magically” went from hanging with near-peak Federer in his late teens and early 20s, to becoming a garbage grass player in his own peak? Really?

What we know is that Nadal at his best on grass is very much in the same conversation as Federer. He isn’t as good, I’m not saying he is, but to suggest the gap is monumental is just ludicrous.

[ArbitraryWater]

LOLLL. you can't fault Federer for not being able to face himself, can you?

Hewitt is about equal to Murray, accomplishments-wise and as a player is comparable. Both alltime great returners and movers. Hewitt had the better serve, their net game was comparable and both had uber consistent groundies.

Djokovic I will give you. But it is a myth that this era is stronger. Because there is no well of young talent. The tour is actually the oldest it has ever been. EVER. the average top 100 player is older now than at any point in tennis history. Think about that for a second. How can this era be stronger when there are rarely ever any new faces and not exactly an influx of young talent?

So while the top 5 is stronger, depth wise it is

Huh? I compared each one's competition.... You can add teenage Rafa to Roger's side.

"Hewitt is equal to Murray accomplishments wise".....................

Murray literally needed to battle it out with peak Federer, Nadal, Djokovic....

"depth" how many times are Rafa/Roger losing to people out of the top 10? Stop. It's irrelevant to their Grand Slam count.

The top matters if you actually want to know which time it was harder to win a major in.

Rafa had to go through Federer/Djokovic/Murray, no one Fed went through compares to that, really.

Competition IS a big difference here..

[Budadiiii]

Huh? I compared each one's competition.... You can add teenage Rafa to Roger's side.

"Hewitt is equal to Murray accomplishments wise".....................

Murray literally needed to battle it out with peak Federer, Nadal, Djokovic....

"depth" how many times are Rafa/Roger losing to people out of the top 10? Stop. It's irrelevant to their Grand Slam count.

The top matters if you actually want to know which time it was harder to win a major in.

Rafa had to go through Federer/Djokovic/Murray, no one Fed went through compares to that, really.

Competition IS a big difference here..
Another reason Durant > LeBron. Faces much tougher competition.

[ArbitraryWater]

Another reason Durant > LeBron. Faces much tougher competition.

Not even comparable since Individual sport =/= team sport.

[Milbuck]

1. Federer is 5-6 years older than them and 70% of his matches with them occurred post -2008.

2. They hit their strides at different times. Nadal was an early bloomer, Federer a late one. Since they both won their first slam, though (2003-present for Fed, 2005-present for Nadal) Federers win % is 86.5%, Nadals 84%. Over their best 5 year span it is 92% for Federer, 87% for Nadal. Pretty humongous difference.


What sense is there in putting much weight behind their results that occurred before they were even elite players?
That's like hating on Jordan's 1-9 PS record before Pippen hit his stride, when comparing him to LeBron. There were extenuating circumstances.
So should we just ignore Federer's successes against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray when he was in his peak and prime and when the other 3 were still developing and growing as players? And 22 matches out of 33 between Nadal and Federer were played up until Federer left his prime after 2010 at 29. 20 out of 33 if you go even further back to 2009 and don't include 2010 when they only played twice.

And your Jordan-Lebron reference sums up what I disagree with about your argument.

They're not similar at all..Jordan was on garbage teams losing to unquestionably better teams. You put him on better teams and he's dominating and racking up the accolades.

Whereas Nadal was just a better player than Federer age for age. It has nothing to do with external factors, context, circumstances, any of that...he was just that good that early and Federer wasn't.

I don't know why we get to change the goalposts and only factor in the time Federer was developed.

And again, I don't know why you keep insisting on denying the fact that Federer's competition at his peak was just not that good. It really wasn't at all. Is Federer holding a 92% win % at his peak if he had peak Nadal, peak Djokovic, and peak Murray right there with him? Yes or no?

[Droid101]

Why was JT allowed to be unbanned? Does not represent the forums well. He is too stupid.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Huh? I compared each one's competition.... You can add teenage Rafa to Roger's side.

"Hewitt is equal to Murray accomplishments wise".....................

Murray literally needed to battle it out with peak Federer, Nadal, Djokovic....

"depth" how many times are Rafa/Roger losing to people out of the top 10? Stop. It's irrelevant to their Grand Slam count.

The top matters if you actually want to know which time it was harder to win a major in.

Rafa had to go through Federer/Djokovic/Murray, no one Fed went through compares to that, really.

Competition IS a big difference here..

Yeah, and that ties into how weak players outside the top 20 are. It isn't irrelevant.

Other than clay, in which Federer is clearly several notches below Nadal, which surface is he better? You can't name one because there isn't one. Grass. Outdoor hc, either slow or fast. Indoor hc. Carpet.


Hell, since Nadal won his first non-clay slam, they are EVEN in non-clay slams won, and Federer has the 2-0 edge in World Tour Finals won. That's past his prime Federer v prime Nadal on non-clay surfaces. So, "competition" didn't prevent old Fed from equalling Nadal on non-clay surfaces, and he was TEN-FOLD better in his prime.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

So should we just ignore Federer's successes against Nadal, Djokovic, Murray when he was in his peak and prime and when the other 3 were still developing and growing as players? And 22 matches out of 33 between Nadal and Federer were played up until Federer left his prime after 2010 at 29. 20 out of 33 if you go even further back to 2009 and don't include 2010 when they only played twice.

And your Jordan-Lebron reference sums up what I disagree with about your argument.

They're not similar at all..Jordan was on garbage teams losing to unquestionably better teams. You put him on better teams and he's dominating and racking up the accolades.

Whereas Nadal was just a better player than Federer age for age. It has nothing to do with external factors, context, circumstances, any of that...he was just that good that early and Federer wasn't.

I don't know why we get to change the goalposts and only factor in the time Federer was developed.

And again, I don't know why you keep insisting on denying the fact that Federer's competition at his peak was just not that good. It really wasn't at all. Is Federer holding a 92% win % at his peak if he had peak Nadal, peak Djokovic, and peak Murray right there with him? Yes or no?1. The Federer-Jordan parallel wasn't meant to be perfectly analogous. I was just saying there's more to it than meets the eye and there is. You mention wp% yet fail to mention than since they cracked the top 20, Federers wp% is superior.

2. Yeah, Nadal was WAY better at 17-22 than Fed at age 17-22. No argument there. I just think its pointless to factor in their w-l before they won their first slam. They weren't even relevant before they won their first slam in the grand scheme of things; Federer was simply LESS relevant. It just makes more SENSE to compare their winning percentage from the point they started to make their mark rather than when they were also-rans. They both lost a lot in their first few years, Federer merely lost more. But NEITHER were WINNING big tournaments either. So its not even relevant. From the time they won their first slam, Federer's winning percentage has been much higher. Heck, if we even start at 2005, when NADAL won his first slam (Federers first was two years prior), Federer has still had a higher WP from then til now, even though he spent more years removed from his prime than Nadal in that allotted time.


His wp% is higher somewhat by default, therefore. Its the tortoise v the hare; people kept pointing to Nadals slam count and doing an age by age comp with Fed, using it as proof that Nadal will eventuallly surpass him. Yet, when you compare their accomplishments now, from when they were both 28, Federer leads 16-14 in majors and has double the weeks at number 1.


3. No , it wouldn't be. But it wouldn't have PLUMMETED. Nadal would have also had to deal with peak Fed, and unlike 2004-2007 the majority of their matches wouldnt have been on clay. It would have been close, but Federer, with his prowess on all surfaces, would have had more success on tour. His all-surface dominance would have offset Nadals clay dominance and it would have led to more tournament and major wins against the field if their primes overlapped. 33 year old Fed won 86% of his matches in 2014. Am I so unreasonable for thinking he could have done better than that if he was at his peak? Hardly


If you put a gun to my head, yes, I would say 2003-2007 was a tad weaker than 2008-2013. If you read my posts carefully I never denied that this is a STRONG era, just that 2003-2007 wasn't WEAK. It's a two way street.

While this era is more top-heavy, 2003-2007 was deeper. This is well-established, and there is a reason the tour is older today than it has EVER been, by a long shot.

Hewitt was Murray's equal, and was a similar mould. Both counterpunchers with insane movement. Hewitt, much like Murray, gave not-at-his-prime Federer FITS (6-2 against young Roger). He also double-breadsticked one of the greatest servers of all time in the US Open final, Pete Sampras. Sampras won the Open the following year.

Decrepit Agassi was still a formidable player. Safin, at his peak, was legendarily good. Some analysts believe that the form he displayed in the 2000 US Open final, when he dismantled Sampras, and the 2005 Australian Open semi when he outlasted peak Fed, was among the finest ever seen, including Cliff Drysdale and John McEnroe.

Nalbandian was considered one of the greatest ball-strikers ever, and one of the best to never win a slam. He demolished Nadal in consecutive tournaments in 2007, and beat Federer twice at a slam. Davydenko has a winning record against Nadal, 6-5, with 4 of those wins occurring post-2008 (so when Nadal hit his stride), yet he was routinely demolished by Federer in his heyday (2-15 record against Fed). Another unbelievable ball-striker who had some of the best groundstrokes I've ever seen. Henman and Gonzalez were tough. Henman was a grasscourt beast and he was 5-2 in his first 7 matches with Federer. Roddick is better than any non-top 4 player today, unquestionably.

The claycourt field of 2003-2007 was also stronger. Young Nadal (81 match win streak on clay, anyone? Wasn't far removed from his peak on that particular surface. If you compare his % of service and return games won in his best years on clay, 2007 is number 4 overall, and 2005 number 2.....2008 was Nadal at his zenith) Gaudio, Coria, Ferrero + Moya (natural dirtballers and French Open winners), young Djokovic, fading Kuerten (ATG claycourter though), Safin, Al Costa, Davydenko was harder to contend with than Nadal, Djokovic, Soderling, and 30+ year old Ferrer.


So yeah, give me the most recent era, but it isn't so clear-cut and both have arguments in their favour. One was deeper, the other was more top-heavy. Why is that? Well, the fact of the matter is, the more technology and sports science and advanced training methods become a factor in tennis (which they have become in the past 7-10 years), the more it shafts the lower ranked players.

The thing with tennis is, unless you are a top player, you are barely earning enough money to break even. I believe the breakeven point is 336. That's how high you have to be ranked (or in that neighbourhood). That's preposterous, and because of this, the lower ranked players can't expect to keep up with the top players because they don't have access to the same level of training that the top guys have at their disposal. The advancements have been both a blessing and a curse in that sense, and it has rendered parity virtually obsolete.

Take, for example, that pressurized egg Djokovic and Murray bought and used to sit in to improve their stamina (which is bordering on doping LOL, but that's another issue). That bobsled-sized pressure chamber costs about 75,000$!!

Now, of course this is a factor in every sport and every walk of life, but there has been an UNBELIEVABLE paradigm shift in tennis centered around sports science and new training methods, and the financial discrepancy between the elite and the next level of player is higher in tennis than in any other sport I can think of, besides boxing.

Hence why there is LESS parity today (by today I mean 2004-2014, so yes I am including Federers era in this, in case you think I'm biased :p ) than at any other point in tennis history, which is ridiculous, right? Shouldn't it be HARDER to separate yourself from the pack than it was in yesteryear?

But alas, it isn't. That's why even the "breakthrough" slam winners this year, Wawrinka and Cilic, won their slams at an age where many players start to decline.



So there, I gave you the straight answer you wanted: I don't believe Federers peak WP would be quite as high as it was if his peak took place today, and I do agree this era is slightly stronger. But there is a hell of a lot more to it than meets the eye. Now, can you reciprocate? Other than clay, on which surface is Nadal better than Federer?

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Huh? I compared each one's competition.... You can add teenage Rafa to Roger's side.

"Hewitt is equal to Murray accomplishments wise".....................

Murray literally needed to battle it out with peak Federer, Nadal, Djokovic....

"depth" how many times are Rafa/Roger losing to people out of the top 10? Stop. It's irrelevant to their Grand Slam count.

The top matters if you actually want to know which time it was harder to win a major in.

Rafa had to go through Federer/Djokovic/Murray, no one Fed went through compares to that, really.

Competition IS a big difference here..

No lol, he didn't. HEWITT had to deal with peak Federer. Murray dealt with past his peak Federer. Hewitt was 0-8 to Federer in his prime at slams. Even in his magical run in 2004, when he was on a 20 match win streak and reached the US Open final without losing a set, he lost 0, 6, and 0 to an imperious Fed. Hewitt was experiencing a resurgence up to that point. He had an awesome summer and some actually considered him the favourite in that final. But Federer took the wind out of his sails.

Murray notched wins at mickey mouse tournaments over Federer, and a past his peak fed at that. Yet despite the age gap (80% of their career matches played after 2008), Murray is 1-4 in slams and 1-4 at the WTF against Federer, which is the biggest tourny in tennis outside the 4 majors.

Objectively, Murray and Hewitt are very comparable.

[stalkerforlife]

Federer is the obvious GOAT, but what the heck did this thread turn into? lol.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

[QUOTE=Milbuck]How exactly is it crazy?

“Not in the same universe” is what is crazy, imo. Peak Nadal was every bit in the same conversation as Federer as a hard court player, in highest level. In his last healthy HC swing in 2013 he went on a 27 match winning streak on hard court, winning 3 straight Masters 1000 and a slam..a sweep of the North American tour (Montreal, Cincy, USO). Was utterly dominant in doing so.
[Quote]


Very impressive indeed.


Still not as impressive as Federer or Djokovics best form on hc's. The form that he could show over 3 tournaments, Federer or Djokovic could sustain over 10-11. I find it highly unlikely that Nadal could only maintain peak performance on hard courts for a 3-4 tournament span

His career best HC win streak is just slightly dwarfed by Federers best, of 56, and 65 straight on grass. Heck Federer has had SEVERAL streaks of 27+ hc wins. And over a 2 year span he was 109-3. It's hard for me to look at that and think that's a case of consistency instead of dominance. Its both, but 109-3 is UNSPEAKABLY dominant. 2 of those 3 losses went deep into a final set, too.

Nadal has defended a hard court title a grand total of zero times in his career. Hes won 3 hc slams compared to 9 for Federer. 0 WTFS to 6, and the gap in titles is like 56-16.

Fifty-six. To sixteen. 14-3 on grass. So, 70-19 on non-clay surfaces. That's gargantuan!

So yeah, I think it IS fair to say they're not in the same universe on any surface that is not clay. 70 to 19 says it all, and a difference in "consistency" only begins to scratch the surface. Federer is in a different league outside of the dirt.

If you have a side discussion on "peak level of play", I still disagree, although that is far more subjective. People talk about weak draws and weak eras, but if you look at Nadals road to the US Open final in 2010 and 2013, it wasn't exactly daunting.

Personally I believe the highest level I've ever seen from Nadal on a hardcourt was in Melbourne in 2009. 5 hour classic against Verdasco, then a 4 hour thriller v Federer. His crosscourt backhand, passing shots and movement were amazing during that fortnight.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Federer is the obvious GOAT, but what the heck did this thread turn into? lol.
Sorry bro couldn't resist.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Peja feel free to copy/paste my post into ^this thread and quote if you want to.

Apologies mate, just saw this.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

So what’s his excuse for going to 5 sets with 20 year old Nadal the year prior, when he was in his peak and healthy?

No excuse. Nadal is a fantastic player on the surface. Grass court matches can be shootouts at times.



He might not have been a baby but he wasn’t entirely developed as a player. That was back when Nadal was insanely gifted physically, and was giving Federer severe trouble primarily because of the matchup nightmare posed by his style of play. He didn’t master his all-court game the way he would just a few years later.


Nadal has never been an all-court player. He'll approach the net to put away fluff balls but all in all he's never been anything but a baseliner.

That's not a disparaging remark, it's simply the truth. I think he only serve-and-volleyed once in the Wimbledon final in 2008, and 4 times in 2010, and approached the net half as much as his opponent on both occasions.

What Nadal DID do was improve his serve and backhand on grass. Not make any seismic adjustments to his game plan.



Again I ask, you put 2010 Nadal in that 2006, 2007, 2008 final, which of those does he not win?


I have never seen Nadal in better form on grass than in 2008. Won Queens, which he has never done before or since, only dropping one set, and reached the Wimby final with only one set lost (compared to 5 going into the 2010 final).

So, 2010 Nadal probably wouldn't beat 2008 Federer in the final if 2008 Nadal could just eek by him. 2006, Federer didn't drop a set going into the final and served Nadal a bagel in the final. 2006 Federer would probably beat 2010 Nadal too, just based on that.

2007? I could see 2010 Nadal taking that one.



Nadal’s complete inconsistency on grass in recent years means little to nothing to me..if we’re going to give Federer the mono excuse in 2008, what makes Nadal’s very real knee problems any less significant? It’s been well documented how Nadal’s knee problems are at their absolute worst on grass - you don’t have the firm positioning of HC, you don’t have the forgivingness of clay, it’s a completely unpredictable and irregular surface both in terms of movement and response to the ball, it puts incredible strain on your knees when you have existing near-chronic knee issues.



Not really an excuse, I don't believe Federer lost because of the after-effects of mono. I just think him contracting mono didn't merely coincide with his decline. He missed 2 months of valuable training time, and was mentally drained from all the weeks on the mountaintop. He was nearing 27, at an age when many tennis players are starting to burn out.

But he was fantastic in the final and sublime for much of the tournament, so no, I don't attribute his loss to mono.

Interestingly enough, while Nadal certainly DOES have longstanding knee problems.......it was only once he started losing consistently on grass that he started giving grass bum reviews (even though he had knee problems even when he was winning on grass. but somehow back then the grass didn't aggravate his knee condition, only hard courts did).

It used to be HC that was his least favourite surface -- several times he even said that there should be more "natural surface" tournaments, and his uncle mentioned how they should

a) get rid of the vast majority of hardcourts and replace them with clay or grass
b) raise the height of the net. hmm. who has the highest net clearance on his groundstrokes out of any top player?
c) only allow one serve. hmm. who has the highest percentage of first serves in out of any top player?

in any event, Nadal's knee injuries are brutal for him and for the sport. but I think the flip-flopping is too convenient, and I can't buy that injuries are the ONLY reason for his BEYOND poor form on grass. His whole career natural surfaces, INCLUDING grass, were his safe haven, and hard courts were much maligned by both him and his uncle.

Yet now it takes an unbearable toll on his knees? I mean, I realize you have to bend a bit lower, but hard courts are made of CONCRETE. Grass is much softer. I have never, ever heard of any player, be it a recreational or pro player, say that grass courts are the surface that give them the most physical problems. Ever. And Nadal, to reiterate, LOVED playing on grass for years, even with his knee problems causing him great distress on hard courts and overall.

And he only competes in 1, MAX 2, grass court tournaments a year. Yet after every flame out, injury is the main culprit, and his opponents performance falls by the wayside.



Do you honestly think that Nadal just “magically” went from hanging with near-peak Federer in his late teens and early 20s, to becoming a garbage grass player in his own peak? Really?



Similar things have happened. Sampras was a perennial second week'er at RG, yet after '96 he was a non-factor at the tournament, despite still dominating Wimbledon.

Thing is, Nadal isn't garbage even now on grass, but he is hugely susceptible to big hitters early in the tournament, when the ball bounces low and the spin he imparts can't work miracles like it does later in the tournament, when the surface is much slower. It's pretty much about survival, doing what he can to get by until the surface starts to resemble the dirt he is so used to playing on.

Even in 2010, he got taken to 5 by a teenager, and once more taken to a 5th set by Petzchenner.



What we know is that Nadal at his best on grass is very much in the same conversation as Federer. He isn’t as good, I’m not saying he is, but to suggest the gap is monumental is just ludicrous.


Fair enough.

Again I will disagree. In his run of 5 consecutive Wimbledon titles, Federer only lost 8 sets. He's 27-1 in terms of sets won in his 9 Wimbledon semifinals. When Federer redlines on grass his serve is virtually unbreakable. There are really only a handful of matches I've seen from Nadal on grass that I've watched and thought "wow".

I will never be able to wrap my head around how somebody was able to reel off 65 straight grasscourt wins like Federer. Ever. In a surface of such fine margins, where servers hold at a rate of around 83%, Federer didn't lose in 6 years.

But, it's different strokes for different folks. Against Federer, Nadal with his lefty topspin is a devastating match up for Federer even on grass. Point taken. But against virtually anyone else, I don't see how this even an argument. How about Federers best against everyone else and Nadals best against everyone else on grass? Why do we only use a straight up head-to-head to gauge what their best is on grass?

[tragicbronson]

Federer is the obvious GOAT, but what the heck did this thread turn into? lol.

Exactly :lol, i was reading op and just switched to the last page and i see Federer vs Nadal :oldlol:

[dunksby]

A total moron starts a thread, another moron makes an impossible comparison and we have people who'd call themselves smart typing essays following a baseless argument :lol

[chosen_one6]

Wow I read the first post and then went to the last page and thought I clicked on the wrong thread.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

A total moron starts a thread, another moron makes an impossible comparison and we have people who'd call themselves smart typing essays following a baseless argument :lol

Lol?


YOU sound like the pompous one here, dude.

90% of this forum is about arguing baseless hypotheticals that lead nowhere.

[dunksby]

Lol?


YOU sound like the pompous one here, dude.

90% of this forum is about arguing baseless hypotheticals that lead nowhere.
The non bball argument regarding greats of tennis stems from an idiot's comparison of a team sport matchups to an individual sport's so I'm right to call it out.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

The non bball argument regarding greats of tennis stems from an idiot's comparison of a team sport matchups to an individual sport's so I'm right to call it out.


True, we went off on a tangent.


With that said, how old are you? Off-topic or not we were debating in a civil tone. You're the one that started doling out the ad hominems.

[NZStreetBaller]

Lebron sat out against durant because of fear.... the man clearly isnt in his prime and is declining and starting to doubt his abilities. (Its floyd mayweatherish). Duh

[NZStreetBaller]

True, we went off on a tangent.


With that said, how old are you? Off-topic or not we were debating in a civil tone. You're the one that started doling out the ad hominems.

I found the next pauk!!! Stand by for future didnt read gifs (god I miss those)

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

I found the next pauk!!! Stand by for future didnt read gifs (god I miss those)


Haha, you're a regular Rhodes scholar

[GimmeThat]

OKC - At OKC, Durant was back, and Lebron knew he couldn't beat him. The entire basketball world wanted to see the match up. Sits.

Hawks - At ATL and the Hawks are on fire. Lebron concedes loss. Sits.

But he will play any scrub team on any night.

BS like this is why he'll never crack my top 15 list.

Zero competitive drive.


they don't have another wing which allows him to play more of the point out there.

[poido123]

Lequeen better be playing against the bulls come mid January.


I want to see rose and butler tear him a new ass hole and embarrass him.


Lep.ussy always dodging hard times. :facepalm

[dunksby]

True, we went off on a tangent.


With that said, how old are you? Off-topic or not we were debating in a civil tone. You're the one that started doling out the ad hominems.
Old enough to have seen greats since Sampras and wise enough not to be entrapped by trolls. And if you call my initial post offensive and belittling you are either very sensitive or new to ISH, I bet it's the former.

[SouBeachTalents]

Lequeen better be playing against the bulls come mid January.


I want to see rose and butler tear him a new ass hole and embarrass him.


Lep.ussy always dodging hard times. :facepalm

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2010_EC1.html#CLE-CHI

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2011_ECF.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2013_ECS.html#MIA-CHI

[BigTicket]

Since when are the Hawks and Thunder the best teams in the league ? :confusedshrug:

[Roundball_Rock]

Holy shit... Durant is more valuable than I thought.

Durant owns Lebron individually but playing on the stacked Cavs and Heat his whole career skews the team record in his favor, and Durant is 4 years younger. If you role reverse then I don't think Lebron would have ever gotten a win over a Durant led team.

OKC has been the most stacked team in the league for several years now...at one point they had Durant, Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka. Yet they still lost in a backdoor sweep to LeBron's Heat as LeBron outplayed Durant.

[riseagainst]

[QUOTE=PejaTheSerbSnip]LMAO.


Im the furthest thing from a LeBron fan but you guys should learn to use Occam's razor.

[I]Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

note: join date and 77 posts.

definitely not an alt.

:oldlol:

Salty that you have nothing to say so you accuse me of being a banned user lol.

No, I'm not an alt.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Old enough to have seen greats since Sampras and wise enough not to be entrapped by trolls. And if you call my initial post offensive and belittling you are either very sensitive or new to ISH, I bet it's the former.

I grew up with Sampras :p don't even know where you are going with this. You're all over the place.

I wasn't offended by it, it was just a tad cunty

[20Four]

LeBRONZE is a beta i"m not surprised

[andremiller07]

He pretty much symbolizes the Cavs team, they can only beat decent teams when the other team has one or more of there top players missing, otherwise he knows its a L coming.

[imdaman99]

The answer to the thread is because he wants to see his team fail and wants the media to show, oh look the Cavs had a bad record against the top teams and it's all because Lebron James did not play...see how valuable he is?????? Dude is obviously throwing them under the bus, all his moves are calculated. He is the NBA version of A-Rod. Primadonna that loves attention no matter how he gets it. Lucky for him, steroid testing has not exposed him.

To answer Nadal and Federer, it's obvious Fed is the GOAT. But once Nadal comes close to 16... :banana:

[jbryan1984]

Ive said the same things. Even the Miami game, its like he was having fun with a friend and not playing to win. I still dont trust him. I do highly doubt he will leave again. He moved his family back cause he wanted his kids to go to school here and he aint going to leave them. Add in the fact that his public image just couldn't take a hit like that. It just couldn't. But he just is not the same. He didnt want Wiggins, he wanted love. Our FO made it happen. When im fact, a lot of Cavs fans wanted to keep wiggins. A lot of people compare LeBron as Cleveland's old girlfriend who came back after they cheated and left for another man...... I get that and it makes sense. Gonna be a while before u trust the girl again.

[riseagainst]

The answer to the thread is because he wants to see his team fail and wants the media to show, oh look the Cavs had a bad record against the top teams and it's all because Lebron James did not play...see how valuable he is?????? Dude is obviously throwing them under the bus, all his moves are calculated. He is the NBA version of A-Rod. Primadonna that loves attention no matter how he gets it. Lucky for him, steroid testing has not exposed him.

To answer Nadal and Federer, it's obvious Fed is the GOAT. But once Nadal comes close to 16... :banana:

well said. He purposefully sat out and hoped the Cavs would lose so then he'll actually seem valuable.

[edrick]

In case some of you are unaware, the last game Lebron missed was in the middle of 5 games in 7 nights. Cleveland is currently in the middle of playing 6 games in 9 nights.

4 straight Finals. Most minutes played over the past decade... Misses some games during the regular season, and clowns consider these the hardest times. :rolleyes:

[navy]

Since when are the Hawks and Thunder the best teams in the league ? :confusedshrug:
They arent. Lebron has played pretty much more games then anyone in history over a similar timespan. Nobody should care if he's sitting out regular season games.

[Megabox!]

note: join date and 77 posts.

definitely not an alt.

:oldlol:
Translation: "everything he said in his post was on point and I have no valid argument against it, so I'm just going to accuse him of being an alt because I'm an idiot"