If Djokovic would have won in 3 sets today I would buy it; but after spending himself in 5 sets today he starts as a clear underdog on sunday.
Nadal in 3 or 4 not that difficult sets.
A lot is at stake here. Nadal is untouchable on clay, but Djokovic is currently the #1 ranked player. Both competing to catch Federer and become the goat. It has the potential to be a classic. I just hope something boring doesn't happen, like one of them gets injured.
If Djokovic would have won in 3 sets today I would buy it; but after spending himself in 5 sets today he starts as a clear underdog on sunday.
Nadal in 3 or 4 not that difficult sets.
Pretty much guaranteed one of two things will happen, depending on who's losing.
1) If it's Novak, he'll start grimacing and flexing his shoulder after every point while yelling at his box.
2) If it's Nadal, he'll start grimacing and flexing his knee/leg while looking like a sad puppy at uncle Toni.
DjoKOVID doesn’t stand a chance
AmeriKKKA
Nadal ties Federer with 20 slams and in you look at the other tournaments and h2h he has the best case for GOAT, tbh. ambchang, midnightpulp and others saying Nadal wasn't even top 5 in history.
Idk man. 13 Majors on one single court and just 7 on other 3 combined pretty solidly confirms him as The GOAT clay specialist with great, but not elite, all-court game. GOAT all-court le is between Novak and Fed with Nadal firmly at # 3.
This is obviously subject to change depending on what happens with the big 3 in the future.
As if Nadal hadn't proved himself in the other courts. If anything we should all be glad that 3 of the 4 slams are played in fast courts instead of being 2 and 2 like it used to be. Nadal would probably have 30 slams by now.
He certainly hasn't proven himself to be on par with Fed or Nole on other 3 courts.
If Clay was faster than Nadal would only have 12-15 slams. If scenarios are kind of pointless, tbh.
So, he has to dominate them both in clay and fast courts?
Outside of clay Nadal has 7 grand slams, 10 masters series and a gold medal. That's an all-time great career on itself. What do Roger and Novak have on clay?
And you are making my point with that "if scenarios" comment. You can't pick and choose the tournaments you want, you have to take all in consideration. And taking everything in consideration, Nadal has the same number of slams as Roger, more master series and a better head to head record. That pretty much seems like the better resume, tbh.
You know exactly why Novak and Fed have nothing to show on clay. Nadal's dominance on that surface is greater than anything I've ever seen in any sport.
Nadal's resume outside of Clay is worse than even Sampras. Dude literally has 0 APT Finals Wins. How can such a great player not even squeak out one win in a tournament that, unlike the Olympics, happens every year?
Can't claim the GOAT le when 65% of Major Wins come on the same damn Court. He'll need some more variety if he wants the undisputed GOAT le. Another 3-5 non-clay les should do the trick.
Yeah well, another reason to believe he's the GOAT. There's nothing stopping Djokovic or Federer from having the same type of dominance on any of the other slams, tbh.
You mean that if you take 13 of Nadal's slams he has a worse resume than the undisputed GOAT before the big 3 appeared? What a shocker.Nadal's resume outside of Clay is worse than even Sampras. Dude literally has 0 APT Finals Wins. How can such a great player not even squeak out one win in a tournament that, unlike the Olympics, happens every year?
Why?Can't claim the GOAT le when 65% of Major Wins come on the same damn Court. He'll need some more variety if he wants the undisputed GOAT le. Another 3-5 non-clay les should do the trick.
Untill the big 3 appeared, Sampras was considered the GOAT by most and he never did on clay. He was way less versatile than Nadal yet nobody questioned his GOATNESS despite having won 14 of his 16 slams in just two tournaments, tbh.
They haven't had a similar dominance on one surface because they're more than just one court specialists. They're the GOAT all-court players.
lol "all-courts". Us Open and Australian Open are the same . And Wilmbledon has more in similar with hard courts than clay because of the speed. All three, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all-court players. Djokovic and Federer are slightly better fast court players than Nadal, while Nadal is the best slow court player by a distance, hence why he dominates slow courts in a way that neither Federer nor Djokovic can dominate fast courts. That's also why Nadal dominates both Federer and Djokovic in Roland Garros to the tune of 13-1 but is still 7-8 on the other slams. Meaning Nadal dominates in clay and plays them even on the rest. Looks like the "one surface specialist" does pretty well for himself on the others slams, tbh.
Nadal is not a clay court "specialist." He has 5 US Open les, which is more than Djokovic and only one less than Federer.
He's the God of Clay, but also an excellent player on hard courts. That's not the same thing as a "specialist."
If US Open and AO are the same then why the big discrepancy between the number of respective les each for Rafa and Nole each. Something must be different.
Fact is that Rafa's performance outside of Clay is not even in the same stratosphere as Fed and Nole's. You can spin it however you want, but at the end of the day the man has won 65% of is GS les on one single court. That's a specialist.
Ok, then I guess Djokovic is an Australian Open specialist.
I mean I do have him below Federer in my rankings, tbh.
You are being biased against Nadal. Take it from a fellow Nadal hater, tbh.
I'm gonna plea the 5th, tbh.
They're not the same. Did someone say they were? The AO is for Djokovic what the French is for Nadal (almost). So yes, Novak is the king of the AO. But Nadal has more US Open les than Novak. So no, he's not a specialist.
Anyone who completes a "career slam" is not a specialist, obviously, because they've proven they can win on all surfaces.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)