[Other Sport] Rafael Nadal - GOAT ?

[GREASED WEASEL]

Bjorn Borg

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

And he keeps coming back from injuries too.
Nadal is by far my favourite sportsman and has been for some time, and I much prefer him to Federer and definitely the surly Serb.

 

[Randy McNob]

I can’t have Rafa as the best ever because he has “only” won Oz, Wimbledon and US open 8 times which is remarkable but not compared to the others. He is undoubtedly the best ever on clay.

is the French worth less than the others? A slam is a slam

he only won 2 wimbledons but he beat Federer in his pomp at wimbledon, for a predominantly clay court player, and considering it comes almost straight after the French, its a remarkable acheivement.

6 Davis cups too ?!?

 

[Cpt. Spavil]

is the French worth less than the others? A slam is a slam

he only won 2 wimbledons but he beat Federer in his pomp at wimbledon, for a predominantly clay court player, and considering it comes almost straight after the French, its a remarkable acheivement.

6 Davis cups too ?!?

Gold Medallist too

 

[Chopera]

I can’t have Rafa as the best ever because he has “only” won Oz, Wimbledon and US open 8 times which is remarkable but not compared to the others. He is undoubtedly the best ever on clay.

Roger won a lot of "easy" slams before Rafa and Novak were on the scene. If you look at his record when those two were up and running, it's not that great, even taking into account his age.

Also you could argue that Rafa won 21 slams despite his game being far more suited to a surface that is only played on in one slam.

It's swings and roundabouts

 

[Berty23]

is the French worth less than the others? A slam is a slam

he only won 2 wimbledons but he beat Federer in his pomp at wimbledon, for a predominantly clay court player, and considering it comes almost straight after the French, its a remarkable acheivement.

6 Davis cups too ?!?

No not worth less, I didn’t say that but he is a clay court master. He also benefited from balls being changed which made everything harder for Federer. I love Federer but I agree he did win some “easier” slams before novak and Rafa came along. He is the best to watch. The thing for me that unless he was at his peak rafa often got knocked early in slams that were not France whereas novak and Federer got through even if they were playing relatively badly. How many times have novak and Federer had a shock defeat in first four rounds of a slam?

In terms who is best? I would argue neither because novak has both of them covered. Can’t stand the bloke and think he is a moron but he is the best at tennis.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I'm team Roger but I'm happy for Nadal to keep winning grand slams if it means Djokovic doesn't.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So it's Lawn Tennis right, and the game has it's history on grass, so in order to be the GOAT you have to have been the best on grass. The Australian Open was grass until 1987, US Open grass until 1974. Appreciate clay has it's origins in the history of the game, but Tennis's GOAT surely has to have had a significant record on turf as well as other surfaces.

 

[peterward]

Roger won a lot of "easy" slams before Rafa and Novak were on the scene. If you look at his record when those two were up and running, it's not that great, even taking into account his age.

Also you could argue that Rafa won 21 slams despite his game being far more suited to a surface that is only played on in one slam.

It's swings and roundabouts

There is no such thing as an easy slam. And if you want to use that analogy then Rafa has just won an "easy" slam as both Federer and Djokovich weren't present.

There has never been a more beautiful player to watch at the top of his game than Roger imho. All 3 of them are brilliant, but if you were to take all of them at their peaks or at pretty much most times in their careers, then Rafa 9/10 beats either in a head to head at Roland Garos, and Federer and Novak beat Rafa more often than lose in Australia, US and Wimbledon.

Rafa is the best base court and clay court player ever, I'd argue Novak is best Serve and Serve/volley and better hard court than Rafa and nip tuck, maybe tiny margins with Roger who is best overall grass court and most complete all round player of the 3. Federer is the most natural tennis player ever. But all 3 are amazing.

 

[Chopera]

There is no such thing as an easy slam. And if you want to use that analogy then Rafa has just won an "easy" slam as both Federer and Djokovich weren't present.

There has never been a more beautiful player to watch at the top of his game than Roger imho. All 3 of them are brilliant, but if you were to take all of them at their peaks or at pretty much most times in their careers, then Rafa 9/10 beats either in a head to head at Roland Garos, and Federer and Novak beat Rafa more often than lose in Australia, US and Wimbledon.

Rafa is the best base court and clay court player ever, I'd argue Novak is best Serve and Serve/volley and better hard court than Rafa and nip tuck, maybe tiny margins with Roger who is best overall grass court and most complete all round player of the 3. Federer is the most natural tennis player ever. But all 3 are amazing.

That's why I put "easy" in quotes. I just don't think it's possible to come to a conclusion on this. None of them came close to Rafa on clay, but peak Rafa defeated peak Roger at Wimbledon.

I'm probably biased against Roger because I think he's a bit arrogant, and I got fed up with all the gushing at Wimbledon. But tennis isn't a competition between how nice your personality is. Novak obviously has his oddities as well, but I can't think of either of the 3 as not being the GOAT.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Trust Murray to photobomb this snap of legends.