OTF's GOAT Debate

These aren't just "people" picking based on a pleasing style and statistics Amri. These are fellow greats who are well aware there is more to goathood than an elegant style.

So ignore my factual proof that you are wrong on how athletes think because you are ignorant to other sports? lol. How can you judge yourself as having any type of valid opinion when you admit you have no scope of knowledge beyond tennis. It's ludicrous to think tennis athletes think any different of athletes of every other sport.

So if it's style now.... Why was Sampras in his day picked by many as goat over others that were better to watch? Why is nadal ranked by most as #2? The exact opposite style to fed and less stats but people still see beyond that.

If it's the best statistics and you want to ignore my concrete examples of fellow athletes using other criteria and ability to judge goats in their sports, then explain why federer was already overwhelmingly called goat by fellow players and experts before he had some of the best stats ever?

If its slam count, why was he being called goat by nearly everyone before he passed Sampras? Heck, some were calling him goat by his 5th slam.

To really get into it, federer doesn't even have the absolute best stats, so what stats are being used by these mindless players/experts who only go by style and best stats?

Most tournament and match wins? Why is fed deemed goat and not conners or Lendl?

Most weeks at #1? Fed was widely proclaimed goat before he passed Sampras.

Year end #1? Why aren't they saying Sampras is goat?

Win/loss %? Heck there are a few goats ahead of fed then...

Smh- it's so clear based on how all athletes view things, by concrete examples- that fellow athletes and great use their knowledge of talent, knowledge of what it takes to accomplish so much across such a wide spectrum- yes style and stats count, but so does everything else- and these guys elevate fed to goat.

I'm making it so easy for you to understand- as basic as I can make it. Please show me there is some opening in your blind veil of fan based thinking to understand there are extremely valid reasons why fed is considered by most to be goat.

That being said- I am off and away from electronics for next week while on vacation so everyone enjoy themselves!

Sent from my iPhone

Few points:

-Firstly I will base my opinion on logic and reason, not what others are claiming to believe
-Many people in GOAT debates choose Federer because he has the best stats (esp most slams) and the most elegant style.
-As I've said, stats don't mean they're necessarily the best player, and elegance has nothing to do with GOAT debates

l

Truffin wrote:ol. How can you judge yourself as having any type of valid opinion when you admit you have no scope of knowledge beyond tennis.

What are you talking about ?
I follow many sports outside tennis, just not the ones you mentioned, I find most American sports exceedingly dull.

Truffin wrote:I'm making it so easy for you to understand- as basic as I can make it.

Your problem is you are thinking too simplistically.

Tenez wrote:
I don't expect many but I can certainly see attacking players again gaining an advantage. Just smaller balls would change the balance in a huge way. No need to change racquets or revert to nat gut. As much as you don't like Rao for instance, he can with confidence blast any player off court. Give him smaller balls and Nadal and Djoko will stand little chance.

Better fitness as well....we thought Chang and Hewitt were incredibly fit and then came Nadal...then Djoko and Murray, now Nishi is getting there....it's moving fast.

Djoko missed his chance to reach the 11+ slam group. I don;t even think he will reach 10 (which would be a great achievement). He lost too many finals, in particular FO finals.

As things are, Nole is the man to beat in 2015. His tennis is perfect for current conditions.

Of course tough draws he always seems to get have taken their toll in most of those slam finals he lost.

I can't wait to see Nadal on clay, that will tell us the powers of modern medicine.

It has become hard to dominate now, but on paper Nole and Fed should do well next year.

The fact that a lot of players have caught up fitness wise (Cilic, Stan, Nishi etc) plus any new players that can pull off one or two "matches of their lives", and anything can happen!
I expect that to see that in Nadal's half of the draw in particular.

Raonic and Dimitrov are the ones to watch for easy draws, so far all going "according to plan".

I want Nike to go down the pan.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Few points:

-Firstly I will base my opinion on logic and reason, not what others are claiming to believe
-Many people in GOAT debates choose Federer because he has the best stats (esp most slams) and the most elegant style.  

You are wrong again.

Nobody here thinks Fed is the GOAT because of his elegance, although his elegance is largely a direct result of his coordination, i.e. talent.
As for stats, you are the one that has sneaked that word in, not us.

Rather than get entangled & lost in meaningless and inadequate rhetoric, why not try to understand how ball-striking works in tennis.

Go on a tennis court, try to talk logically and statistically to a ball and see what happens.

The closer to the net, the better!

noleisthebest wrote:
Go on a tennis court, try to talk logically and statistically to a ball and see what happens.

The closer to the net, the better!

If closer to the net means you're better, is Sampras not the best ?

There is a distinction between GOAT debate and talent debates, which may be why we are seeing things differently.

Smart people listen and learn from those who know more than them.

noleisthebest wrote:
Smart people listen and learn from those who know more than them.

Yep, that's why people should be noting down what I say

Addressing the debate on v2 on this topic:

Had this debate on v2, not sure if people have been following it. Only talking about it here because I do think it has relevance to the GOAT debate as a whole.

-I argue that Federer's slam count is 3 higher than Nadal's is due to two principle reasons: firstly because of his easier competition, and secondly because he has kept his body in better shape than nadal and got injured less
-Most of the debate was around the second point, about the impact Nadal's injury had on his slam count
-I had in another thread bought up a hypothetical scenario, but in the GOAT debate thread itself I specifically did not. I realised my argument itself can be presented as a hypothetical but I did not do so
-Rather than address my point I felt some people went out of their way to drag their way into semantics on whether my point saying 'Federer keeping his body in better shape than Nadal is one of the two reasons he has more slams' can be translated to a hypothetical
-It can of course, but what is ridiculous about bringing this up is that any other reason can be  shown as a hypothetical. For example if people say 'one reason federer has more slams than nadal is because he is a better player, regardless of injuries'- I could reply 'you are assuming that if both players were always healthy ('disregarding injuries') federer would have more slams when you don't know that for sure, so therefore you are using a hypothetical.'

I don't think hypotheticals itself are of particular importance in the debate, but I also think focusing a debate on whether an opinion can be expressed as a hypothetical or not is ludicrous.
It's my belief that injuries and weak competition are the two main reasons Federer has more slams than Nadal, argue with it if you must, but don't waste time by arguing over whether it can be shown as a hypothetical when any opinion disagreeing with me could also be shown as one.

Are you also posting our opinions on v2?
Or is OTF still a taboo there...

noleisthebest wrote:Are you also posting our opinions on v2?
Or is OTF still a taboo there...

Scroll down a bit (to 3:32pm Sat 8th Nov) and there is some discussion on some things which are vaguely related to OTF:
http://www.606v2.com/t51322p150-the-state-of-the-forum-better-or-worse

Anyway, let's get back on topic-

But you aren't actually allowed to copy any comments from here, are you?
Tbh Kimmy, GOAT debate is non-existent.

Fed wins hands down.

A much more interesting would be the Nole-Nadal one...but we know who's better there, too.

Will be very interesting how they all stand when their career finish.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Addressing the debate on v2 on this topic:

Had this debate on v2, not sure if people have been following it. Only talking about it here because I do think it has relevance to the GOAT debate as a whole.

-I argue that Federer's slam count is 3 higher than Nadal's is due to two principle reasons: firstly because of his easier competition, and secondly because he has kept his body in better shape than nadal and got injured less
-Most of the debate was around the second point, about the impact Nadal's injury had on his slam count
-I had in another thread bought up a hypothetical scenario, but in the GOAT debate thread itself I specifically did not. I realised my argument itself can be presented as a hypothetical but I did not do so
-Rather than address my point I felt some people went out of their way to drag their way into semantics on whether my point saying 'Federer keeping his body in better shape than Nadal is one of the two reasons he has more slams' can be translated to a hypothetical
-It can of course, but what is ridiculous about bringing this up is that any other reason can be  shown as a hypothetical. For example if people say 'one reason federer has more slams than nadal is because he is a better player, regardless of injuries'- I could reply 'you are assuming that if both players were always healthy ('disregarding injuries') federer would have more slams when you don't know that for sure, so therefore you are using a hypothetical.'

I don't think hypotheticals itself are of particular importance in the debate, but I also think focusing a debate on whether an opinion can be expressed as a hypothetical or not is ludicrous.
It's my belief that injuries and weak competition are the two main reasons Federer has more slams than Nadal, argue with it if you must, but don't waste time by arguing over whether it can be shown as a hypothetical when any opinion disagreeing with me could also be shown as one.

What about this: the main reason the count is three and not more (I know you are arguing for not less) is that Nadal's main competition in Slam was Federer and he beats him in slam more than 80% of the time whereas Federer's is Nadal and he beats him less than only 20% of the time... Nadal's main problem is that he loses more often to people outside of the top, top guys and as a consequence he is less of a GOAT material than Federer's...

sphairistike wrote:
What about this: the main reason the count is three and not more (I know you are arguing for not less) is that Nadal's main competition in Slam was Federer and he beats him in slam more than 80% of the time whereas Federer's is Nadal and he beats him less than only 20% of the time... Nadal's main problem is that he loses more often to people outside of the top, top guys and as a consequence he is less of a GOAT material than Federer's...

I do like the sound of this argument

The issue is of course, most of Federer's Grand Slam wins have not come against Nadal (only 2); while Nadal has had to get past either Djokovic/Federer for 12/14 slam wins.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

sphairistike wrote:
What about this: the main reason the count is three and not more (I know you are arguing for not less) is that Nadal's main competition in Slam was Federer and he beats him in slam more than 80% of the time whereas Federer's is Nadal and he beats him less than only 20% of the time... Nadal's main problem is that he loses more often to people outside of the top, top guys and as a consequence he is less of a GOAT material than Federer's...

I do like the sound of this argument

The issue is of course, most of Federer's Grand Slam wins have not come against Nadal (only 2); while Nadal has had to get past either Djokovic/Federer for 12/14 slam wins.

And just imagine how many times would he have lost and never made those finals had he had Djokovic in the SF...

noleisthebest wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

sphairistike wrote:
What about this: the main reason the count is three and not more (I know you are arguing for not less) is that Nadal's main competition in Slam was Federer and he beats him in slam more than 80% of the time whereas Federer's is Nadal and he beats him less than only 20% of the time... Nadal's main problem is that he loses more often to people outside of the top, top guys and as a consequence he is less of a GOAT material than Federer's...

I do like the sound of this argument

The issue is of course, most of Federer's Grand Slam wins have not come against Nadal (only 2); while Nadal has had to get past either Djokovic/Federer for 12/14 slam wins.

And just imagine how many times would he have lost and never made those finals had he had Djokovic in the SF...

Before 2011, Nadal has won all 4 meetings against Djokovic in Slams, 100% record. After the run in 2011 and early 2012, it's gone back to Nadal's 100% record with 4-0 in Slams.

Actually my bad NITB, it was 5-0 in Slams to Nadal before 2011.

How many of those 5 matches was Nole is Nadal's half of the draw?
The match in Wimbledon in 2007 should not be taken into account as Nole retired at one set all having had to play with such bad blisters, his shoes had holes cut  out to alleviate the pain.
Nadal would have never beaten Nole in USO before they slowed it down in 2010.

There is a reason for the 12/12 draw rigging - Nole is a superior player to Nadal in every way except the size of biceps.

Nadal is a coward that hides 4m behind the baseline.
A Coward can never be a GOAT, only a COAT!

There is a reason for the 12/12 draw rigging - Nole is a superior player to Nadal in every way except the size of biceps

Lol!
OK, if we don't count Wimby it's 4-0 to nadal before 2011

Which slams were those 4 matches?

FO 06-08 and US open 2010.

Thanks LS.
That USO final was particularly nasty for Nole. Again in Fed's half, playing SECOND semifinal on Super Saturday against the GOAT. 5 sets...and Nadal having that "magic" serve that worked only at that tournament and never again.
I remember being particularly depressed after it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A74838919

Not at all related to the goat debate but i've just seen this video. Nadal doesn't do all the pre serve routine here aged 17 I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX30JIMNITk
When did it start? The short pull is there but after that there is no other shenanigans with the hair, face etc.

Wow!
That's an amazing video. Nadal on the base line and attacking with basic S&V-ing!
Looks so funny with his lefty serving and loopy FH.
Shame he's wearing sleeves there, I wish I could see the size of his left bicep THEN.
No wonder he didn't have OCD, never needed the extra time as the points were short  (could only watch the first two minutes).

When did it start?
Kimmy should know, but I reckon he wasn't into Nadal then, at all.

But LS have you watched Nadal's Miami's 2004 and 2005 matches? He even serves within 20s. His routine changed after Miami 05 because he completely ran out of gas losing the last 6 games versus Federer in that final. Then from Spring 2005 his routine appears on clay.

That was pure proof his routine was to recuperate and not OCD. He of course admitted recently he needed extra time when criticising the 25s rule.

noleisthebest wrote:Wow!
That's an amazing video. Nadal on the base line and attacking with basic S&V-ing!
Looks so funny with his lefty serving and loopy FH.
Shame he's wearing sleeves there, I wish I could see the size of his left bicep THEN.
No wonder he didn't have OCD, never needed the extra time as the points were short  (could only watch the first two minutes).

When did it start?
Kimmy should know, but I reckon he wasn't into Nadal then, at all.

He still looks out of breath in that wimby clip.

That wimby match was 03 so Nadal had just turned 17!
He beat Ancic in the first round which is pretty darn impressive 2bh especially as Ancic had dumped out feds the previous year in the first round.
I haven't watched them closely enough but I will check it out T.

noleisthebest wrote:
When did it start?
Kimmy should know, but I reckon he wasn't into Nadal then, at all.

No I only follow players who have weird OCD habits and pick their ass between points for 27 seconds, so I wasn't a fan of Rafito at that time

Interesting though ey amri?

luvsports! wrote:Interesting though ey amri?

Yes, I was aware of that clip before too as well.

So why did he change from barely a short tug in 04 to the whole shabang?

Edit: Can't find any threads on this topic, so I'll say this for now, if you want further discussion start another thread;

But it can be that as people with OCD (however mild) undergo frightening experiences in their mind or anxiety issues that they start to pick up more and more habits to compensate for that. And once you have those habits it's very difficult to get rid of them without getting paranoid; while it's easy to pick new habits up.

Nadal does not have OCD.

The only compulsive thing about him is winning at any cost: OCD, stem-cells, rigged draws, sand in the court paint...the lot.

Enjoy!

Goat talk from Sampras and Becker in Italy, and some Fed too!

Pete Sampras: If you look at the numbers and just watch him, Roger has been so dominant over the years, it's hard to compare anyone to Roger. 


Roger Federer: You have to react against Pete, because he would serve very well -almost unbreakable. You have to not make any mistakes when it counts the most.

Pete Sampras: Roger was a very tough match for me.   He moved great. When I played him, I knew he was special. I would do my best to impose my will...but he does everything great.    There's not many holes in his game. He moves great, he serves well. He's the most dominant player I think I've ever seen.  I was certainly the player of my time, but I wasn't as dominant as Roger I stopped at 31...he's 33...he almost became No 1 again. Trust me, you don't know how hard it is. The hardest thing to do in sports is to get to No. 1 and stay at No. 1 and he has done it better than anybody else.

Deepika Padukone (question to Federer):  How do you manage to stay fit throughout the year given that you have very little downtime?

Roger Federer: That's why I can only be here for a few days. I have to stay healthy, fit.  If I play too many matches, muscle memory goes away a little. The good thing is I can decide myself how much I want to play.  This year I played a lot, next year, will slow down a little and spend more time at the gym.

Boris Becker (question): How would you rate history of tennis- the like of Lever in 60s and Bjorg in 70s...is it fair to compare generations?

Pete Sampras: It's very tough to compare decades.  You look at Lever who won 12 majors...he had six years where he didn't play a major...so he could have won over 20 majors if he was able to play.  But I believe each decade has its guy. To say which generation is the best, I'd probably have to say this generation or my generation. It's hard to say. Technology has changed, there are more players playing today. Roger'sgeneration is probably the deepest. This generation is special, we have to sit back and appreciate Roger and everything he's done.  He's been the guy over two generations really.

Boris Becker: It's very difficult to compare generations but you have to give credit where credit is due. Winning 17 majors- it doesn't happen overnight. I think everyone in this room agrees that the greatest of all time is sitting up there (on the stage) next to the second-greatest.

From: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-com-exclusive-india-questions-roger-federer-pete-sampras-632046?curl=1418194484

Roger Federer: For me, Pete is the greatest.

We are not learning much from the oldies as they are stating the obvious. However I find it interesting not to read a mention of Nadal.

Tenez wrote:We are not learning much from the oldies as they are stating the obvious. However I find it interesting not to read a mention of Nadal.

Yep, pretty strange how in an exhibition tournament conference with Sampras and Federer that Nadal is not mentioned but Federer and Sampras are.

I see. Makes sense. Did not know the context.....still, they could have spared a word for Fed's main rival.

noleisthebest wrote:It's quite cool how Toni recognises Nole is a better player than Nadal despite Nadal winning more trophies than him.

Toni knows

Except Toni never said that. He said:

"Djokovic es un jugador casi a la altura de Federer. Por títulos RAFA NADAL es mejor que él, por juego no lo sé"


which means Toni said by titles Nadal is superior to Djokovic but in terms of actual game he doesn't know.

How the heck can Djokovic be better than Nadal when Nadal has double the slam titles, seven more Masters 1000 titles  and Nadal has the Career Slam and Djokovic doesn't?  

Latest from Toni:

http://www.welovetennis.fr/atp/94346-toni-nadal-possible-d-en-gagner-plus-que-17

Not that he said anything we already didn't know...stem-cell "treatment" must have shown good results for him to come up with such ambitious/optimistic statement.

Can't wait for AO.
Especially the draw.

Nadal has no chance of even reaching 15 Slams.

noleisthebest wrote:Latest from Toni:

http://www.welovetennis.fr/atp/94346-toni-nadal-possible-d-en-gagner-plus-que-17

Not that he said anything we already didn't know...stem-cell "treatment" must have shown good results for him to come up with such ambitious/optimistic statement.

Can't wait for AO.
Especially the draw.

Toni is actually bullshitting. I translate: "It's harder to win 14 slams when one plays less than the others. I am not jealous of Fed and Djoko but I believe Nadal is more fragile physically than them." "Due to his playing style? of course not!"

What a comic! Even his biggest fan Kim Jong-Un admitted it was due to his style.


Tenir comme Federer ?

"C'est vrai que Rafael a raté un tournoi du Grand Chelem par ces trois dernières saisons. Il en a raté ou joué blessé, onze dans sa carrière. Federer et Djokovic n'en manquent jamais un. C'est plus difficile d'en gagner quatorze quand tu en joues moins que les autres. Je ne jalouse pas Federer et Djokovic mais je crois que Rafael est physiquement plus fragile qu'eux. À cause de son style de jeu ? Bien sûr que non ! Oui, j'imagine Rafael jouer jusqu'à trente-trois ans comme Federer. Pourquoi pas ? Ce sera juste une question d'envie. Souvenez-vous : d'après certains "savants", Rafael devait arrêter à vingt-quatre ou vingt-cinq ans et ne devait pas gagner d'autre Grand Chelem que Roland-Garros."

This is the point I was making earlier.
Whether it's due to his playing style, or due to his congenital foot problem which has meant he's had to have special shoes which in turn put more pressure on his knee... well I think it's a combination of both but I can't know for sure.

But as I said, I think it's irrelevant. I don't see the skill of avoiding injuries as particularly important when judging a player. And it is absolutely true that it is harder to win slams when you're spending more time out injured, how Nadal has got second joint most of all time in Slams when his career has been ripped apart by injuries is beyond incredible.

On average per slam entered, Nadal has won more Slams than Federer; and even if you take the figure when Federer had played as many slams as Nadal has now- that is still the case.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Latest from Toni:
http://www.welovetennis.fr/atp/94346-toni-nadal-possible-d-en-gagner-plus-que-17
Not that he said anything we already didn't know...stem-cell "treatment" must have shown good results for him to come up with such ambitious/optimistic statement.
Can't wait for AO.
Especially the draw.

Toni is actually bullshitting. I translate: "It's harder to win 14 slams when one plays less than the others. I am not jealous of Fed and Djoko but I believe Nadal is more fragile physically than them." "Due to his playing style? of course not!"
What a comic! Even his biggest fan Kim Jong-Un admitted it was due to his style.
Tenir comme Federer ?
"C'est vrai que Rafael a raté un tournoi du Grand Chelem par ces trois dernières saisons. Il en a raté ou joué blessé, onze dans sa carrière. Federer et Djokovic n'en manquent jamais un. C'est plus difficile d'en gagner quatorze quand tu en joues moins que les autres. Je ne jalouse pas Federer et Djokovic mais je crois que Rafael est physiquement plus fragile qu'eux. À cause de son style de jeu ? Bien sûr que non ! Oui, j'imagine Rafael jouer jusqu'à trente-trois ans comme Federer. Pourquoi pas ? Ce sera juste une question d'envie. Souvenez-vous : d'après certains "savants", Rafael devait arrêter à vingt-quatre ou vingt-cinq ans et ne devait pas gagner d'autre Grand Chelem que Roland-Garros."

I actually found that paragraph quite upsetting, a level above BS-ing.

This is not the first time Toni rued the fact Federer and Djokovic were "healthy" and never missed slams.

He knows so well what physical problems Djokovic had in his early career. He had respiratory surgery, he wears contact lenses, he suffered from gluten intolerance related asthma.
All that on top of having to play under huge pressure as a teenager coming from a country with no support, no tennis infrastructure, and a war in which NATO offloaded a large stock of uranium depleted bombs.
He had to cover the road twice as long and hard as his peers.

Then Federer. A player that carried back problems all through his career but never moaned about it, because that's how mature men carry on - they get things in their stride and keep going.

Not Toni's nephew. He has to cry and squeak about every little blister and scratch.

What an insult to all other players who can't afford all medical attention he gets and quietly exist in the background.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:This is the point I was making earlier.
Whether it's due to his playing style, or due to his congenital foot problem which has meant he's had to have special shoes which in turn put more pressure on his knee... well I think it's a combination of both but I can't know for sure.
But as I said, I think it's irrelevant. I don't see the skill of avoiding injuries as particularly important when judging a player. And it is absolutely true that it is harder to win slams when you're spending more time out injured, how Nadal has got second joint most of all time in Slams when his career has been ripped apart by injuries is beyond incredible.

Kimmy, let me tell you one thing about Nadal's "congenital foot problem": it is simply just another myth.

Most people have problems with their feet. Djokovic does, as well.
He, too wears insoles. That really is no big deal.

If Nadal had a proper problem with his feet, he would've certainly had a surgery on them by now. Recovery time - 10 weeks max.

Nadal is a superb mover, it's a joke to mention any foot problem. If anything, it's his weight that's causing him to put pressure on the knee.
He moves around like  a sprinter, his body is almost always in that slightly forward position with the knees bent, absorbing a lot of stop-start shocks, and that is exclusively due to his playing style as he relies heavily on chasing balls down. He is pounding his joints relentlessly.
That, as well as the way he strikes the ball, his knee sustains a lot of wear.

If you look at Federer, he is almost never out of balance, he is upright most of the time, softly pouncing on his feet.

He rarely needs to run after the balls....in the long run that has made a huge difference.

No wonder Toni IS jealous.

His nephew has to work so hard on the court whereas others don't to due to sheer talent.

It is ugly Toni can't contain himself at least in public.

noleisthebest wrote:
This is not the first time Toni rued the fact Federer and Djokovic were "healthy" and never missed slams.

It's a case of proportion, Nadal has had much worse injury problems than those 2, especially during his prime.

noleisthebest wrote:Kimmy, let me tell you one thing about Nadal's "congenital foot problem": it is simply just another myth.

Is it ? And how exactly do you know that ?

But to reiterate once again, I think it's more or less irrelevant why Nadal gets injured often.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:On average per slam entered, Nadal has won more Slams than Federer; and even if you take the figure when Federer had played as many slams as Nadal has now- that is still the case.

That stat is irrelevant. We don't know whether Federer played through injury or not when for similar injuries Nadal probably chose to not play.

Federer played many slams injured and managed to do well and even won Wimby 2012 at 32 with a bad back! Once again Nadal woudl not have bothered entering with a similar back problem. Federer played and won AO 06 with an ankle on the mend. Fed played the whole of 2013 with injuries but did not tell anyone...remember you thought he had declined dramatically from 2012 to 2013! The difference is that fed can rely on talent alone to do well and even to win slam injured while Nadal knows he has no chance and prefer not enter.

Nadal relies too much on fitness to know that if not 100% there is simply no point exposing his poor talent.

That's the difference I am afraid. In that respect Toni has no choice but to rely 100% on science and new science such as stem cells to compensate for Nadal talent and fix Nadal's worn out body due to his grueling tennis.

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:On average per slam entered, Nadal has won more Slams than Federer; and even if you take the figure when Federer had played as many slams as Nadal has now- that is still the case.

That stat is irrelevant. We don't know whether Federer played through injury or not when for similar injuries Nadal probably chose to not play.

Nadal has been much more injury prone throughout his career than Federer, do you disagree ?
There are so many instances to that Nadal has entered a Slam and then clearly looked injured and can't move; so taking that into consideration it's even more incredible that on average per slam entered he has won more Slams than Federer. Also take into account Nadal had to deal with much harder competition, and it really is becoming clear who is inferior.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:On average per slam entered, Nadal has won more Slams than Federer; and even if you take the figure when Federer had played as many slams as Nadal has now- that is still the case.

That stat is irrelevant. We don't know whether Federer played through injury or not when for similar injuries Nadal probably chose to not play.

Nadal has been much more injury prone throughout his career than Federer, do you disagree ?
There are so many instances to that Nadal has entered a Slam and then clearly looked injured and can't move; so taking that into consideration it's even more incredible that on average per slam entered he has won more Slams than Federer. Also take into account Nadal had to deal with much harder competition, and it really is becoming clear who is inferior.

Of course I disagree. I am even certain that injured Nadal was still fitter than fit Federer.

When federer serves he hits his serve flat and uses accuracy requiring less effort for a more efficient serving
Nadal needs to use all his muscle power to transfer power to compensate for his spinnier/bigger margins serve
When fed returns he stands closer to the baseline. It requires better anticipation but less movement and effort and can use his opponent's pace.
Nadal needs to stands further back to compensate for his slower reflexes, and needs therefore more power to compensate for hitting a slower ball.
When Fed hits his shots they are also more accurate and flatter, preferring to dictate than scrapping right and left.
Nadal again does the opposite, uses muscles and to make up for pace as too much spin kills pace.

So even if Fed is not 100% he has a chance to give his opponent some trouble. Nadal has simply no chance.

That is why Fed can win Wimby at 32 with a back problem whereas Nadal at 32 with a niggle will be nowhere to be seen.

I am not aware of Nadal looking injured winning matches. I saw him being bagelled by very low ranked players when not 100%....or shoudl I say not 120%.

http://www.tennishead.net/news/on-tour/2014/12/16/henman-federer-the-best-ive-played

Tim Henman with some thoughts.