PDA

View Full Version : Possibility exists that Federer may not be the greatest player of this era


pj80
07-11-2007, 01:26 AM
21 year old Nadal is slowly but surely catching up to him....He has better H2H and is improving on all surfaces. And maybe, just maybe he could even surpass Federers slam record. He has 3 already federer at 0 at that stage.

edmondsm
07-11-2007, 01:38 AM
I like my threads this way; nice and fresh....original, with no staleness or redundancy. You know like a clean pair of old underwear......

pj80
07-11-2007, 01:41 AM
dont you think thats a possibilty though?

edmondsm
07-11-2007, 01:47 AM
Sure its a possibility. Nadal is like 15 slams away though, so we should probably wait like half a decade before we start talking about him breaking the record.
Considering he has only won the FO it is premature at best and delusional at worst.

2shots
07-11-2007, 01:51 AM
I take it there is a chance, but lets talk once he has won a slam on another surface..

edmondsm
07-11-2007, 02:01 AM
Basically. Nadal has all the ability and all the time to fill a room with slam trophies. But he has been off to such an amazingly fast and impressive start to his career, I think we should all just see how he progresses.

He will retire as the GOAT on clay though, IMO.

93sq.
07-11-2007, 02:08 AM
lol...nadal wins 1 slam each year....roger 3...
Roger,in the slam he doesn't win,reach the final...

Nadal reaches the final only on the green clay of wimbledon,in the other 2 slams he had never reach the semifinals...


No doubt about the fact nadal is the GOAT on clay

On hard surfaces Hewitt Roddick Gonzales Gasquet Djokovic Yohzny Ljubicic,and Safin Blake and haas if they are in good shape are better than Rafa...

alan-n
07-11-2007, 02:27 AM
At the moment I think Nadal will be on pace to just exceed Agassi. Who knows what will happen, Federer is on pace for 16-18 slams which I think Rod Laver would have easily exceeded if not for the politics of the time.

93sq.
07-11-2007, 02:31 AM
Ok...many people are saying that this year fed is not at his best...

He won 2 of the 3 slams played...and probably he will win usopen too..


so,if next year he will be in a better shape...will he win the 4 slams and the 9 MS!?

Oh.no....Nadal will....lol

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
07-11-2007, 05:31 AM
This Wimbly loss will motivate him to improve more on any surface...on grass to challenge the Grass Master, on clay to remain the Clay Master during his career that should be his reaction...there are still a lot to improve!
hard surfaces are hard yet!

sapient007
07-11-2007, 05:38 AM
i don't think nadal's body can keep up with his playing style in a couple of years.

keithchircop
07-11-2007, 05:41 AM
I take it there is a chance, but lets talk once he has won a slam on another surface..

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance!

rommil
07-11-2007, 05:55 AM
i don't think nadal's body can keep up with his playing style in a couple of years.

I agree. His playing style looks taxing to the body. Plus, the younger players will start catching up with him.

CyBorg
07-11-2007, 06:27 AM
Unlikely. Nadal will win his share of majors, but I think he will always struggle somewhat on fast hardcourts (US Open) and never quite dominate on grass (but will win a Wimbledon). Ultimately his body will break down unless he adjusts his game somewhat with age. He's 21 now, so he has a good 3-4 years perhaps of dominating clay and picking up a fair share of other titles. That won't amount to more majors than with what Federer will finish.

Roger could very possibly be like Laver. He is a finesse player who was very much a late bloomer. In terms of mileague he has as much as certain 22-year old dirtballers over the history of the game. He is so economical in the way he moves I wouldn't be surprised to see him stay competitive for another 6-7 years and potentially retire in his mid-30s (depending on the way he handles his inevitable decline).

Don't be shocked to see Nadal retire earlier than Roger.

the green god
07-11-2007, 06:36 AM
let's see. federer been in the last 9 gs finals. how many in a row has nadal been in.

caulcano
07-11-2007, 07:36 AM
21 year old Nadal is slowly but surely catching up to him....He has better H2H and is improving on all surfaces. And maybe, just maybe he could even surpass Federers slam record. He has 3 already federer at 0 at that stage.

It's strange, even though Nadal has improved and getting closer to Federer, Federer has improved his H2H from 6-1 to 8-5. Which is strange.


Becker had 4 GS by the age of 21, and your point is?

anointedone
07-11-2007, 08:51 AM
I have said before that I have no doubt Nadal will win atleast 10 slams, and win atleast 3 of the 4 different slam events atleast once. There isnt one specific one I dont think he can win, and I do think it is possible he wins all 4 too. I think he has a chance to win Wimbledon or the U.S Open each atleast once in his career, but that it is possible he may end up never winning one or the other, but he will win atleast one of the two once, and he might win both. Definitely wins the Australian atleast once, maybe more. More French Opens for sure.

crazylevity
07-11-2007, 08:59 AM
not the greatest of this era, huh?

Wonder what the record for consecutive weeks at No.1 is...

fastdunn
07-11-2007, 09:43 AM
When Federer finally did break out, he was 22.
By that time, he accumulate enough experiences on all surfaces.

Nadal, on the other hand, already did break-thru, at 18-19,
most success on clay, is gaining experiences on other surfaces.

All surfaces are more similar compared to past. If Federer doesn't win
all slams, next top dog will do, if these tour surfaces conditions continue, IMHO.

Hot Sauce
07-11-2007, 09:46 AM
Wouldn't that be considered another era, after Federer?

RoddickAce
07-11-2007, 09:58 AM
When Federer retires, Nadal might take over, but then just when everyone thought Roddick was gonna rule, federer came, when everyone thought federer was gonna rule(he did by the way), nadal came. So there might be an 6"8 anti-nadal with huge flat strokes and doesn't mind high topsin balls cuz of his height.

dukemunson
07-11-2007, 09:59 AM
Of course the possibility exists, what a stupid question...its not likely but of course its possible. I don't see Nadal's game translating over a full decade though like Sampras...it's too physically draining and taxing...

LafayetteHitter
07-11-2007, 10:01 AM
The thing is this. The GREAT tennis players find a way to win. Getting close doesn't count here guys. When you are the best you find a way to win. Other players have taken a match off Federer here and there and I don't see you Nadal fan's calling out that these guys are possibly the best. We all know some of you get upset that Pmacs little boyfriend can't win on anything other than clay in a slam with Federer because, Federer finds a way! He isn't my favorite player but he sure can find a way to win. In the words of Glenn Gary Glenn Ross, First place a brand new Cadillac...Second place a set of steak knives! Hope Nadal likes steak.....

Adrupert
07-11-2007, 10:02 AM
i don't think nadal's body can keep up with his playing style in a couple of years.

Agreed. He is still very young and his body can take the punishment it endeavors, but as time wears on I think his body will too. He will peak much earlier then Federer IMO.

Alafter
07-11-2007, 10:53 AM
LOL imagine if Nadal eventually boasts a records of 12 career Grand Slams...

ALL ROLAND GARROS.

InvisibleSoul
07-11-2007, 10:58 AM
Here is all you need to know: Early success does NOT translate into continued and longterm success.

Just because Nadal has won 3 slams by 21 and Federer 0 does NOT mean he will end up with more grand slams. It does NOT even IMPLY that he will end up with more grand slams. It is POSSIBLE that he could end up with more grand slams, but it has NO correlation to the stated fact.

ACE of Hearts
07-11-2007, 10:59 AM
I am curious to see how Nadal hits a forehand using a semi-western grip.

TheNatural
07-11-2007, 11:08 AM
Fed is the best player of his era, but last time I checked the head to head, Nadal was still better than Federer.

ACE of Hearts
07-11-2007, 12:57 PM
Yes and most of them are on the red stuff, Fed's least favorite and Rafa's dominant surface.

fastdunn
07-11-2007, 01:00 PM
I actually think Nadal's forehand is very similar to Federer's in terms of
basic stroke mechanism.

InvisibleSoul
07-11-2007, 01:07 PM
I actually think Nadal's forehand is very similar to Federer's in terms of
basic stroke mechanism.
How can that possibly be, when Federer uses a Easternish or at most mildly semi-western, and Nadal uses an extreme western grip? They're are about as different as it gets.

anointedone
07-11-2007, 01:07 PM
Yes and most of them are on the red stuff, Fed's least favorite and Rafa's dominant surface.

Federer is better then everyone not named Nadal on clay. So Nadal deserves more credit then he does get for always beating Federer on clay. Federer is a great clay courter who would have won multiple French Opens in most generations. Nadal shows great strength and mental resilence to keep winning the French. It is not like Federer is some Sampras-like pushover on clay.

simi
07-11-2007, 01:11 PM
Fed is the best player of his era, but last time I checked the head to head, Nadal was still better than Federer.

Maybe if Nadal made it to the finals as often as Federer, they would play each other more often. And the resulting H2H might be a little different.

tricky
07-11-2007, 01:12 PM
I actually think Nadal's forehand is very similar to Federer's in terms of
basic stroke mechanism.

More or less, yes. In fact, I argue that both can be considered modernized descendants of the Laver FH.

In some respects, the game of surface leverage comes down to the grip. When the balls are consistently bouncing very high, it's outside of Federer's ideal contact zone with the Eastern-ish grip. When the balls are flying, Nadal can't hit the ball out in front enough with his straight-arm, Western style.

127mph
07-11-2007, 07:15 PM
the thing is federer plays tennis so pretty and is like nothing we have ever seen. thats the foremost reason hes gonna be the GOAT if he wins the french and 15 slams. A guy could play ugly gringing tennis like david ferrer and win 13 slams, but if you put him next to a guy like federer who plays the game so smooth, your gonna take federer right?

inquisitive
07-11-2007, 07:20 PM
Still, for Fed to be the greatest, he has to win FO! Otherwise he will be behind Rod Laver like everyone else.

2shots
07-11-2007, 10:28 PM
Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance!
Brilliant. I hope those are not the odds Nadal has

serve/and/volley
07-11-2007, 11:05 PM
Fed is the best player of his era, but last time I checked the head to head, Nadal was still better than Federer.

Definition of "better" is quite subjective on these boards. By your definition, the following players are "better" than Sampras:

Sergi Bruguera 3-2
Paul Haarhuis 3-1
Lleyton Hewitt 5-4
Richard Krajicek 6-4
Marat Safin 4-3
Michael Stitch 5-4

Though James Blake is 3-0 against Nadal, is he really "better"?

dukemunson
07-11-2007, 11:27 PM
Still, for Fed to be the greatest, he has to win FO! Otherwise he will be behind Rod Laver like everyone else.

Samp is tops of the list mate...

tennis_hand
07-11-2007, 11:59 PM
Head to head doesn't matter much when you talk about the greatest of a certain era. What matters is the overall domination and the winnings of GS. Nadal doesn't dominate the whole field as Fed does and Nadal doesn't win different Slams beside the French. If he was so dominate, he should have won a different Slam at least.

The extreme case: If someone always beat Fed and has a 100% record, but loses to everyone else, do u consider him the greatest? That you beat the best doesn't make you the best. This is sports, not simple math comparison.

Marius_Hancu
07-12-2007, 06:05 AM
Very remote possibilty...

Fries-N-Gravy
07-12-2007, 06:27 AM
Nadal will need more than his speed and strength to win the USO or AO (arent they making it faster?) where the slower weaker guys benefit from flatter groundstrokes. you can only run so fast to chase down that yellow ball

NadalForever
07-12-2007, 06:29 AM
It's already a fact that Rod Laver and Borg are way more talented than either Federer or Nadal. They actually were capable of winning French Open and Wimbledon in the same year unlike Federer or Nadal. I guess we should be discussing who is the number 3 player of all time.

caulcano
07-12-2007, 07:43 AM
It's already a fact that Rod Laver and Borg are way more talented than either Federer or Nadal. They actually were capable of winning French Open and Wimbledon in the same year unlike Federer or Nadal. I guess we should be discussing who is the number 3 player of all time.

Your opinion that 'talent' is only measured by winning 2 tournaments is laughable.

What is also laughable is that you think neither Federer OR Nadal will be able to achieve this feat.

Eviscerator
07-12-2007, 07:45 AM
21 year old Nadal is slowly but surely catching up to him....He has better H2H and is improving on all surfaces. And maybe, just maybe he could even surpass Federers slam record. He has 3 already federer at 0 at that stage.

:roll: :roll:

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 07:50 AM
Samp is tops of the list mate...

One of the greatest, but not the GOAT. He only made it to the FO semis once in career. You have to win all the slams and have double digit slam victories to be the greatest.

caulcano
07-12-2007, 07:57 AM
One of the greatest, but not the GOAT. He only made it to the FO semis once in career. You have to win all the slams and have double digit slam victories to be the greatest.

Say's who?

Hypothetical question: If Agassi ended up with 10 GS AND a different player ends up with 17 GS (only on 3 surfaces) but makes numerous final appearances on the other 'surface' then you are saying Agassi is is greater than that player?

mileslong
07-12-2007, 08:58 AM
Fed is the best player of his era, but last time I checked the head to head, Nadal was still better than Federer.
that is such a convoluted, ridiculous point thats its not even worth replying to really. do we really have to run down all the head to heads against various players including nadal and other players. leading in a head to head means NOTHING! if federer and nadal had played 13 times on grass do you think the record would be 8-5 nadal? what about hard courts? still 8-5 nadal? get a clue, jesus...

sureshs
07-12-2007, 09:00 AM
Agassi is the greatest male player of the modern era, having won Slams on all four surfaces.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:08 AM
One of the greatest, but not the GOAT. He only made it to the FO semis once in career. You have to win all the slams and have double digit slam victories to be the greatest.

That's certainly not my criteria for greatest ever...perhaps most versatile ever...GOAT to me is symbolic of dominance, meaning Slam titles and weeks/years at number 1, winning on different surfaces is a factor...but not the factor...

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:09 AM
Agassi is the greatest male player of the modern era, having won Slams on all four surfaces.

Better then Sampras? Are you serious?

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 09:24 AM
Say's who?

Hypothetical question: If Agassi ended up with 10 GS AND a different player ends up with 17 GS (only on 3 surfaces) but makes numerous final appearances on the other 'surface' then you are saying Agassi is is greater than that player?

Yes. Like i said, you have to win each slam at least once. Actually, i really think you need to win each slam at least twice be considered GOAT. Otherwise, you would be the "one of the greatest", though some "one of the greatest" are above some other "one of the greatest". Right now, only Rod Laver is GOAT. Sampras is right behind Laver.

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 09:25 AM
Making the finals doesn't get you the cigar.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:27 AM
I put more faith in weeks at #1 then getting hot and winning any one particular slam...

sureshs
07-12-2007, 09:29 AM
Better then Sampras? Are you serious?

Why not? All the players we consider great on the female side, like Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf - have won all Slams. On the men's side, the undisputed GOAT, Laver, did the same. Why should we make an exception for Sampras or Federer? The game is defined by the majors, just like golf. Tiger has won all majors, and Federer is being compared to him because they are contemporaries. So what? Yes, the men's game is much more difficult than the women's game, and things today are different from Laver's time. But it is all relative. What is easy today with powerful racquets, modern strings, endorsement money to supply a coach, trainer, therapist whatever was difficult back then. We cannot lower the standards because it is convenient for Sampras or Federer. If Fed has his Nadal, Laver had his Rosewall, who almost derailed his 1969 Calendar Slam, and Agassi had his Sampras.

sureshs
07-12-2007, 09:30 AM
Yes. Like i said, you have to win each slam at least once. Actually, i really think you need to win each slam at least twice be considered GOAT. Otherwise, you would be the "one of the greatest", though some "one of the greatest" are above some other "one of the greatest". Right now, only Rod Laver is GOAT. Sampras is right behind Laver.

That logic is strange. You need to win every Slam twice to be the GOAT, but you can be #2 without winning one Slam at all?

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:33 AM
Why not? All the players we consider great on the female side, like Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf - have won all Slams. On the men's side, the undisputed GOAT, Laver, did the same. Why should we make an exception for Sampras or Federer? The game is defined by the majors, just like golf. Tiger has won all majors, and Federer is being compared to him because they are contemporaries. So what? Yes, the men's game is much more difficult than the women's game, and things today are different from Laver's time. But it is all relative. What is easy today with powerful racquets, modern strings, endorsement money to supply a coach, trainer, therapist whatever was difficult back then. We cannot lower the standards because it is convenient for Sampras or Federer. If Fed has his Nadal, Laver had his Rosewall, who almost derailed his 1969 Calendar Slam, and Agassi had his Sampras.

I don't think your going to find much support for an Agassi superior then Sampras claim, least of all from Andre. Sampras absolutely dominated both Andre and the tennis world...are we forgetting this? I can't see the rationality of basing an entire system or theory around one tournament. I agree that winning on all surfaces is a big factor in determining a players career but the only factor? Are you sure?

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 09:34 AM
That logic is strange. You need to win every Slam twice to be the GOAT, but you can be #2 without winning one Slam at all?


#2? Most people think one is enough which i do agree, but winning 2 slams each will solidify it.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:36 AM
That logic is strange. You need to win every Slam twice to be the GOAT, but you can be #2 without winning one Slam at all?

That logic seems ever stranger...You can be completely dominated by a player (who dominated the whole tennis scene) but by virtue of winning one tournament your better then him...wow...

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 09:38 AM
I don't think your going to find much support for an Agassi superior then Sampras claim, least of all from Andre. Sampras absolutely dominated both Andre and the tennis world...are we forgetting this? I can't see the rationality of basing an entire system or theory around one tournament. I agree that winning on all surfaces is a big factor in determining a players career but the only factor? Are you sure?

GOAT doesn't have to be head to head for me. Sampras is a better player than Agassi. It is what you accomplished in tennis over your career. Sorry, by not even getting close to winning the FO will never put Sampras as GOAT. Only Rod.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 09:42 AM
Why not? All the players we consider great on the female side, like Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf - have won all Slams. On the men's side, the undisputed GOAT, Laver, did the same. Why should we make an exception for Sampras or Federer? The game is defined by the majors, just like golf. Tiger has won all majors, and Federer is being compared to him because they are contemporaries. So what? Yes, the men's game is much more difficult than the women's game, and things today are different from Laver's time. But it is all relative. What is easy today with powerful racquets, modern strings, endorsement money to supply a coach, trainer, therapist whatever was difficult back then. We cannot lower the standards because it is convenient for Sampras or Federer. If Fed has his Nadal, Laver had his Rosewall, who almost derailed his 1969 Calendar Slam, and Agassi had his Sampras.

And don't forget what the wise man said - Johan Kriek is as good as Pancho Gonzalez.

sureshs
07-12-2007, 09:43 AM
That logic seems ever stranger...You can be completely dominated by a player (who dominated the whole tennis scene) but by virtue of winning one tournament your better then him...wow...

Well, Agassi had 8 Slams you know. It was not winning just one tournament.

And the gold medal in Olympics.

And of course Slams on all surfaces. And a lifespan of 20 years.

Plus so many other titles. The FO which he had which Sampras did not is the subtle thing that tips the scales. Yes, opponent and circumstances matter, and so on, but someone did it and proved his complete game, and someone else didn't.

Nadal is also defeating Fed head to head. Does that make him #1?

fastdunn
07-12-2007, 09:45 AM
Laver is considered as GOAT not just he won on all slams.
Two major factors for the issue:
1. number of majors
2. duration as a #1

Laver: won about 20 majors (11 slams, others unofficial de facto "pro" slams, some are "amateur" slams )
and duration of #1 is about 7-8 years roughly (although some years there
was no official ranking)

Sampras: 14 slams (all fully professional, official slams)
6 years official year end #1


Federer: 11 slams and 3 years year end #1

IMHO, Federer needs to dominate 2-3 more years to be considered GOAT.
We will pretty much know about this by the end of 2008.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:49 AM
You didn't read my whole post. They are all factors in determining GOAT. How many slams you won is a factor...which slams you won is a factor...how you did against your toughest competition is a factor...how long you were #1 is a factor...

For me, what definitively tips the scale is years at #1. Sampras lived at the #1 spot for how many more weeks then Agasssi? 8 Slams is nice, especially coming on each surface but Samp took the podium a few more times, which has to at least bring them to a level playing field before you start factoring in dominance...

Agassi was like Emmitt Smith...never the best in any given year but was consistent and versatile...someone you never consider as greatest ever but talk about as an amazing athlete and player...

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 09:50 AM
Well, Agassi had 8 Slams you know. It was not winning just one tournament.

And the gold medal in Olympics.

And of course Slams on all surfaces. And a lifespan of 20 years.

Plus so many other titles. The FO which he had which Sampras did not is the subtle thing that tips the scales. Yes, opponent and circumstances matter, and so on, but someone did it and proved his complete game, and someone else didn't.

Nadal is also defeating Fed head to head. Does that make him #1?

Patently ******** logic.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:50 AM
The Olympics shouldn't have tennis so I refuse to consider that as any sort of factor or impressive result...

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 09:52 AM
Well, Agassi had 8 Slams you know. It was not winning just one tournament.

And the gold medal in Olympics.

And of course Slams on all surfaces. And a lifespan of 20 years.

Plus so many other titles. The FO which he had which Sampras did not is the subtle thing that tips the scales. Yes, opponent and circumstances matter, and so on, but someone did it and proved his complete game, and someone else didn't.

Nadal is also defeating Fed head to head. Does that make him #1?

Good point on Agassi. Nadal has never won anything other than the FO and these smaller tournaments. Time is on his side though. Certainly the # of slams is important, but to not win any slam at least once, preferably twice for me, can't be discounted here. Sampras could have 20 Wimbys and he still would not be GOAT in my eyes. Unless the FO gets dropped as a slam, then Sampras is GOAT.

dukemunson
07-12-2007, 09:56 AM
It's a terrible point...your telling me in your last post that if Sampras sits atop the rankings for 6 years, owns Agassi head to head, picks up 6 extra slams but doesn't win one tournament that agassi had a better career. How could you possibly be serious? That's just bizarre...

Eviscerator
07-12-2007, 09:58 AM
Agassi is the greatest male player of the modern era, having won Slams on all four surfaces.

Aside from you forgetting about a guy named Sampras, why do some people insist on calling rebound ace something other than a hard court :confused: Granted it is slower/stickier, but many hard courts play differently depending on how they are constructed and surfaced. If a slam was contested on carpet/indoor surface I'd agree with 4 surfaces, otherwise the AO and USO are both hard courts.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 09:59 AM
Laver: won about 20 majors (11 slams, others unofficial de facto "pro" slams, some are "amateur" slams )
and duration of #1 is about 7-8 years roughly (although some years there
was no official ranking)

Close. You're thinking the right way, by counting his 'pro majors', but you'd be smart to subtract the amateur majors. Laver's first grand slam, as has been established many times, is virtual non-accomplishment. Rod would not have won those majors had they been open to the best of the best.

Thus, with Rod you have to figure in his accomplishments against the best players and most of those he did as a professional. All in all, you'll probably wind up with about 15 estimated majors.

In another thread, someone counted up more than 20 estimated majors for Pancho Gonzalez - a man with only two US Opens to his credit (no wimbledon, no french open).

SideSpinPDR
07-12-2007, 09:59 AM
It's a long shot. I love Nadal but I know that he is way behind Fed as far as titles go. He'll win some more and eventually get a Wimby title, but he's got a lot of ground to make up. Like I said it's a long shot.

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 10:03 AM
It's a terrible point...your telling me in your last post that if Sampras sits atop the rankings for 6 years, owns Agassi head to head, picks up 6 extra slams but doesn't win one tournament that agassi had a better career. How could you possibly be serious? That's just bizarre...


Yes. He made the FO semis and finals several times. He made Wimby finals a couple of times i believe. Not sure on how many semis. He made US Open finals and semis several times. He made Aussie Open finals a couple of times and semis.

Sampras only made it semis of FO in 14 yrs of play. That's pretty bad. Greatest Wimby player for sure though.

It feel bizarre, but i think Agassi did do it. However, the reality is that Agassi only won 8 slams, so not much to really write on him.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 10:03 AM
Everyone needs to read this thread before they post here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=135592

It has posts by intelligent people who have done their research and watched their tennis. It tells you a lot about the most important tournaments in professional tennis history and will inform you as to why counting majors as the indicator of greatness is flawed logic at best.

Read this. Otherwise you're trolling.

fastdunn
07-12-2007, 10:04 AM
Winning all slams must be smaller factor than # of slams and year at #1.
Otherwise Agassi would be considered much higher(in fact I wish).

All era were different conditions. It's hard to compare.
Bottom line is # of slams and years at #1 IMHO.

Laver won roughly 20 majors but 7-8 years at unofficial year end #1.

Sampras won only(?) 14 slams and 6 year end #1.

But Laver's 20 has some amateur slams(when all the good ones were
at pros). and at his time, rankings were unofficial and inconsistent.

So people put Laver in pre-open era and Sampras is being considered
top player in open era.

Federer has now 11 slams and 3 years at year end #1.

Federer's status will be decided by
1) #1 status for next 2-3 years
2) how does he deal with new generations of top players

My guess is Federer will win more than 14 slams but won't break
6 year end #1 ranking.


Guys, enhjoy this.


You didn't read my whole post. They are all factors in determining GOAT. How many slams you won is a factor...which slams you won is a factor...how you did against your toughest competition is a factor...how long you were #1 is a factor...

For me, what definitively tips the scale is years at #1. Sampras lived at the #1 spot for how many more weeks then Agasssi? 8 Slams is nice, especially coming on each surface but Samp took the podium a few more times, which has to at least bring them to a level playing field before you start factoring in dominance...

Agassi was like Emmitt Smith...never the best in any given year but was consistent and versatile...someone you never consider as greatest ever but talk about as an amazing athlete and player...

inquisitive
07-12-2007, 10:06 AM
Everyone needs to read this thread before they post here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=135592

It has posts by intelligent people who have done their research and watched their tennis. It tells you a lot about the most important tournaments in professional tennis history and will inform you as to why counting majors as the indicator of greatness is flawed logic at best.

Read this. Otherwise you're trolling.

Ok. Will check it out.

fastdunn
07-12-2007, 10:08 AM
Close. You're thinking the right way, by counting his 'pro majors', but you'd be smart to subtract the amateur majors. Laver's first grand slam, as has been established many times, is virtual non-accomplishment. Rod would not have won those majors had they been open to the best of the best.

Thus, with Rod you have to figure in his accomplishments against the best players and most of those he did as a professional. All in all, you'll probably wind up with about 15 estimated majors.

In another thread, someone counted up more than 20 estimated majors for Pancho Gonzalez - a man with only two US Opens to his credit (no wimbledon, no french open).


yes, I would agree we should subtract those amateur ones (including his 1st claendar slams)
but i'm being nice.

The tennis guy
07-12-2007, 08:11 PM
21 year old Nadal is slowly but surely catching up to him....He has better H2H and is improving on all surfaces.

Nadal is catching up with Federer? How about this?

2004-2005 Nadal 2-1 over Federer
2006 Nadal 4-2 over Federer
2007 Nadal 2-2 with Federer

If getting close means losing more to the other guy, I guess you are right!

kaiotic
07-12-2007, 08:16 PM
Naydal needs a serve already!

not going anywhere without one. Flatten the sh*t out, rafa! vamos!

serve/and/volley
07-12-2007, 08:17 PM
Nadal is the greatest because he revolutionizes tennis. Before tennis was about serve-and-volley and angles and all that old school crap that Federer plays (or use to play). Nadal has turned it into power racquetball. If you don't got 22-inch pythons, stay off the court. Who else can hit winners 10 feet behind the baseline? The hell with angles and the serve when you can obliterate the ball anywhere on and off the court. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

Other similar greats in other sports?

- Shaq: Before Shaq you had centers like Hakeem Olajuwan who had to shoot from the perimeter and make free throws. The hell with that if you can just bulldoze through the paint and take down the entire rim and basket as well. Shaq is revolutionary in forcing the NBA to focus on the big man. Look at the Lakers and Andrew Bynum. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

- Mike Tyson: Before Tyson boxers had to have strategies along with footwork and technique. The hell with that. If you can beat the crap of them and have a pin-point accurate and deadly punch, then you can KO your opponent in a matter of seconds. Instead of floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee, hell how about fighting like a piranha and if the fight lasts longer than a couple of rounds, go after the opponents ears and eat their children as well. Mike Tyson is revolutionary in that he is the forerunner of UFC. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

- Barry Bonds: The hell with the steroids controversy. Bonds is a monster. The hell with making plays in the outfield or sacrificial bunts or stealing bases, it's all about knocking the ball out of this world. Baseball stadium as one gigantic batting cage. Bonds revolutionizes baseball with all the home run fetishism. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

- John Daly: He gets away with putting with one hand and a cigar, cigarette, or beer on the other. He doesn't need a caddie since he only really needs one club. He revolutionized golf by turning it into one gigantic driving range. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

These "unofficial" greats may not be popular with many, but their revolutionary style has a big impact in their respective sports. (Or in the case of golf, a glorified game, or in the words of my Irish friend's dad: "A nice walk ruined.")

kaiotic
07-12-2007, 08:24 PM
Nadal is the greatest because he revolutionizes tennis. Before tennis was about serve-and-volley and angles and all that old school crap that Federer plays (or use to play). Nadal has turned it into power racquetball. If you don't got 22-inch pythons, stay off the court. Who else can hit winners 10 feet behind the baseline? The hell with angles and the serve when you can obliterate the ball anywhere on and off the court. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

Other similar greats in other sports?

- Shaq: Before Shaq you had centers like Hakeem Olajuwan who had to shoot from the perimeter and make free throws. The hell with that if you can just bulldoze through the paint and take down the entire rim and basket as well. Shaq is revolutionary in forcing the NBA to focus on the big man. Look at the Lakers and Andrew Bynum. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

- Mike Tyson: Before Tyson boxers had to have strategies along with footwork and technique. The hell with that. If you can beat the crap of them and have a pin-point accurate and deadly punch, then you can KO your opponent in a matter of seconds. Instead of floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee, hell how about fighting like a piranha and if the fight lasts longer than a couple of rounds, go after the opponents ears and eat their children as well. Mike Tyson is revolutionary in that he is the forerunner of UFC. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

- Barry Bonds: The hell with the steroids controversy. Bonds is a monster. The hell with making plays in the outfield or sacrificial bunts or stealing bases, it's all about knocking the ball out of this world. Baseball stadium as one gigantic batting cage. Bonds revolutionizes baseball with all the home run fetishism. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

- John Daly: He gets away with putting with one hand and a cigar, cigarette, or beer on the other. He doesn't need a caddie since he only really needs one club. He revolutionized golf by turning it into one gigantic driving range. Only the strong survive, the weak fall by the wayside.

These "unofficial" greats may not be popular with many, but their revolutionary style has a big impact in their respective sports. (Or in the case of golf, a glorified game, or in the words of my Irish friend's dad: "A nice walk ruined.")

- Wilt Chamberlian, son

- About Tyson, Two words: robin givens.
I remember dancing in NYC's Redzone in 1989 or was it 1990, when the Dj, rudely interrupted in the middle of Lisa Stansfield's 'Been aroun d the world", to announce buster Douglas' KO of Tyson.. the crowd was shocked.. then we continued on and cussed out Robin Givens.... for ruining a great man-beast's life.

- Baseball.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz stopped watching this sh*t after Dave WINFIELD LEFT THE yANKS

- john Daly: a fat bastar

serve/and/volley
07-12-2007, 08:41 PM
Oops, forgot about Chamberlain. They had to make the key bigger because he was beating the crap out of everyone. 100 points!

Tyson was an incredible man-beast. That damn Robin Givens.

Winfield was the best. Now the Yanks are like Real Madrid, but worse.

So is tennis going to have to make a rule on clay courts. How about letting Nadal's opponents use Nasty Nastase's spaghetti string racquet as a handicap?

sarpmas
07-12-2007, 11:09 PM
Forget about Fed and Nadal, Hrbaty is THE BEST... ;)