PDA

View Full Version : Will there ever be players better than Federer or Nadal?


sureshs
06-10-2008, 09:29 AM
Let us keep a realistic window of prediction - say 30 years after these two retire, and assume technology and rules of tennis are pretty much the same (except there will be NanoPicoTeraflopInfiniteModulusGraphite racquets and PolyPowerControl18sidedpolygoncrosssectionBitingRi dges strings which play only slightly better than today's equipment).

Will we see anyone with the attributes of Nadal and Federer?

dh003i
06-10-2008, 09:35 AM
Yes, I think almost for sure. Look, these guys are all-time great talents, players. But there has been at least 1 player each decade of such caliber. Laver, Gonzales, Vines, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras...I'm leaving out many names, but you get the point.

No-one saw anyone coming close to Sampras after he retired, then we had Federer.

sureshs
06-10-2008, 09:42 AM
^^^^ But these two seem superhuman. Specially Nadal on clay. There seems to be something different with these two compared to those in the past.

fps
06-10-2008, 09:45 AM
Djordje Djokovic.

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 09:49 AM
It will definitely happen. Every generation gets bigger and stronger. As much as the world loves to assign superlatives to this or that player, the reality is that records are meant to be broken. Which is why it's a better proposition to be a fan of a person, rather than a fan of their accomplishments which will soon be eclipsed!

sureshs
06-10-2008, 09:53 AM
Records can be broken in tennis without getting better. For example, Sampras had 14 Slams and Laver only 11, but Laver could have had more. So a record was broken but still many would claim Laver was the greater player. A player with 170 mph serves might emerge, setting a record, but may not ever win a Slam.

What I meant was a player with the complete set of skills who dominates thoroughly, and is in every department (like serve, forehand, backhand) within the top few spots among his peers.

TennisandMusic
06-10-2008, 09:55 AM
It will definitely happen. Every generation gets bigger and stronger. As much as the world loves to assign superlatives to this or that player, the reality is that records are meant to be broken. Which is why it's a better proposition to be a fan of a person, rather than a fan of their accomplishments which will soon be eclipsed!

I think that's Baloney, people are not getting "bigger and stronger". The whole "because it happened in my generation it must be the best" mentality is silly. Records are made to be broken but that doesn't mean people are "better" necessarily. Does anyone truly think Barry Bonds is a better homerun hitter than Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth? I hope not.

Do I think we will see better players than Nadal or Federer? No. People as good? Yeah sure. Just like I don't think Nadal or Federer are better than Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Laver, Budge, Rosewall, Gonzalez....

TheTruth
06-10-2008, 09:57 AM
I think that's Baloney, people are not getting "bigger and stronger". The whole "because it happened in my generation it must be the best" mentality is silly. Records are made to be broken but that doesn't mean people are "better" necessarily. Does anyone truly think Barry Bonds is a better homerun hitter than Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth? I hope not.

Do I think we will see better players than Nadal or Federer? No. People as good? Yeah sure. Just like I don't think Nadal or Federer are better than Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Laver, Budge, Rosewall, Gonzalez....

Thanks for your opinion, but it's not mine.

sureshs
06-10-2008, 10:00 AM
I think that's Baloney, people are not getting "bigger and stronger". The whole "because it happened in my generation it must be the best" mentality is silly. Records are made to be broken but that doesn't mean people are "better" necessarily. Does anyone truly think Barry Bonds is a better homerun hitter than Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth? I hope not.

Do I think we will see better players than Nadal or Federer? No. People as good? Yeah sure. Just like I don't think Nadal or Federer are better than Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Laver, Budge, Rosewall, Gonzalez....

I see your point, but why are past tennis greats calling Nadal the greatest clay courter ever? I mean, they are not that stupid that they cannot factor in new racquets and strings. Similarly, it is said that Federer makes shots which no one ever could before. I am talking about that kind of ability. Will we say that about any future player within 30 years?

fps
06-10-2008, 10:07 AM
i hope there is a cap on further *technological advances* in the sport so we can start properly comparing people. i'm not an old fogey at all (not in body anyway) but they should just leave the game alone now!

danb
06-10-2008, 10:08 AM
Let us keep a realistic window of prediction - say 30 years after these two retire, and assume technology and rules of tennis are pretty much the same (except there will be NanoPicoTeraflopInfiniteModulusGraphite racquets and PolyPowerControl18sidedpolygoncrosssectionBitingRi dges strings which play only slightly better than today's equipment).

Will we see anyone with the attributes of Nadal and Federer?

Joke-ovich is getting there... There should be other great players coming - do not get desperate - we'll see more good tennis:)

scotus
06-10-2008, 10:11 AM
Records can be broken in tennis without getting better. For example, Sampras had 12 Slams and Laver only 11, but Laver could have had more.

Who took away 2 slams from Sampras?

danb
06-10-2008, 10:11 AM
i hope there is a cap on further *technological advances* in the sport so we can start properly comparing people. i'm not an old fogey at all (not in body anyway) but they should just leave the game alone now!

I am ready to bet what you ask will NOT happen. Willson, Head, Babolat, etc need to sell their new racquets... The cheapest way to advertise is technollogy. My 2c.
I hear you and I agree with you (I am also young) but it won't happen. In the end pro sport is a business

danb
06-10-2008, 10:13 AM
Who took away 2 slams from Sampras?

Good catch:)

dh003i
06-10-2008, 10:25 AM
In baseball, they have rules on the bats...why not in tennis for the rackets?

I do think these two are special...Federer as a contender for greatest ever in the Open-Era (along with Sampras and Borg), Nadal as contender for greatest clay-courter ever (vs. Borg). But there were other special players too.

I love Federer's game, his play. But honestly, my favorite match he ever played was the one against Sampras. You just don't see him play like that anymore.

NamRanger
06-10-2008, 11:05 AM
In baseball, they have rules on the bats...why not in tennis for the rackets?

I do think these two are special...Federer as a contender for greatest ever in the Open-Era (along with Sampras and Borg), Nadal as contender for greatest clay-courter ever (vs. Borg). But there were other special players too.

I love Federer's game, his play. But honestly, my favorite match he ever played was the one against Sampras. You just don't see him play like that anymore.


Please don't bring up rules on tennis racquets. We've beaten that subject to death and beyond.

sureshs
06-10-2008, 11:13 AM
I am ready to bet what you ask will NOT happen. Willson, Head, Babolat, etc need to sell their new racquets... The cheapest way to advertise is technollogy. My 2c.
I hear you and I agree with you (I am also young) but it won't happen. In the end pro sport is a business

It could end up in a diminishing returns mode. I don't hear about any revolutionary rubber in table tennis any more, for example. Carbon fibers are making their way into paddles, but still most of it is wood. There was a time when faster rubbers, anti-spin rubbers, speed glue etc ruled, now they are stagnant.

zagor
06-10-2008, 11:26 AM
Who knows what the future brings,Fed will always be most special for me because of his game and personality but it is possible that someone will top his achivements in the future.

h7hugo
06-10-2008, 12:14 PM
you talk like Nadal is one of the bests... Nadal is a good player but he is far away from Agassi, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg, Federer, Becker, McEnroe and more....

Probably Nadal will have in his pocket 6-7 slams.... but we 'll see....

As far as your question, many people thought that won't show a player that could break Sampras records but 1 year later than Sampras retired, Federer showed up!! DO we know this will happened again??

CyBorg
06-10-2008, 12:21 PM
I see your point, but why are past tennis greats calling Nadal the greatest clay courter ever?

Were they polled? Who are these names? How many of them are there? What are their motivations? And what was the percentage of these past stars asked?

You have a number of isolated names, hyping Nadal. Two of them are employees of a tv network (Cash and McEnroe), which makes money by selling contemporary tennis stars and not past ones.

I can tell you a couple of names that were inteviewed that did not say Nadal was better. Andres Gomez and Guy Forget.

Lotto
06-10-2008, 01:36 PM
There will always be greats, no matter which sport it is.

In tennis we had Gonzalez, Borg, McEnroe, Laver, Rosewall, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Aggasi, Federer, Nadal

and possibly soon we'll have Djokovic and many more.

In soccer: George Best, Maradona, Pele, Kaka, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Cristiano Ronaldo, Thierry Henry, the list goes on.

superman1
06-10-2008, 06:53 PM
Can't compare generations and say one great is clearly better than another if their achievements are similar. There will be plenty of great players in the future who the young'ins will say are all better than everyone who came before them, and we'll be the old farts trying to remind them of Federer.

It's still possible that we could see a clear GOAT. A perfect player. Basically a 6'6" basketball player who can hit the forehand like Fed and the backhand like Agassi and the serve like Sampras with Roddick's pace.

TennisandMusic
06-10-2008, 06:54 PM
Can't compare generations and say one great is clearly better than another if their achievements are similar. There will be plenty of great players in the future who the young'ins will say are all better than everyone who came before them, and we'll be the old farts trying to remind them of Federer.

It's still possible that we could see a clear GOAT. A perfect player. Basically a 6'6" basketball player who can hit the forehand like Fed and the backhand like Agassi and the serve like Sampras with Roddick's pace.

And volley's like Edberg? :p

CyBorg
06-10-2008, 07:15 PM
Historically we've gotten at least one great (legendary) player per decade.

Sometimes two or three.

CyBorg
06-10-2008, 07:17 PM
In soccer: George Best, Maradona, Pele, Kaka, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Cristiano Ronaldo, Thierry Henry, the list goes on.

Yashin!

(and it's called football;))

TennisandMusic
06-10-2008, 07:23 PM
Thanks for your opinion, but it's not mine.

Yeah but I don't think "genetics" is much of an area for opinion when you're talking about the best athletes from generation to generation. Especially when you're discussing mere decades. Not to be rude about it, but that's fairly absurd.

DashaandSafin
06-10-2008, 07:28 PM
Yeah but I don't think "genetics" is much of an area for opinion when you're talking about the best athletes from generation to generation. Especially when you're discussing mere decades. Not to be rude about it, but that's fairly absurd.

And the athletes of today are stronger, faster, bigger than the ones of yesterday.

TennisandMusic
06-10-2008, 07:42 PM
And the athletes of today are stronger, faster, bigger than the ones of yesterday.

Really? Do you honestly believe that? Do you think the tennis players today are faster and more fit than Borg? Do you think sprinters and such would have broken records by .1 seconds were it not for "supplements"? If you don't think there is rife cheating in sports well...

Anyway, I do not believe that athletes of today are bigger strong and faster. That is a myth. Look at Federer, one of the wimpiest looking "athletes" I've ever seen. A guy like Nadal with a completely average build for an athelete is constantly accused of taking steroids because he doesn't look like a typical tennis wimp. Who are these bigger stronger faster guys? Who has an arm like Laver? Who has speed and fitness like Borg? Would Bill Tilden get spanked today?

Take out the influence of steroids and what do you have...

DashaandSafin
06-10-2008, 07:58 PM
Really? Do you honestly believe that? Do you think the tennis players today are faster and more fit than Borg? Do you think sprinters and such would have broken records by .1 seconds were it not for "supplements"? If you don't think there is rife cheating in sports well...

Anyway, I do not believe that athletes of today are bigger strong and faster. That is a myth. Look at Federer, one of the wimpiest looking "athletes" I've ever seen. A guy like Nadal with a completely average build for an athelete is constantly accused of taking steroids because he doesn't look like a typical tennis wimp. Who are these bigger stronger faster guys? Who has an arm like Laver? Who has speed and fitness like Borg? Would Bill Tilden get spanked today?

Take out the influence of steroids and what do you have...

...Yes I honestly believe that. Look at the world records being broken in Swimming and Running. Its not by .1 seconds...its by rather large margins. And if you knew anything about those sports, .1 seconds is a lifetime. But I assume you don't because you've obviously haven't competed in Olympic Trials like me.

Look at other sports, the football players of today are much bigger than yesterday. The baseball players are. The training is more intense. My coach for swimming, a world class swimmer back in the day, said the training regime now is ridiculous compared to those of the old. And by old I mean 70's not 90's.

And don't argue supplements or steroids. How many athletes take them? Take baseball, you can't lump them all together because a couple of idiots decide to take HGH.

Nadal_Freak
06-10-2008, 08:03 PM
you talk like Nadal is one of the bests... Nadal is a good player but he is far away from Agassi, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg, Federer, Becker, McEnroe and more....

Probably Nadal will have in his pocket 6-7 slams.... but we 'll see....

As far as your question, many people thought that won't show a player that could break Sampras records but 1 year later than Sampras retired, Federer showed up!! DO we know this will happened again??
I disagree. I think Nadal will end up with 8-10 slams. 7 French Opens and 1-3 of the others slams. Probably Wimbledon or Australian Open.

superman1
06-10-2008, 09:53 PM
...Yes I honestly believe that. Look at the world records being broken in Swimming and Running. Its not by .1 seconds...its by rather large margins. And if you knew anything about those sports, .1 seconds is a lifetime. But I assume you don't because you've obviously haven't competed in Olympic Trials like me.

Look at other sports, the football players of today are much bigger than yesterday. The baseball players are. The training is more intense. My coach for swimming, a world class swimmer back in the day, said the training regime now is ridiculous compared to those of the old. And by old I mean 70's not 90's.

And don't argue supplements or steroids. How many athletes take them? Take baseball, you can't lump them all together because a couple of idiots decide to take HGH.

Tennis is different, though. It's less about athleticism. Most players today are not natural athletes, they're just regular people who were trained from a very young age. There is nothing genetically superior about them, they have just worked extremely hard. Agassi once said that he's not really an athlete. He thought of himself as a tennis player who had to work very hard to get very fit so he could be a better player.

They say the two tennis players who could have been Olympians were Borg and Graf. They truly were genetically superior.

DashaandSafin
06-10-2008, 10:08 PM
Tennis is different, though. It's less about athleticism. Most players today are not natural athletes, they're just regular people who were trained from a very young age. There is nothing genetically superior about them, they have just worked extremely hard. Agassi once said that he's not really an athlete. He thought of himself as a tennis player who had to work very hard to get very fit so he could be a better player.

They say the two tennis players who could have been Olympians were Borg and Graf. They truly were genetically superior.

The same could be applied for swimming. I'm only 5'9 but Ive raced against Olympians. I put in 4 hours of work a day which makes me able to compete. Problem is I can't go to the next level because of my height disadvantage. I think the same applies in tennis. 6'1 ish is the perfect height. Any less and you're at a disadvantage. No matter what sport you have to be a freak, in terms of hand eye coordination or body type, and you have to work extremely hard to be the creme of the crop. I only had 50%

superman1
06-10-2008, 10:17 PM
If you've raced against Olympians then I wouldn't qualify you as "normal". Most tennis players are normal. Just very hardworking guys that would get smoked by athletes in more physical sports.

Borg wasn't 5'9", BTW, he was closer to 6'. Agassi is only like 5'10" but because he was such a great tennis player, he could beat up on the bigger guys.

carlos djackal
06-11-2008, 03:59 AM
There will always be someone who will replace the current best players. Better than the two?maybe, i say maybe becoz in the NBA, up to now talent wise nobody ever comes close to his airness Michael Jordan, maybe today-this generation is seeing the finest players tennis has to offer........

lovecr717
06-11-2008, 04:05 AM
Djordje Djokovic.


haha good one.

Anyways back to the topic, ofcourse there will be some great players after federer and nadal.

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 10:25 AM
Yeah but I don't think "genetics" is much of an area for opinion when you're talking about the best athletes from generation to generation. Especially when you're discussing mere decades. Not to be rude about it, but that's fairly absurd.

I was talking about the advances in nutrition, technology, and the fact that we are living longer, healthier lives. What is absurd about that? Scientists work every day to help make our lives better. And I think you are trying to be rude, or you wouldn't have made such a statement!

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 10:41 AM
Yeah but I don't think "genetics" is much of an area for opinion when you're talking about the best athletes from generation to generation. Especially when you're discussing mere decades. Not to be rude about it, but that's fairly absurd.

What do you think about the fact that ten to fifteen years ago 6"1 to 6"4 was considered tall, and now we have players as tall as 6"7?

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 10:46 AM
I disagree. I think Nadal will end up with 8-10 slams. 7 French Opens and 1-3 of the others slams. Probably Wimbledon or Australian Open.

And then they will say he didn't do it the same way as Fed did. Bet you any amount of money!

sureshs
06-11-2008, 10:54 AM
What do you think about the fact that ten to fifteen years ago 6"1 to 6"4 was considered tall, and now we have players as tall as 6"7?

It would be of direct benefit in high jump, track and field, etc. But tennis imposes a limit on how hard you can hit the ball and how much any physical attribute can help you. Assuming an average height of 7 feet in the future, how much will that help by means of spanning the court? It seems to me that serves will never cross 170 mph and groundies 120 mph even assuming a 7 foot muscled up version of Nadal, Federer, Roddick or Gonzalez. Their longer reach and stride will still leave large areas of the court uncovered.

Lotto
06-11-2008, 11:38 AM
Yashin!

(and it's called football;))

(I know. It was just for the americans who call it soccer)

TheTruth
06-11-2008, 11:52 AM
It would be of direct benefit in high jump, track and field, etc. But tennis imposes a limit on how hard you can hit the ball and how much any physical attribute can help you. Assuming an average height of 7 feet in the future, how much will that help by means of spanning the court? It seems to me that serves will never cross 170 mph and groundies 120 mph even assuming a 7 foot muscled up version of Nadal, Federer, Roddick or Gonzalez. Their longer reach and stride will still leave large areas of the court uncovered.

I'm not saying they will be better. I'm just saying that tennis players are becoming taller.

ExPro
06-11-2008, 12:22 PM
Let us keep a realistic window of prediction - say 30 years after these two retire, and assume technology and rules of tennis are pretty much the same (except there will be NanoPicoTeraflopInfiniteModulusGraphite racquets and PolyPowerControl18sidedpolygoncrosssectionBitingRi dges strings which play only slightly better than today's equipment).

Will we see anyone with the attributes of Nadal and Federer?

If you're talking about better in terms of physical skill, then i think yes. I think there's always the likelihood that someone will emerge with better ground strokes, serve volleys etc thats the way its always been i suppose innate talent and application to ones craft will by and large, yield the results. In terms of overall dominance of the game for a sustained period of time then thats a wider issue. Nadal is known more for his prowess on clay and I think his game WILL evolve to a point where he will be an even bigger threat everywhere even on the faster surfaces. Federer on the other hand, I think has already maxed out, I dont realistically see him taking his game up a notch. There's been a bunch of players with shots as good as or even better than RF's but what they lacked was the ability to put the ball in court consistently and the discipline to work at their game and put all the pices together and thats what made RF the force that he was and I suppose still is to some degree.
One other thing that has been mentioned here once or twice is the notion that future pro's will be bigger and better, I disagree with that. There's always been 'big' pro's i.e. guys who are 6'4 and over but these guys never really get to the top of the game, yes they may win the odd GS title during the course of their career but they never really dominate. i think the most successful guys have all been around the 5'11 -6'2 mark with the odd guy at 6'3 - 6'5 chipping in. Not directly connected to the main point of discussion I know but, hey just a thought.

pound cat
06-11-2008, 03:56 PM
They may or may not be percieved to be "better" However they wil be different with a different game. It's hard to compare Laver and Borg 25 or 50 years later. They will set their own recoids, play using the rackets of the time, the tournament schedules of the day. Every generation will nominate it's own greats, which is as it should be.

DashaandSafin
06-11-2008, 06:22 PM
What do you think about the fact that ten to fifteen years ago 6"1 to 6"4 was considered tall, and now we have players as tall as 6"7?

Noo. Now 6'1-6'4 is normal...Thanks mom and pop for the 5'9

superman1
06-11-2008, 06:24 PM
I'm not saying they will be better. I'm just saying that tennis players are becoming taller.

No they aren't. Someone posted a graph on this. The average height in the 90's was greater than it is today.

Lucky57
06-11-2008, 06:37 PM
good future players on the tour in about 30 years or less will be able to beat nadal and federer at their peak probably.
this doesn't mean that they are better, but what i'm getting at is that the game is changing. new techniques, new game styles, new rackets, etc. so when the new generation learns these things, they'll have greater potential of a higher level game because they have these things available to them.
ex. practically all of today's players use topspin on their groundstrokes for errors. however when borg played, using topspin consistently on groundstrokes was like a revolutionary idea.

superman1
06-11-2008, 06:44 PM
Laver used topspin before him. I'm sure people used topspin before Laver. It's just kinda hard to do with a stringbed that's the size of your hand.

If technology doesn't change, then the game won't change. It's already optimal, and it's always been optimal for the technology given. If the strings get better, then the game will change.

user92626
06-11-2008, 09:38 PM
I think that's Baloney, people are not getting "bigger and stronger". The whole "because it happened in my generation it must be the best" mentality is silly. Records are made to be broken but that doesn't mean people are "better" necessarily. Does anyone truly think Barry Bonds is a better homerun hitter than Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth? I hope not.

Do I think we will see better players than Nadal or Federer? No. People as good? Yeah sure. Just like I don't think Nadal or Federer are better than Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg, Laver, Budge, Rosewall, Gonzalez....

Your post is so weird and doesn't make sense at all, even contradicting. Record is a good measure of achievement and when it gets broken that means there're better people. People in general ARE getting bigger, stronger, living longer and much higher birth rate than the past.

Your second para. shows you're confused person. Go take a class in logics.

Cenc
06-12-2008, 09:27 AM
what a sad topic. tennis is in trouble now and i guess its going to be worse and worse. i wont be surprised to see 50 years old pistol pete defeating future number one as well as he beat fed in macau

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 10:08 AM
Noo. Now 6'1-6'4 is normal...Thanks mom and pop for the 5'9

Originally Posted by TheTruth
What do you think about the fact that ten to fifteen years ago 6"1 to 6"4 was considered tall, and now we have players as tall as 6"7?



You may have been reading too fast. I said 6"1 to 6"4 was considered tall, now we have players on the tour as tall as 6"7. I didn't say the average player was 6"7. 6"1 to 6"4 is the average about now. I don't deny that!

TheTruth
06-12-2008, 10:09 AM
No they aren't. Someone posted a graph on this. The average height in the 90's was greater than it is today.

I would have to see that graph. Just looking on the tour seems to disprove that!

hoodjem
06-12-2008, 10:18 AM
There will be plenty of great players in the future who the young'ins will say are all better than everyone who came before them, and we'll be the old farts trying to remind them of Federer.

I can't wait.

Basically a player who can hit . . . the backhand like Agassi.

Ick!! Say it ain't so, please?

hoodjem
06-12-2008, 10:21 AM
Your post is so weird and doesn't make sense at all, even contradicting. Record is a good measure of achievement and when it gets broken that means there're better people. People in general ARE getting bigger, stronger, living longer and much higher birth rate than the past.

Your second para. shows you're confused person. Go take a class in logics.


Go take a class in English grammar and syntax.

(No ethnocentrism intended.)