PDA

View Full Version : Where would Nadall rank among the greats if he wins RG-Wimb again this year?


Pirao
04-08-2009, 03:17 AM
I have noticed that a lot of people in the forum rank Borg above Federer, even though Fed has won more GS and has been 4 straight years #1, so I guess it's because winning the channel slam weights heavily in the list of acomplishments. So, if Nadal wins it two years in a row, where would you rank him among the all time greats?

batz
04-08-2009, 03:25 AM
He'd move up the pecking order considerably. To do it once is an amazing achievement, to do it back to back would be other worldly.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 03:26 AM
He'd move up the pecking order considerably. To do it once is an amazing achievement, to do it back to back would be other worldly.

Where do you rank him now? Is he in your top 10?

shadows
04-08-2009, 03:46 AM
to do it this year where he's won a GS on HC as well would be a really massive achievement since that'd be all 3 surfaces in one year, one very small step below a calendar slam

deltox
04-08-2009, 04:02 AM
what people seem to forget is the GOAT list isnt made by pure achievments. It also requires Longevity with the reign. TIME TIME TIME is the only thing NADAL needs and to maintain his current status and rate for id guess, maybe this year plus 2 more then he can be named with the greats .

Pirao
04-08-2009, 04:06 AM
what people seem to forget is the GOAT list isnt made by pure achievments. It also requires Longevity with the reign. TIME TIME TIME is the only thing NADAL needs and to maintain his current status and rate for id guess, maybe this year plus 2 more then he can be named with the greats .

Why do you need longevity? If Nadal manages more in a short career, than say, Agassi in his long career, he would be undoubtedly above him. I fail to see how longevity is an issue.

deltox
04-08-2009, 04:07 AM
Why do you need longevity? If Nadal manages more in a short career, than say, Agassi in his long career, he would be undoubtedly above him. I fail to see how longevity is an issue.

being a "flash in the pants" does NOT give you all time great honors. it gives you the best of that year or those 2 years.

besides sampras and fed have how many slams? and how many does nadal have if he sweeps this year.. thats right, still not enough.

he had a good last year, looks like a great this year.. one more year and he would start climbing the list imo. and in anyones opinion cept nadal fans.

and comparing nadal to agassi is bad news.. agassi is the one player who undoubtably had more mental toughness than nadal. besides Agassi's career is the clear exception to any tennis rule of thumb known. Winning a Slam at 31 today is laughable. there is and will only ever be one agassi

he needs at least 5 more slams from now to be considered GOAT in my humble opinion. he cannot gain those in this calendar year.

caulcano
04-08-2009, 04:12 AM
I have noticed that a lot of people in the forum rank Borg above Federer, even though Fed has won more GS and has been 4 straight years #1, so I guess it's because winning the channel slam weights heavily in the list of acomplishments. So, if Nadal wins it two years in a row, where would you rank him among the all time greats?

I think Borg's achievement for winning the FO & Wimbledon titles are different.

Nowadays, I think it's harder to win the FO & USO titles because there are more polarised.

deltox
04-08-2009, 04:14 AM
I think Borg's achievement for winning the FO & Wimbledon titles are different.

Nowadays, I think it's harder to win the FO & USO titles because there are more polarised.

comparing players from different time periods is always hard. competition levels vary, surfaces change, and conditions vary. first thing to do for nadal to be considered for the GOAT is to beat his present day rival (Fed) not on court but in the record books. Til then, there is no use to compare past players because of inconsistancies.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 04:19 AM
being a "flash in the pants" does NOT give you all time great honors. it gives you the best of that year or those 2 years.

besides sampras and fed have how many slams? and how many does nadal have if he sweeps this year.. thats right, still not enough.

he had a good last year, looks like a great this year.. one more year and he would start climbing the list imo. and in anyones opinion cept nadal fans.

and comparing nadal to agassi is bad news.. agassi is the one player who undoubtably had more mental toughness than nadal.

he needs at least 5 more slams from now to be considered GOAT in my humble opinion. he cannot gain those in this calendar year.

Wow,wow,wow, I'm not even talking about Nadal being GOAT yet, just about his place among other greats that are not in contention for GOAT (Agassi, Edberg, MacEnroe and company).

However, since we're talking about it, if Nadal sweeps all the slams this year, undoubtedly he would have a strong case for GOAT even if he doesn't win anymore slams (unlikely since he will probably win a lot more FO). Even Laver himself said that winning a True Grand Slam today is more impressive than when he did it. Likewise, he would be ranked amongst the truely elite if he wins 10 or more slams, having a winning record against another great like Federer and all.

batz
04-08-2009, 04:26 AM
Where do you rank him now? Is he in your top 10?

In my top 10 right now? For sure, I'd have him in there. He's behind His Rodness, Borg, Pete and Roger at the moment, but I'd probably have him in at 5 - given that he's now the only guy to have won slams on 3 surfaces and his channel slam. Yep, top 5 for me at the moment.

deltox
04-08-2009, 04:32 AM
Wow,wow,wow, I'm not even talking about Nadal being GOAT yet, just about his place among other greats that are not in contention for GOAT (Agassi, Edberg, MacEnroe and company).

However, since we're talking about it, if Nadal sweeps all the slams this year, undoubtedly he would have a strong case for GOAT even if he doesn't win anymore slams (unlikely since he will probably win a lot more FO). Even Laver himself said that winning a True Grand Slam today is more impressive than when he did it. Likewise, he would be ranked amongst the truely elite if he wins 10 or more slams, having a winning record against another great like Federer and all.

o well in that case nadal is a baller, hes in the top 10 for sure. try to understand on this forum NADAL for goat threads appear 3 times daily.

i would give him the #6-7 spot easily. i really liked what agassi did for tennis with his career longevity so he might sneak in ahead of him on my list until nadal pulls off another slam other than the french.


But, even the great Nadal is against strong odds for a grand slam completion this year.

fantom
04-08-2009, 04:34 AM
He's already 'one of the greats'. If he wins RG & W this year, he'll be right up there in the top tier. He'll be in that top tier when it's all said and done someday regardless, though.

deltox
04-08-2009, 04:37 AM
He's already 'one of the greats'. If he wins RG & W this year, he'll be right up there in the top tier. He'll be in that top tier when it's all said and done someday regardless, though.

that statement i can agree with.

oberyn
04-08-2009, 05:40 AM
and comparing nadal to agassi is bad news.. agassi is the one player who undoubtably had more mental toughness than nadal.

This is where you lost me. A hallmark of Agassi's early career was a perceived lack of mental toughness. This definitely improved in his later years, but he still wasn't ever regarded as one of tennis' mentally toughest players.

deltox
04-08-2009, 05:43 AM
This is where you lost me. A hallmark of Agassi's early career was a perceived lack of mental toughness. This definitely improved in his later years, but he still wasn't ever regarded as one of tennis' mentally toughest players.

ten year career, pains and wear and tear on the body, ups and downs of winning and defeat. how many u know that could continue to compete at his level or play with all that?

AprilFool
04-08-2009, 05:55 AM
I have noticed that a lot of people in the forum rank Borg above Federer, even though Fed has won more GS and has been 4 straight years #1, so I guess it's because winning the channel slam weights heavily in the list of acomplishments. So, if Nadal wins it two years in a row, where would you rank him among the all time greats?
Being newer than myself, you should know that a majority of people here do not consider Borg to be a greater player than Federer. I don't think that Borg believes that, either.
Welcome!

Andyk028
04-08-2009, 06:14 AM
As good or better than Agassi/

cknobman
04-08-2009, 06:25 AM
If he wins RG and Wimby again this year that gives him what 8 GS?

Considering the records he would hold for most consecutive RG's and then the double Wimby RG back to back that would put him in the top 8 GOAT contender list in my book.

Turning Pro
04-08-2009, 08:17 AM
He'd be on par with Agassi imo. He'd have more memorable better records than agassi but agassi would have slightly more masters series and all 4 grand slams. One thing in rafa's favour considerably is he defeated his no.1 rival one of the greatest of all time in his era unlike Agassi.

CyBorg
04-08-2009, 08:33 AM
I have noticed that a lot of people in the forum rank Borg above Federer, even though Fed has won more GS and has been 4 straight years #1, so I guess it's because winning the channel slam weights heavily in the list of acomplishments. So, if Nadal wins it two years in a row, where would you rank him among the all time greats?

I can tell you why I rate Borg above Federer:
- Borg as Federer was the top player in tennis for four years straight from 1977 to 1980 (I would say co-#1 in 1977); Roger had a more dominant stretch as #1, though
- but, Borg put together more years as as a top-three player
- Borg had no apparent surface weakness
- Borg did not have a losing record against a rival player

So, in terms of quality years, it comes down to:

Borg (8 )

#1 (4) - 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 (1977 - three-way tie with Vilas and Connors)
#2 (2) - 1976, 1981
#3 (2) - 1974, 1975

Federer (6)

#1 (4) - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
#2 (2) - 2003, 2008

It's close, but Roger still has a bit of work to do to eclipse Borg, in my opinion.

Counting majors is of course a waste of time, because Borg didn't play the Australian.

As for Nadal, he just put together his first year as #1 in 2008. Another one this year would greatly bolster his stock. He's already proven on grass and clay - where he's lacking is on fast hardcourt surfaces, especially indoors.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 09:00 AM
Being newer than myself, you should know that a majority of people here do not consider Borg to be a greater player than Federer. I don't think that Borg believes that, either.
Welcome!

Thanks.

Well, I assure you that there are quite a few people who rate Borg above Federer, in the threads about the GOAT in the former pro players section. But maybe they're the minority?

Pirao
04-08-2009, 09:04 AM
I can tell you why I rate Borg above Federer:
- Borg as Federer was the top player in tennis for four years straight from 1977 to 1980 (I would say co-#1 in 1977); Roger had a more dominant stretch as #1, though
- but, Borg put together more years as as a top-three player
- Borg had no apparent surface weakness
- Borg did not have a losing record against a rival player

So, in terms of quality years, it comes down to:

Borg (8 )

#1 (4) - 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 (1977 - three-way tie with Vilas and Connors)
#2 (2) - 1976, 1981
#3 (2) - 1974, 1975

Federer (6)

#1 (4) - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
#2 (2) - 2003, 2008

It's close, but Roger still has a bit of work to do to eclipse Borg, in my opinion.

Counting majors is of course a waste of time, because Borg didn't play the Australian.

As for Nadal, he just put together his first year as #1 in 2008. Another one this year would greatly bolster his stock. He's already proven on grass and clay - where he's lacking is on fast hardcourt surfaces, especially indoors.

Yes, but it was his decision not to play AO, so I don't know, I think it should be counted against him, I guess you disagree.

Nadal I think doesn't really need to prove himself at the USO (he has already won other fast hardcourt tournaments) to be in GOAT contention if he ends up with 10+ slams. After all Borg never won the USO either, and he's in contention. But of course, it would be nice, and I hope he does win the USO, as I hope Fed wins the FO someday (but that's another story).

helloworld
04-08-2009, 09:09 AM
ten year career, pains and wear and tear on the body, ups and downs of winning and defeat. how many u know that could continue to compete at his level or play with all that?
Your post is a joke. Agassi's talent was always there. He could always get himself to the top if he could get himself together. It's not his mental toughness that allows him to be at the top. Andre is just an extremely talented player who wasn't mentally focus for about half of his career. I would NEVER compare his mental state to the great Nadal.

tahiti
04-08-2009, 09:58 AM
Nadal is already a "great" but if he took both Wimbie and Rg he would be on his way to being even greater... To be a goat contender he would need a few more slams indeed, but his Master series shields are sure piling up too!

helloworld
04-08-2009, 10:13 AM
and comparing nadal to agassi is bad news.. agassi is the one player who undoubtably had more mental toughness than nadal. besides Agassi's career is the clear exception to any tennis rule of thumb known. Winning a Slam at 31 today is laughable. there is and will only ever be one agassi

:lol:
10 chars.

deltox
04-08-2009, 10:28 AM
:lol:
10 chars.

everyone is weak at times and agassi had his.. you think its not mentally tough to push yourself at 30 like you do at 18-20. or 22-24.. doesnt matter, the fact is that he overcame the troubled times. you are not giving him credit for his whole career and only focusing on a weak moment or two

welcome2petrkordaland
04-08-2009, 10:47 AM
I can tell you why I rate Borg above Federer:
- Borg as Federer was the top player in tennis for four years straight from 1977 to 1980 (I would say co-#1 in 1977); Roger had a more dominant stretch as #1, though
- but, Borg put together more years as as a top-three player
- Borg had no apparent surface weakness
- Borg did not have a losing record against a rival player

So, in terms of quality years, it comes down to:

Borg (8 )

#1 (4) - 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 (1977 - three-way tie with Vilas and Connors)
#2 (2) - 1976, 1981
#3 (2) - 1974, 1975

Federer (6)

#1 (4) - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
#2 (2) - 2003, 2008

It's close, but Roger still has a bit of work to do to eclipse Borg, in my opinion.

Counting majors is of course a waste of time, because Borg didn't play the Australian.

As for Nadal, he just put together his first year as #1 in 2008. Another one this year would greatly bolster his stock. He's already proven on grass and clay - where he's lacking is on fast hardcourt surfaces, especially indoors.

very interesting post.

i gotta disagree on federer having a weak surface and borg not having one. fed has multiple clay titles and more than a handful of clay finals, where he has lost to the beast that is rafael nadal on clay. borg, otoh, never won a us open, despite (like you point out) being at the top of the game-top 3- for 8 years. overall, fed is pretty dominant on clay except when he plays rafa.

i do agree, however, with your view of the Aussie Open back then; it just wasn't considered a huge slam, like today. borg would 've won a handful, presumably, not to mention the fact that bjorn retired at 25.

Cyborg, your emphasis on being at the top for long time (not just 3 or 4 years) has got me thinking. If Federer continues to lose points and falls to #3 or #4 or worse within the next 4 months, his GOAT status will become jeopardized to my mind, at least.

Like you say, Borg was top 3 for 8 years. Federer was throwing rackets and tantrums until 2003 and although still #2 in early 2008, looks to be headed downward, as he can't beat the de facto top 3. See 0-10 record against Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, in last 10 meetings.

helloworld
04-08-2009, 10:47 AM
everyone is weak at times and agassi had his.. you think its not mentally tough to push yourself at 30 like you do at 18-20. or 22-24.. doesnt matter, the fact is that he overcame the troubled times. you are not giving him credit for his whole career and only focusing on a weak moment or two

The only reason why Agassi still had the motivation to play after 30 is because he basically wasted half of his career chasing girls and stuff.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 10:50 AM
very interesting post.

i gotta disagree on federer having a weak surface and borg not having one. fed has multiple clay titles and more than a handful of clay finals, where he has lost to the beast that is rafael nadal on clay. borg, otoh, never won a us open, despite (like you point out) being at the top of the game-top 3- for 8 years. overall, fed is pretty dominant on clay except when he plays rafa.

i do agree, however, with your view of the Aussie Open back then; it just wasn't considered a huge slam, like today. borg would 've won a handful, presumably, not to mention the fact that bjorn retired at 25.

Cyborg, your emphasis on being at the top for long time (not just 3 or 4 years) has got me thinking. If Federer continues to lose points and falls to #3 or #4 or worse within the next 4 months, his GOAT status will become jeopardized to my mind, at least.

Like you say, Borg was top 3 for 8 years. Federer was throwing rackets and tantrums until 2003 and although still #2 in early 2008, looks to be headed downward, as he can't beat the de facto top 3. See 0-10 record against Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, in last 10 meetings.

I knew that would get brought up too. It doesn't matter when he retired, it was his decision to do so, as was his decision not to play the AO. Maybe he would have won some AO and maybe he would have won more majors if he hadn't retired at 25, but the fact is, he did retire.

Morrissey
04-08-2009, 01:08 PM
Interesting question. He would have 8 slams at the age of 23 and the FO, W double for 2 years in a row. I would say he's on track to being another Borg. It would only be a matter of time before he hits 10 slams then.

oberyn
04-08-2009, 01:08 PM
ten year career, pains and wear and tear on the body, ups and downs of winning and defeat. how many u know that could continue to compete at his level or play with all that?

Hmm. If the above is how you're defining "mental toughness", please consider this.

If you total up the number of years that Agassi was truly focused on the sport, I think you'll find plenty of guys who demonstrated it to that same degree without the same periods of interruption.

By his own admission, Agassi had more gas in the tank in his early 30s than a his peers because of the fact that he wasn't as focused early on. Agassi did reinvent himself in his late 20s. While I applaud him for this, the fact remains that most of his peers never had to do so.

I'm taking nothing away from Agassi's talent or his contribution to the game, but I think it's a distortion to describe him as the epitome of mental toughness.

Morrissey
04-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Hmm. If the above is how you're defining "mental toughness", please consider this.

If you total up the number of years that Agassi was truly focused on the sport, I think you'll find plenty of guys who demonstrated it to that same degree without the same periods of interruption.

By his own admission, Agassi had more gas in the tank in his early 30s than a his peers because of the fact that he wasn't as focused early on. Agassi did reinvent himself in his late 20s. While I applaud him for this, the fact remains that most of his peers never had to do so.

I'm taking nothing away from Agassi's talent or his contribution to the game, but I think it's a distortion to describe him as the epitome of mental toughness.


I think you summed it up perfectly. If Agassi had given it his all and dedicated himself from the very beginning to the max he would not have lasted as long as he did. That late resurgence was in a way to make up for all the years he sort of coasted and didn't give it his true potential. Luckily he was healthy enough to see it last the way it did.

flying24
04-08-2009, 01:13 PM
He'd be on par with Agassi imo. He'd have more memorable better records than agassi but agassi would have slightly more masters series and all 4 grand slams. One thing in rafa's favour considerably is he defeated his no.1 rival one of the greatest of all time in his era unlike Agassi.

He would be way ahead of Agassi IMO. Agassi never dominated on any surface. Agassi never truly was the dominant player at any piont in time let alone two straight years (Agassi wasnt really the dominant player in 1999 with his horrible head to head with Sampras). Agassi never would have sustained the level of consistent performance over 5 years that Rafa has.

I would argue he could even be ahead of Federer if he pulled that off, and Federer is miles ahead of Agassi all time.

gj011
04-08-2009, 01:15 PM
It is too early to evaluate Nadal's career in this context. Still lots of years to play.

helloworld
04-08-2009, 01:15 PM
1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Fed
5. Lendl
6. Connors
7. Nadal

flying24
04-08-2009, 01:16 PM
It is too early to evaluate Nadal's career in this context. Still lots of years to play.

This is true but you could at any given point evaluate a minimum point he has already reached even if he did nothing else the rest of his career couldnt you?

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 01:18 PM
Top 20's somewheres of of all time. 8 slams will give him some consideration. But the USO would give much more consideration of placing him higher.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 01:18 PM
1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Fed
5. Lendl
6. Connors
7. Nadal

Why is Lendl so high? If Nadal won RG-Wimb again he would be over Lendl for sure.

helloworld
04-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Why is Lendl so high? If Nadal won RG-Wimb again he would be over Lendl for sure.
Lendl has a much longer span of domination than Nadal at this moment, and he holds the record of reaching 19 Grand Slam finals! Nadal still needs more time to prove that he can be as dominant as Lendl even IF he actually wins RG-Wimby this year.

gj011
04-08-2009, 01:24 PM
This is true but you could at any given point evaluate a minimum point he has already reached even if he did nothing else the rest of his career couldnt you?

Yes you could, but I really don't see a point. You are comparing apples and oranges, i.e. someone full career with Nadal's part of career. Makes no sense to me.

Nice example is helloworld above who is talking about Lendl's "span of domination" as an argument of putting him before, which would be quite valid, but we actually have no idea what that span will be for Nadal.

Nadalfan89
04-08-2009, 01:29 PM
GOAT is a relative term that can't be determined by any one thing. Nadal has won a GS on all 3 surfaces. He's won a channel slam and he's done it all a relatively young age. He's 13-6 against the current top GOAT contender and that's also something that needs to be taken into account.

Rod Laver is statistically the GOAT but I'de like to see Laver in his prime play Nadal right now. It would be a double bagel massacre because times have changed and so has the game.

I think if Nadal wins the USO, he'll be a definite contender for GOAT.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 01:36 PM
Lendl has a much longer span of domination than Nadal at this moment, and he holds the record of reaching 19 Grand Slam finals! Nadal still needs more time to prove that he can be as dominant as Lendl even IF he actually wins RG-Wimby this year.

Fair enough, but I actually think that winning finals means more than reaching more. Plus the 2 consecutive channel slams would weight heavily on Nadal's favour.

oberyn
04-08-2009, 01:52 PM
I think the original question is a very good one.

I'd still place Nadal a rung below Borg, Federer, Laver, and Sampras (listed in purely alphabetical order).

I'd place him equal with Lendl and ahead of Agassi and Connors.

I think the tie-breaker(s) would depend upon some incredibly subjective factors (not that the whole idea of rankings these guys doesn't depend upon subjective preferences).

Particularly because Nadal's career isn't finished, I'd give Lendl an edge in terms of longevity.

I'd give Nadal the edge in terms of peak performance. Here's why:

Lendl made it to the finals of RG and Wimbledon in consecutive years and finished #1 in the world for 3 straight years (4 overall).

Nadal would have made it to the finals of RG and Wimbledon for 4 straight years, winning both in the same year for 2 straight years. Nadal would have finished #1 in the world for 2 straight years.

Nadal would be the only man in history to win 5 straight French Opens.

He'd be the only man to win slams on 3 different surfaces in the same calendar year (I do not count rebound ace as a separate surface, so no, I don't think that Wilander pulled off this feat in 1988 or that Federer did it in 2004, 2006, and/or 2007. There have been 2 slams played annually on hardcourts since 1988.)

If you're giving out points for precociousness, I think he'd also beat out Borg (by a few days) as the youngest man to reach 8 slams.

thalivest
04-08-2009, 01:57 PM
I can tell you why I rate Borg above Federer:
- Borg as Federer was the top player in tennis for four years straight from 1977 to 1980 (I would say co-#1 in 1977); Roger had a more dominant stretch as #1, though
- but, Borg put together more years as as a top-three player
- Borg had no apparent surface weakness
- Borg did not have a losing record against a rival player

So, in terms of quality years, it comes down to:

Borg (8 )

#1 (4) - 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 (1977 - three-way tie with Vilas and Connors)
#2 (2) - 1976, 1981
#3 (2) - 1974, 1975

Federer (6)

#1 (4) - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
#2 (2) - 2003, 2008

It's close, but Roger still has a bit of work to do to eclipse Borg, in my opinion.

Counting majors is of course a waste of time, because Borg didn't play the Australian.

As for Nadal, he just put together his first year as #1 in 2008. Another one this year would greatly bolster his stock. He's already proven on grass and clay - where he's lacking is on fast hardcourt surfaces, especially indoors.

Borg would also crush Federer if they were in their primes together I believe. Federer could never play with Borg from the baseline, but Borg was better at the net and a better all court player too. He was also far tougher mentally, and a much smarter player. Federer would have the serving edge but that is it.

Emelia21
04-08-2009, 01:59 PM
GOAT is a relative term that can't be determined by any one thing. Nadal has won a GS on all 3 surfaces. He's won a channel slam and he's done it all a relatively young age. He's 13-6 against the current top GOAT contender and that's also something that needs to be taken into account.

Rod Laver is statistically the GOAT but I'de like to see Laver in his prime play Nadal right now. It would be a double bagel massacre because times have changed and so has the game.

I think if Nadal wins the USO, he'll be a definite contender for GOAT.

:cry: :shock: :confused: eh??

tudwell
04-08-2009, 02:10 PM
Fair enough, but I actually think that winning finals means more than reaching more. Plus the 2 consecutive channel slams would weight heavily on Nadal's favour.

Of course winning finals means more than reaching them, but Nadal is still 2 slams and 11 finals short of matching Lendl's statistics.

oberyn
04-08-2009, 02:13 PM
Of course winning finals means more than reaching them, but Nadal is still 2 slams and 11 finals short of matching Lendl's statistics.

The original question is a hypothetical regarding Nadal's rank if he were to pull off another RG-Wimbledon double this year.

If that happened, Nadal and Lendl would have the same number of slams wins.

tudwell
04-08-2009, 02:15 PM
The original question is a hypothetical regarding Nadal's rank if he were to pull off another RG-Wimbledon double this year.

If that happened, Nadal and Lendl would have the same number of slams wins.

Oh, right. My bad. In that case, I'd have to put them on about equal footing.

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 02:23 PM
Ehhhh.. Im not sure I would put Nadal with Andre.. just yet. Nadal still needs the USO IMO and some longevity. 22 years of age and less than a year at number 1 under his belt isnt enough to solidify Nadal now that Im thinking about it. Though he is on the right track. He definitely needs some longevity I think to complete the deal. 1-2 years just wont cut it IMO. Hes been more dominant than Andre but Andre won slams into his 30s, and has the career slam. Depending on what side of the fence you are on, you can argue either way. Its not set in stone where Nadal will be IMO, since he could just stop winning slams all together, and then people will renig on some of the things they say about him. Just as they did with Fed. Fed was on his way to being GOAT getting the slam record, and he was stopped dead in his tracks. Now look at him. 27 years old and he cant even win a tourney.

We should save this talk for a few years down the road with Nadal. Alot can change. I want to see some longevity at number 1 from Nadal. Not just 1-2 or 3 dominant years and then what could be mediocre ones after that

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 02:28 PM
Borg would also crush Federer if they were in their primes together I believe. Federer could never play with Borg from the baseline, but Borg was better at the net and a better all court player too. He was also far tougher mentally, and a much smarter player. Federer would have the serving edge but that is it.


Im not so sure about that. Borg would have hell of a time with Fed on Hardcourts IMO, at least Prime Fed at the AO and USO had they played and I think Fed takes Borg out on Hardcourts most of the time. Fed is a better hardcourt player than Borg was at least the old Fed.. . Grass im not sure. Both are pretty solid there. Fed has his share of Wimbeldons as does Borg. Borg was one of the greatest grass players and right up there with Sampras but Roger is no slouch on that surface. And of course Borg dominates clay over Fed.


But Hardcourts belong to Roger. If Borg couldnt even handle Johnny Mac. How in the hell could he handle prime Fed? He couldnt. Even though Fed is struggling, there is no doubt he is in the top 2-3 greatest Hardcourt players to ever play the game IMO. At least a few years ago he was

gj011
04-08-2009, 02:35 PM
:cry: :shock: :confused: eh??

:) Lost of slams around.

Channel slam is winning RG + Wimbledon in the same year.

Pirao
04-08-2009, 02:58 PM
Ehhhh.. Im not sure I would put Nadal with Andre.. just yet. Nadal still needs the USO IMO and some longevity. 22 years of age and less than a year at number 1 under his belt isnt enough to solidify Nadal now that Im thinking about it. Though he is on the right track. He definitely needs some longevity I think to complete the deal. 1-2 years just wont cut it IMO. Hes been more dominant than Andre but Andre won slams into his 30s, and has the career slam. Depending on what side of the fence you are on, you can argue either way. Its not set in stone where Nadal will be IMO, since he could just stop winning slams all together, and then people will renig on some of the things they say about him. Just as they did with Fed. Fed was on his way to being GOAT getting the slam record, and he was stopped dead in his tracks. Now look at him. 27 years old and he cant even win a tourney.

We should save this talk for a few years down the road with Nadal. Alot can change. I want to see some longevity at number 1 from Nadal. Not just 1-2 or 3 dominant years and then what could be mediocre ones after that

Just yet? Of course not, Agassi has 8 slams + more masters. If he wins RG+Wimb this year? He would be at least on equal footing to Andre. If he wins the USO too? He would be far ahead of Agassi at that point.

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 03:09 PM
Just yet? Of course not, Agassi has 8 slams + more masters. If he wins RG+Wimb this year? He would be at least on equal footing to Andre. If he wins the USO too? He would be far ahead of Agassi at that point.

Still.... I want to see some longevity from Nadal at the top and some slams unto an older age. This is what hurt Borg IMO even though he did have longetivity in a sense. But he also took his ball and went home at 25 years old. That hurts his resume IMO. No doubt about I think. If Nadal fizzles out by 24 or 25, that hurts his resume IMO. Andre while not as dominant (not that big of a deal to me considering Pete was around), managed to grab slams all the way up to 33 years of age. Thats IMPRESSIVE. More impressive IMO than dominating in your prime, which a great player should do. It takes more to win slams as you get older and IMO that is more of a feat.

I guess I see it from a different perspective as others. I admire longevity unto later stages of the career more as I do domination over a 2-3 year period in a players prime in his early 20s.

I wont place Nadal anywheres really at a certain rank on my GOAT list until I see what he does when he cant play the game he does now and his peak is over

Pirao
04-08-2009, 03:12 PM
Still.... I want to see some longevity from Nadal at the top and some slams unto an older age. This is what hurt Borg IMO even though he did have longetivity in a sense. But he also took his ball and when home at 25 years old. That hurts his resume IMO. No doubt about I think. If Nadal fizzles out by 24 or 25, that hurts his resume IMO. Andre while not as dominant (not that big of a deal to me considering Pete was around), managed to grab slams all the way up to 33 years of age. Thats IMPRESSIVE. More impressive IMO than dominating in your prime, which a great player should do. It takes more to win slams as you get older and IMO that is more of a feat.

I guess I see it from a different perspective as others. I admire longevity unto later stages of the career more as I do domination over a 2-3 year period in a players prime in his early 20s

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think many people will agree with you that Borg is not far ahead of Agassi or that Nadal would be if he wins a True Grand Slam or 10+ slams, I for one don't...

tudwell
04-08-2009, 03:24 PM
Still.... I want to see some longevity from Nadal at the top and some slams unto an older age. This is what hurt Borg IMO even though he did have longetivity in a sense. But he also took his ball and went home at 25 years old. That hurts his resume IMO. No doubt about I think. If Nadal fizzles out by 24 or 25, that hurts his resume IMO. Andre while not as dominant (not that big of a deal to me considering Pete was around), managed to grab slams all the way up to 33 years of age. Thats IMPRESSIVE. More impressive IMO than dominating in your prime, which a great player should do. It takes more to win slams as you get older and IMO that is more of a feat.

I guess I see it from a different perspective as others. I admire longevity unto later stages of the career more as I do domination over a 2-3 year period in a players prime in his early 20s.

I wont place Nadal anywheres really at a certain rank on my GOAT list until I see what he does when he cant play the game he does now and his peak is over
Hmm. In that case, Federer losing 3 of his last 4 grand slam finals is "not that big a deal" cause Nadal's around, right?

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 03:40 PM
Hmm. In that case, Federer losing 3 of his last 4 grand slam finals is "not that big a deal" cause Nadal's around, right?


That definitely hurt Fed's chances as did PEte hurting Andre's chances. No doubt at it.

But again... Andre still managed to scrape some wins off Pete. Roger hasnt been able to do so against Nadal in quite some time now.

Andre and Pete were only one year apart and played their entire career together. Nadal while on the radar never really primed I thought until 2008 where he finally became a major player on all surfaces. And he and Fed are five years apart. A bit of difference when talking tennis.

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 03:45 PM
We are going to have to see how these next few years play out. Alot can happen in a couple of years. Just 2 years ago Fed was on the path to being hands down the best ever, and now at 27 he cant even win a tournament and has had his #1 ranking snatched from him. The same could happen to Nadal in a few years. We dont know

TennisandMusic
04-08-2009, 04:20 PM
being a "flash in the pants" does NOT give you all time great honors. it gives you the best of that year or those 2 years.


That...is not the expression.

pc1
04-08-2009, 04:52 PM
Borg would also crush Federer if they were in their primes together I believe. Federer could never play with Borg from the baseline, but Borg was better at the net and a better all court player too. He was also far tougher mentally, and a much smarter player. Federer would have the serving edge but that is it.

I don't even think Federer would have the serving edge. Borg was considered to have one of the best serves in tennis in the 1970's and 1980's. It's hard to find any stroke of Federer's that is superior to Borg's. To beat Borg Federer would have to play net and I don't think his volley is nearly good enough to hurt Borg.

I can tell you why I rate Borg above Federer:
- Borg as Federer was the top player in tennis for four years straight from 1977 to 1980 (I would say co-#1 in 1977); Roger had a more dominant stretch as #1, though
- but, Borg put together more years as as a top-three player
- Borg had no apparent surface weakness
- Borg did not have a losing record against a rival player

So, in terms of quality years, it comes down to:

Borg (8 )

#1 (4) - 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 (1977 - three-way tie with Vilas and Connors)
#2 (2) - 1976, 1981
#3 (2) - 1974, 1975

Federer (6)

#1 (4) - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
#2 (2) - 2003, 2008

It's close, but Roger still has a bit of work to do to eclipse Borg, in my opinion.

Counting majors is of course a waste of time, because Borg didn't play the Australian.

As for Nadal, he just put together his first year as #1 in 2008. Another one this year would greatly bolster his stock. He's already proven on grass and clay - where he's lacking is on fast hardcourt surfaces, especially indoors.

I agree with you on all counts. Also Borg has a much higher winning percentage in tournament play and his winning percentage in majors as opposed to tournaments entered is higher than Federer's. You throw in the fact Borg (despite the inaccurate ATP records) won many more tournaments than Federer and it's very hard for Federer to ever be rated over Borg, even though it is possible if he has a number of super years.

Nadal is already an all time great but last year was clearly his best year. I believe he had a 77-10 record which is super, especially considering his youth. He'll only be 23 this year.

Can he have the dominant years that Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Federer and Laver have had during the Open Era? It's possible but he hasn't had it yet. Connors at 22 won three majors in 1974 and 99 of 103 matches. Of course a lot of those wins were on the inferior Bill Riordan tour. At this stage of Nadal's career he is ahead of Connors.

Borg at 22 won the Italian, French and Wimbledon and probably would have won the U.S. Open if he wasn't injured. At 23 Borg won the French and Wimbledon again. Borg also won way over 90% of his matches in both those years and actually won over 90% of his matches over a five year period from 77 to 81. Nadal is far behind Borg at the same age.

Laver at 24 won the Grand Slam and six majors but it was against an inferior amateur field so I would actually say that Nadal is ahead of Laver at the same age. However Laver went on eventually to dominate the Pro Tour with Hall of Famers like Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez and Gimeno plus he won another Grand Slam in 1969 against an Open Field. Laver won close to 200 tournaments in his great career.

At this stage of Nadal's career you can't rate him ahead of Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Connors, Gonzalez, Tilden, Lendl for their whole careers but I would project he would almost definitely overtake players like Agassi and I think it's not out of the question he surpasses Sampras and Federer. Gonzalez is hard to project because much of his career was spent on tours against one opponent like Lew Hoad or Tony Trabert. Because Nadal is so young and has accomplished so much you cannot rule out the possibility he may be the GOAT someday but it is hard to imagine him surpassing players like Laver.

Incidentally I cannot believe one Nadal fan in this thread thought Nadal would triple bagel Laver. Let's have some realism here.

helloworld
04-08-2009, 05:15 PM
Incidentally I cannot believe one Nadal fan in this thread thought Nadal would triple bagel Laver. Let's have some realism here.[/B]
Both use old equipments, Laver wins. Both use modern equipments, Nadal wins hands down. Conclusion, we can't compare players from different generations. The best a player can do is to be the best of his/her generation.

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 05:26 PM
being a "flash in the pants" does NOT give you all time great honors. it gives you the best of that year or those 2 years.

besides sampras and fed have how many slams? and how many does nadal have if he sweeps this year.. thats right, still not enough.

he had a good last year, looks like a great this year.. one more year and he would start climbing the list imo. and in anyones opinion cept nadal fans.

and comparing nadal to agassi is bad news.. agassi is the one player who undoubtably had more mental toughness than nadal. besides Agassi's career is the clear exception to any tennis rule of thumb known. Winning a Slam at 31 today is laughable. there is and will only ever be one agassi

he needs at least 5 more slams from now to be considered GOAT in my humble opinion. he cannot gain those in this calendar year.

Agassi, lost 7 of the 15 grand slam finals that he reached. Nadal has lost 2 of 8. Agassi, had a losing record against his greatest rival Sampras. Nadal, has owned all of his rivals. What more does he need to have over Andre?

And why do you think that Agassi has more mental toughness than Nadal? Or were you joking?

Bud
04-08-2009, 05:29 PM
I have noticed that a lot of people in the forum rank Borg above Federer, even though Fed has won more GS and has been 4 straight years #1, so I guess it's because winning the channel slam weights heavily in the list of acomplishments. So, if Nadal wins it two years in a row, where would you rank him among the all time greats?

I don't think any reasonable person would rank Borg above Federer on the all-time greats list.

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 05:33 PM
In my opinion, if Rafa wins the calendar year grand slam this year, then he is the GOAT.

If not then he's third behind Sampras and Federer.

Bud
04-08-2009, 05:35 PM
being a "flash in the pants" does NOT give you all time great honors. it gives you the best of that year or those 2 years.

besides sampras and fed have how many slams? and how many does nadal have if he sweeps this year.. thats right, still not enough.

he had a good last year, looks like a great this year.. one more year and he would start climbing the list imo. and in anyones opinion cept nadal fans.

and comparing nadal to agassi is bad news.. agassi is the one player who undoubtably had more mental toughness than nadal. besides Agassi's career is the clear exception to any tennis rule of thumb known. Winning a Slam at 31 today is laughable. there is and will only ever be one agassi

he needs at least 5 more slams from now to be considered GOAT in my humble opinion. he cannot gain those in this calendar year.

The correct expression is Flash in the Pan. I don't even want to venture to guess what a flash in the pants would be... :shock: :lol:

"Nevertheless, gold prospecting isn't the origin of 'a flash in the pan'. The phrase did have a literal meaning, i.e. it derives from a real flash in a real pan, but not a prospector's pan. Flintlock muskets used to have small pans to hold charges of gunpowder. An attempt to fire the musket in which the gunpowder flared up without a bullet being fired was a 'flash in the pan'."

"The term has been known since the late 17th century. Elkanah Settle, in Reflections on several of Mr. Dryden's plays 1687, had this to say:..."

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/flash-in-the-pan.html

veroniquem
04-08-2009, 05:39 PM
In my opinion, if Rafa wins the calendar year grand slam this year, then he is the GOAT.

If not then he's third behind Sampras and Federer.
That's the way I feel about it. A calendar slam on 3 surfaces on top of an unprecedented domination of one surface, that would be extraordinary.

vtmike
04-08-2009, 05:41 PM
That's the way I feel about it. A calendar slam on 3 surfaces on top of an unprecedented domination of one surface, that would be extraordinary.

He doesn't need that...isn't he already the GOAT?

egn
04-08-2009, 05:45 PM
I agree with the lets wait until he has some longevity. If he wins 3 slams this year thats very nice but if he follows it up with a one slam year and then is done for his whole career...yea no he is right above Lendl. Which puts Laver, Borg, Fed, Sampras ahead of him in the open era. So that makes him 5 in the open era. All time he would be low top 10 but still...if he wins the calendar year I would still like to see some follow up. There needs to be more than just him winning this calendar year. If he wins this it definitely helps him but he still needs to tack on a few more years at the top.

Hot Sauce
04-08-2009, 05:46 PM
To misspell the players name that you are talking about reflects the amount of thought that you have put into this thread.

veroniquem
04-08-2009, 05:47 PM
He doesn't need that...isn't he already the GOAT?
Is he? :shock:
I don't think there is a clear GOAT at this point in time, maybe there will never be and it's better this way. 1 player cannot beat every record.

Bud
04-08-2009, 05:48 PM
very interesting post.

i gotta disagree on federer having a weak surface and borg not having one. fed has multiple clay titles and more than a handful of clay finals, where he has lost to the beast that is rafael nadal on clay. borg, otoh, never won a us open, despite (like you point out) being at the top of the game-top 3- for 8 years. overall, fed is pretty dominant on clay except when he plays rafa.

i do agree, however, with your view of the Aussie Open back then; it just wasn't considered a huge slam, like today. borg would 've won a handful, presumably, not to mention the fact that bjorn retired at 25.

Cyborg, your emphasis on being at the top for long time (not just 3 or 4 years) has got me thinking. If Federer continues to lose points and falls to #3 or #4 or worse within the next 4 months, his GOAT status will become jeopardized to my mind, at least.

Like you say, Borg was top 3 for 8 years. Federer was throwing rackets and tantrums until 2003 and although still #2 in early 2008, looks to be headed downward, as he can't beat the de facto top 3. See 0-10 record against Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, in last 10 meetings.

When Borg dominated tennis, the AO was played on grass and the USO on HAR-TRU (i.e. clay). The USO was a clay court tournament from 1975-1978, at which point it switched to Deco-Turf. Prior to 1975, the USO was played on grass.

Jimmy Connors was the only player who won the USO on all 3 surfaces (grass, clay and hard) :)

So... Connors was the first man to win a GS on all 3 surfaces :grin:

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 05:51 PM
He doesn't need that...isn't he already the GOAT?

It's somewhat debatable at this point. Sampras, has the greatest amount of majors but sucky results on clay. Federer, is right behind Sampras but doesn't have very good results on clay either. Laver, won the grand slam back in 1969 and even Borg some how got himself into contention for the GOAT (despite having never won a hard court slam or winning the US Open.)

If Nadal wins the calendar year grand slam then he is the first person to win all of the slams, on 3 different surfaces, in the same year. I think that would have to make him the GOAT, if he's able to do that.

pc1
04-08-2009, 05:54 PM
I don't think any reasonable person would rank Borg above Federer on the all-time greats list.

Federer has won more majors than Borg but in more tries. By percentage Borg has a higher winning percentage as far as majors won to majors entered. Borg has won far more tournaments than Federer, unofficially I believe it's over 90 because the ATP records are so poor. Borg has a higher lifetime winning percentage than Federer at around 85 or 86 percentage to Federer's a little over 80%. Borg had a five year span in which he won 90% of his matches. He also won on clay, grass and yes hard courts like the Canadian Open.

I'm not necessarily saying in this post that Borg is better than Federer but it's not unreasonable for people to rate Borg over Federer. If someone says Federer is better than Borg, it's fine with me and if someone says Borg's better than Federer that is also fine. I just want to point out Borg is not chopped liver.

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 05:59 PM
The Calendar slam is a great feat for sure. BUT.... just for Nadal being able to accomplish this feat, could not put him in the running for GOAT just yet. As I and Egn alluded to he would need to folllow this up with more years of number 1. He hasnt even been number 1 for a year yet. The calendar slam would only give him 9 slams anyways. Some longevity would definitely cement Nadal as GOAT though if he could follow these past 2 years up with a few more.

Ahh well. Its all subjective anyways the GOAT debate is. Tennis may be the one sport that it may always be impossible to prove the GOAT unless every record is completely shattered. And so far there isnt a player that has came along to do that yet.

Bud
04-08-2009, 06:01 PM
Federer has won more majors than Borg but in more tries. By percentage Borg has a higher winning percentage as far as majors won to majors entered. Borg has won far more tournaments than Federer, unofficially I believe it's over 90 because the ATP records are so poor. Borg has a higher lifetime winning percentage than Federer at around 85 or 86 percentage to Federer's a little over 80%. Borg had a five year span in which he won 90% of his matches. He also won on clay, grass and yes hard courts like the Canadian Open.

I'm not necessarily saying in this post that Borg is better than Federer but it's not unreasonable for people to rate Borg over Federer. If someone says Federer is better than Borg, it's fine with me and if someone says Borg's better than Federer that is also fine. I just want to point out Borg is not chopped liver.

Agreed, he's not chopped liver :)

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 06:01 PM
Federer has won more majors than Borg but in more tries. By percentage Borg has a higher winning percentage as far as majors won to majors entered. Borg has won far more tournaments than Federer, unofficially I believe it's over 90 because the ATP records are so poor. Borg has a higher lifetime winning percentage than Federer at around 85 or 86 percentage to Federer's a little over 80%. Borg had a five year span in which he won 90% of his matches. He also won on clay, grass and yes hard courts like the Canadian Open.

I'm not necessarily saying in this post that Borg is better than Federer but it's not unreasonable for people to rate Borg over Federer. If someone says Federer is better than Borg, it's fine with me and if someone says Borg's better than Federer that is also fine. I just want to point out Borg is not chopped liver.

Well the number of tries shouldnt matter. Borg was gone by 26. Not Fed's fault Borg took his ball and went home. Fed is still at least slugging it out. He hasnt just QUIT like Borg when the going got a little tough.

vtmike
04-08-2009, 06:01 PM
The Calendar slam is a great feat for sure. BUT.... just for Nadal being able to accomplish this feat, could not put him in the running for GOAT just yet. As I and Egn alluded to he would need to folllow this up with more years of number 1. He hasnt even been number 1 for a year yet. The calendar slam would only give him 9 slams anyways. Some longevity would definitely cement Nadal as GOAT though if he could follow these past 2 years up with a few more.

Ahh well. Its all subjective anyways the GOAT debate is. Tennis may be the one sport that it may always be impossible to prove the GOAT unless every record is completely shattered. And so far there isnt a player that has came along to do that yet.

But you also have to remember Nadal is playing a weak field full of crappy players...

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 06:01 PM
The Calendar slam is a great feat for sure. BUT.... just for Nadal being able to accomplish this feat, could not put him in the running for GOAT just yet. As I and Egn alluded to he would need to folllow this up with more years of number 1. He hasnt even been number 1 for a year yet. The calendar slam would only give him 9 slams anyways. Some longevity would definitely cement Nadal as GOAT though if he could follow these past 2 years up with a few more.

Ahh well. Its all subjective anyways the GOAT debate is. Tennis may be the one sport that it may always be impossible to prove the GOAT unless every record is completely shattered. And so far there isnt a player that has came along to do that yet.

Don't forget that if Nadal wins the Grand slam that he will be undefeated at the French Open. Has anyone in the history of the game ever been undefeated at a major? For 5 years?

Bud
04-08-2009, 06:02 PM
But you also have to remember Nadal is playing a weak field full of crappy players...

Guess what, that "weak field full of crappy players" is also beating Federer on a regular basis.

This argument is tired and inaccurate.

vtmike
04-08-2009, 06:04 PM
This argument is tired and inaccurate.

It maybe...but that's only in your opinion...I am sure many would agree

Bud
04-08-2009, 06:05 PM
Don't forget that if Nadal wins the Grand slam that he will be undefeated at the French Open. Has anyone in the history of the game ever been undefeated at a major? For 5 years?

Federer was going for his 6th straight Wimbledon title in 2008 when Nadal knocked him out.

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 06:06 PM
It maybe...but that's only in your opinion...I am sure many would agree

Only people who don't have an appreciation for the modern game.

Bud
04-08-2009, 06:06 PM
It maybe...but that's only in your opinion...I am sure many would agree

So then you also agree that these weak crappy players can beat Federer?

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 06:07 PM
Don't forget that if Nadal wins the Grand slam that he will be undefeated at the French Open. Has anyone in the history of the game ever been undefeated at a major? For 5 years?

No but... You have to figure Nadal will eventually lose sometime at RG if he continues to play. Borg still has more French's than Nadal. Thats kind of the point.. Its too early to tell. We would have to see how Nadal is going to be in the coming years when his peak ends and he is still trying to stay in the mix. Nadal wont stay at this level for ever. It will be interesting to see how he responds as he gets older and he isnt quite as good as he is now. How he can respond to that will say alot. Fed for instance, isnt responding very well and he was on his way to GOAT status just 2 years ago

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 06:08 PM
Federer was going for his 6th straight Wimbledon title in 2008 when Nadal knocked him out.

Right, but he wasn't undefeated at Wimbledon when he was going for his sixth. He had already lost a few time in the early 2000's.

vtmike
04-08-2009, 06:10 PM
So then you also agree that these weak crappy players can beat Federer?

Federer is a crappy player who got lucky by getting rigged draws & a weak playing field according to Nadal_Freak and GameSampras...So since Nadal has won almost all his slams by beating Federer, that makes him a crappy player too...its simple logic if you think about it...:-|

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 06:13 PM
Federer is a crappy player who got lucky by getting rigged draws & a weak playing field according to Nadal_Freak and GameSampras...So since Nadal has won almost all his slams by beating Federer, that makes him a crappy player too...its simple logic if you think about it...:-|


oh come on... the field at Fed's peak was "weaker" than it is now. You going to deny that? Are u going to tell me young pre puberty Nadal, Kiefer, Baghaditis, Blake, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Davy etc in the quarters, semis, of finals of slams equates to a tougher draw than Murray, Djoker, Prime Nadal? I DONT THINK SO!!!


Try you're best and convince me. Its glaring obvious that today's top players are on another level compared to 3-5 years ago

Bud
04-08-2009, 06:14 PM
Right, but he wasn't undefeated at Wimbledon when he was going for his sixth. He had already lost a few time in the early 2000's.

No, those were straight wins (2003-2007).

Nadal is going for 5 straight FO's (2005-2009).

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
04-08-2009, 06:15 PM
Believe me or don't believe me, but I have never seen a human in my life play tennis quite like Rafael Nadal. I would rank him #1 of all time.

pc1
04-08-2009, 06:15 PM
Agreed, he's not chopped liver :)

lol. I'm not sure how to take that and I'm not going to ask. :)

Bud
04-08-2009, 06:16 PM
Believe me or don't believe me, but I have never seen a human in my life play tennis quite like Rafael Nadal. I would rank him #1 of all time.

Well, how old are you? I'm betting your 'life' hasn't been very long.

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 06:16 PM
Federer is a crappy player who got lucky by getting rigged draws & a weak playing field according to Nadal_Freak and GameSampras...So since Nadal has won almost all his slams by beating Federer, that makes him a crappy player too...its simple logic if you think about it...:-|

No. If you were to use that logic, it would mean that Nadal is an untested player because he wins slams against crappy players. That doesn't mean that Nadal is bad, it just means that players like Federer and Murray aren't capable of actually testing him.

Bud
04-08-2009, 06:18 PM
lol. I'm not sure how to take that and I'm not going to ask. :)

Lol! I pretty much agree with your post :)

IMO, however, Fed is slightly ahead of Borg now... considering his total number of weeks at #1, his GS titles and GS finals.

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 06:19 PM
Believe me or don't believe me, but I have never seen a human in my life play tennis quite like Rafael Nadal. I would rank him #1 of all time.

Yeah, I agree, there's no player quite like him.

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 06:20 PM
Lol! I pretty much agree with your post :)

IMO, however, Fed is slightly ahead of Borg now... considering his total number of weeks at #1, his GS titles and GS finals.

I agree Fed is ahead of Borg when looking at the overrall picture IMO . Resumes are close but Fed's slams and his performances and results on the wide spectrum of surfaces, his consectuve slam semi appearances, Slam count, weeks of number 1 etc puts Fed ahead of Borg. Borg has the better winning percentage but that doesnt eclipse what Fed has accomplished over Borg. This Borg GOAT candidate talk is ludicrous IMO. The guy QUIT tennis at 26. I mean gimme a break. I dont care if he got 11 slams during that time. He still quit. That undeniably hurt his legacy and resume greatly I feel. Its still impressive what Borg accomplished but not enough to be considered GOAT.

If you quit tennis all together at only 26 years old. You shouldnt be in consideration for the GOAT title. No way no how

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 06:23 PM
I agree Fed is ahead of Borg when looking at the overrall picture IMO . Resumes are close but Fed's slams and his performances and results on the wide spectrum of surfaces, his consectuve slam semi appearances, Slam count, weeks of number 1 etc puts Fed ahead of Borg. Borg has the better winning percentage but that doesnt eclipse what Fed has accomplished over Borg.

Don't see how Borg is even close to Fed, since Borg has fewer slams and no where near as many consecutive grand slam semi-finals.

pc1
04-08-2009, 06:26 PM
Lol! I pretty much agree with your post :)

IMO, however, Fed is slightly ahead of Borg now... considering his total number of weeks at #1, his GS titles and GS finals.

No problem. I understand your logic.

However this thread seems to be deteriorating into a Nadal versus Federer debate. My feeling is that if Nadal wins the French and Wimbledon, he could be argued as top ten material but it's very early to rate him the GOAT. I don't think he's even won 40 ATP tournaments yet. I think Nadal can move up to very high on the all time list, who knows, maybe number one someday but not yet. We have to wait.

GameSampras
04-08-2009, 06:28 PM
Don't see how Borg is even close to Fed, since Borg has fewer slams and no where near as many consecutive grand slam semi-finals.

I agree. To this day, I have no idea why "Borg" and "GOAT" are even in the same sentence. He prolly has the LEAST amount of chance to even be considered out of Fed, Laver, Sampras,Tilden, Gonzales, etc at this point. Fed is still playing reaching slam finals, Laver has the calendar and longevity unto late age and the same amount of slams as Borg, Sampras has 6 years of number 1, slam record and longevity into his 30s. When the math was done I think Gonzales unofficially had 9 or 10 years of number 1 I have read and was winning into his 30s or 40s. Meanwhile Borg quits at 26. i dont get it.

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 06:39 PM
I agree. To this day, I have no idea why "Borg" and "GOAT" are even in the same sentence. He prolly has the LEAST amount of chance to even be considered out of Fed, Laver, Sampras,Tilden, Gonzales, etc at this point. Fed is still playing reaching slam finals, Laver has the calendar and longevity unto late age and the same amount of slams as Borg, Sampras has 6 years of number 1, slam record and longevity into his 30s. When the math was done I think Gonzales unofficially had 9 or 10 years of number 1 I have read and was winning into his 30s or 40s. Meanwhile Borg quits at 26. i dont get it.

I also think Tilden doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the GOAT list since tennis has changed too much in 80 years. I was born in the 90s, so I wasn't around to see Tilden but I saw this video of Fred Perry and it quickly influenced my opinion of the players from that time period:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBeGjfCvCIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezUDvIzZmWg&NR=1

It's also strange to see no jump serves, in these videos. Apparently players from the distant past, mainly used toe serves, which usually results in a slight loss of power.

deltox
04-08-2009, 06:41 PM
I also think Tilden doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the GOAT list since tennis has changed too much in 80 years. I was born in the 90s, so I wasn't around to see Tilden but I saw this video of Fred Perry and it quickly influenced my opinion of the players from that time period:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBeGjfCvCIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezUDvIzZmWg&NR=1

It's also strange to see no jump serves, in these videos. Apparently players from the distant past, mainly used toe serves, which usually results in a slight loss of power.

try a big jump serve with a wooden racquet a few times and you will understand. besides they weighed 2 tons more than todays sticks it lacked the string control we have today also. go hit with one someday.. its an interesting trip

clayman2000
04-08-2009, 06:51 PM
No but... You have to figure Nadal will eventually lose sometime at RG if he continues to play. Borg still has more French's than Nadal. Thats kind of the point.. Its too early to tell. We would have to see how Nadal is going to be in the coming years when his peak ends and he is still trying to stay in the mix. Nadal wont stay at this level for ever. It will be interesting to see how he responds as he gets older and he isnt quite as good as he is now. How he can respond to that will say alot. Fed for instance, isnt responding very well and he was on his way to GOAT status just 2 years ago

For once I agree with you

Right now Borg > Nadal on clay. But if Nadal wins the French this year i think Nadal would take a slim edge.

Also, its hard to compare Federer on 2 years ago to Nadal on clay, as Federer had been pushed at Wimby, and guys like Djokovic were breaking through. To this day, no one has pushed Nadal at RG.

tudwell
04-08-2009, 06:52 PM
I also think Tilden doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the GOAT list since tennis has changed too much in 80 years. I was born in the 90s, so I wasn't around to see Tilden but I saw this video of Fred Perry and it quickly influenced my opinion of the players from that time period:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBeGjfCvCIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezUDvIzZmWg&NR=1

It's also strange to see no jump serves, in these videos. Apparently players from the distant past, mainly used toe serves, which usually results in a slight loss of power.
There used to be a rule that one foot had to remain on the ground at all times throughout the serve.

Bud
04-08-2009, 06:53 PM
I also think Tilden doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the GOAT list since tennis has changed too much in 80 years. I was born in the 90s, so I wasn't around to see Tilden but I saw this video of Fred Perry and it quickly influenced my opinion of the players from that time period:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBeGjfCvCIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezUDvIzZmWg&NR=1

It's also strange to see no jump serves, in these videos. Apparently players from the distant past, mainly used toe serves, which usually results in a slight loss of power.

IIRC, jump serves were illegal at a certain time in the past.

I'm sure someone will correct me on this, if I'm mistaken :twisted:

Just saw your post, Tudwell.

deltox
04-08-2009, 06:58 PM
There used to be a rule that one foot had to remain on the ground at all times throughout the serve.

that rule would have sucked.

watched tennis since early 80s and never knew bout it.. when did it come into effect?

JoshDragon
04-08-2009, 07:26 PM
For once I agree with you

Right now Borg > Nadal on clay. But if Nadal wins the French this year i think Nadal would take a slim edge.

Also, its hard to compare Federer on 2 years ago to Nadal on clay, as Federer had been pushed at Wimby, and guys like Djokovic were breaking through. To this day, no one has pushed Nadal at RG.

Not sure about Borg being greater than Nadal on clay right now. I think they're about even. Remember, Borg lost the 1976 US Open to Jimmy Connors (which was played) on clay. Connors defeated Borg in 4 sets. If Nadal had been able to play the 2006 US Open on clay there's no question he would have won (even if it was har-tru.)

deltox: I think that rule might have been from a long time ago. Possibly before Laver and Rosewall.

FEDERER>buttpicker.
04-08-2009, 07:48 PM
nadal will never be a great.

pc1
04-08-2009, 09:15 PM
Guys, I just want to put the Fred Perry comment in perspective. I think anyone would agree that Serena or Venus Williams can belt the tennis ball extremely hard and with tremendous spin on both serve and groundstrokes. From what I gather I believe Fred Perry was at least 6 feet tall and was extremely fast and with a wood racket he could hit the ball very hard for the times.

I'll give you all this, in watching the video of Perry and I have seen other clips of him, he does look awful.

My question to all of you is this, do you think a male player in the 1930's over six feet tall, very fit and in shape couldn't hit the ball much much harder than either of the Williams sisters with today's rackets? I think Venus can serve over 120 mph so I have a hunch Perry just may be able to do that if he was young and alive. My point is that you have to take racket technology and rules into account before you look at old tennis clips. Perry would probably double bagel the Williams sisters and I wouldn't be surprised if he was extremely competitive with today's players because he would have used our rackets and the same training techniques of today.

Just something to think about.

egn
04-08-2009, 09:26 PM
Not sure about Borg being greater than Nadal on clay right now. I think they're about even. Remember, Borg lost the 1976 US Open to Jimmy Connors (which was played) on clay. Connors defeated Borg in 4 sets. If Nadal had been able to play the 2006 US Open on clay there's no question he would have won (even if it was har-tru.)

deltox: I think that rule might have been from a long time ago. Possibly before Laver and Rosewall.

Borg won 6 opens..and Connors was no crappy clay courter. Nadal has lost to a fair share of guys on clay also..he lost to Federer at Hamburg, Coria at Monte Carlo, and even lost to Gaudio at Hamburg. Har-tru is not red clay and you can't be so sure of that. It is faster than red clay and some even say it plays kind of like a slow hardcourt so it could be possible he be beaten on it. THough we will never know and that does not make Borg any less of a clay courter. The guy won 6 French Opens..He was an amazing clay court player it is hard to say which one is better, but lets let Nadal's career finish first.

helloworld
04-08-2009, 09:32 PM
Borg won 6 opens..and Connors was no crappy clay courter. Nadal has lost to a fair share of guys on clay also..he lost to Federer at Hamburg, Coria at Monte Carlo, and even lost to Gaudio at Hamburg. Har-tru is not red clay and you can't be so sure of that. It is faster than red clay and some even say it plays kind of like a slow hardcourt so it could be possible he be beaten on it. THough we will never know and that does not make Borg any less of a clay courter. The guy won 6 French Opens..He was an amazing clay court player it is hard to say which one is better, but lets let Nadal's career finish first.

Not to mention that he would have won a few more French Open if he didn't retire at 25. Unlike grass where McEnroe was a challenge, Borg was peerless on clay.

veroniquem
04-08-2009, 10:36 PM
Borg won 6 opens..and Connors was no crappy clay courter. Nadal has lost to a fair share of guys on clay also..he lost to Federer at Hamburg, Coria at Monte Carlo, and even lost to Gaudio at Hamburg. Har-tru is not red clay and you can't be so sure of that. It is faster than red clay and some even say it plays kind of like a slow hardcourt so it could be possible he be beaten on it. THough we will never know and that does not make Borg any less of a clay courter. The guy won 6 French Opens..He was an amazing clay court player it is hard to say which one is better, but lets let Nadal's career finish first.
Nadal's only loss to Coria was when he was 16 years old and his last loss to Gaudio was when he was 18!! Here is a list of all the players Borg lost to on clay when he was 17 and 18 years old (have fun with it): Guillermo Vilas, Barry Phillips-Moore, Jose Higueras, Manuel Orantes, Raul Ramirez, Stan Smith, Adriano Panatta, Paul Gerken, Tadeusz Nowicki, Ilie Nastase, Corrado Barazzutti, Jimmy Connors and Rod Laver. Still think Rafa is worse? Lol.
Also at 22 years old, Borg had won 3 RG and non consecutive. Rafa has won 4 consecutive RG.
The records show that Nadal is better on clay than Borg at least at this point in time.

grafselesfan
04-08-2009, 10:42 PM
Not to mention that he would have won a few more French Open if he didn't retire at 25. Unlike grass where McEnroe was a challenge, Borg was peerless on clay.

Well I sort of see what you are saying but isnt that more an argument against him than for him. It is not like he was stopped by stabbing, personal tragedy, or even injury. He stopped due to burnout. I dont see why he would get any extra consideration for that, if anything it is a mark against him to get burnt out and retire at only 25 when he could have won more if he had fought on.

Pirao
04-09-2009, 12:34 AM
Well I sort of see what you are saying but isnt that more an argument against him than for him. It is not like he was stopped by stabbing, personal tragedy, or even injury. He stopped due to burnout. I dont see why he would get any extra consideration for that, if anything it is a mark against him to get burnt out and retire at only 25 when he could have won more if he had fought on.

^^ Exactly. However, Borg still has more FO than Nadal, however, if Nadal wins FO this year, and then 1 FO more, it would be even more impressive than what Borg did IMO. And if Nadal wins 6 straight FO (or even more), there would be no question about who is the best claycourter.

Gorecki
04-09-2009, 12:44 AM
ten year career, pains and wear and tear on the body, ups and downs of winning and defeat. how many u know that could continue to compete at his level or play with all that?

you are thinking Safin\Coria\Hewitt et. al. by any chance?:)

vtmike
04-09-2009, 01:23 AM
No. If you were to use that logic, it would mean that Nadal is an untested player because he wins slams against crappy players. That doesn't mean that Nadal is bad, it just means that players like Federer and Murray aren't capable of actually testing him.

Well that's my point...Nadal has been untested = Nadal so far has not proved he is a good player...because all Nadal has done so far is beat a crappy player like Federer to win all his grand slams...So that means he is a "untested" ala crappy player

Pirao
04-09-2009, 01:40 AM
Well that's my point...Nadal has been untested = Nadal so far has not proved he is a good player...because all Nadal has done so far is beat a crappy player like Federer to win all his grand slams...So that means he is a "untested" ala crappy player

Lol what? Nadal is untested? Are you trolling my friend?

vtmike
04-09-2009, 01:42 AM
oh come on... the field at Fed's peak was "weaker" than it is now. You going to deny that? Are u going to tell me young pre puberty Nadal, Kiefer, Baghaditis, Blake, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Davy etc in the quarters, semis, of finals of slams equates to a tougher draw than Murray, Djoker, Prime Nadal? I DONT THINK SO!!!


Try you're best and convince me. Its glaring obvious that today's top players are on another level compared to 3-5 years ago

By implying he had a weak playing field, got rigged draws, you are implying that he was a pathetic player who just got "lucky". Ok then I agree that Federer was a pathetic player...but you cannot have it both ways...If Fed was and is a pathetic player then so is Nadal...because all he had to do was beat this pathetic player time after time in GS finals!

Oh and btw what have today's "strong field" i.e. players like Murray and Djokovic done that that is so far ahead in terms of accomplishment as compared to GS winners, multiple GS finalists & former number 1's like Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi (who played his best tennis in his 30's according to him), Safin, Philippoussis...etc.?

He has also defeated Djokovic twice in grand slams & Murray once...All Murray has done is win Masters 1000 tournaments and all of a sudden he is one of the best in history? Djokovic has won only one slam, has a hundred physical conditioning problems, who breaks down in 80 F temperatures after playing two sets, and finally Federer who is pathetic player according to you........So you are trying to say these players are the strongest competition for a ranked 1 player and comprise of what you call a "strong playing field"? :confused:

vtmike
04-09-2009, 01:43 AM
Lol what? Nadal is untested? Are you trolling my friend?

See post above ^^^

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 02:23 AM
By implying he had a weak playing field, got rigged draws, you are implying that he was a pathetic player who just got "lucky". Ok then I agree that Federer was a pathetic player...but you cannot have it both ways...If Fed was and is a pathetic player then so is Nadal...because all he had to do was beat this pathetic player time after time in GS finals!

Oh and btw what have today's "strong field" i.e. players like Murray and Djokovic done that that is so far ahead in terms of accomplishment as compared to GS winners, multiple GS finalists & former number 1's like Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi (who played his best tennis in his 30's according to him), Safin, Philippoussis...etc.?

He has also defeated Djokovic twice in grand slams & Murray once...All Murray has done is win Masters 1000 tournaments and all of a sudden he is one of the best in history? Djokovic has won only one slam, has a hundred physical conditioning problems, who breaks down in 80 F temperatures after playing two sets, and finally Federer who is pathetic player according to you........So you are trying to say these players are the strongest competition for a ranked 1 player and comprise of what you call a "strong playing field"? :confused:


While Murray has yet to win a slam, and Djoker is struggling now it still doesnt negate the fact IMO that both he and Murray, along with Nadal now are better competition and better players than ANY PLAYER Fed played for that 4 year time span. Murray's time has not yet come but its almost there, and Djoker is flat out better than Hewitt, Roddick, and the rest were. Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition and are just plain better players than those of a few years ago. Im not saying Fed's field was 04-07 was WEAK. Just not as strong as many different eras of the past. Most will never equate 04-07 to being some memorable field of great players and its not just because Fed made it mook so easy. Yes Im saying Murray, Djoker, Prime Nadal present better competition than the others. You havent convinced me yet Hewitt, Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Safin, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, etc provided any better competition.

pc1
04-09-2009, 03:57 AM
Borg won 6 opens..and Connors was no crappy clay courter. Nadal has lost to a fair share of guys on clay also..he lost to Federer at Hamburg, Coria at Monte Carlo, and even lost to Gaudio at Hamburg. Har-tru is not red clay and you can't be so sure of that. It is faster than red clay and some even say it plays kind of like a slow hardcourt so it could be possible he be beaten on it. THough we will never know and that does not make Borg any less of a clay courter. The guy won 6 French Opens..He was an amazing clay court player it is hard to say which one is better, but lets let Nadal's career finish first.

I agree. Let's see what happens at the end of Nadal's career. Incidentally the thread is about how does Nadal rank if he wins the FO And Wimbledon this year. Nadal of course would move up the all time list but he's not close to Borg yet.

Here's Borg's resume-Five Wimbledons and Six French and he has won about 100 tournaments. The ATP tour records are inaccurate. About an 85 to 86 percent lifetime winning percentage which is the highest of all time, Nadal currently is at around 82 percent and 33 titles with six majors. Spin the numbers in any way you want, he's behind Borg as of now.

But Nadal is improving every year and I wouldn't rule out Nadal eventually catching and passing Borg. I greatly respect his game.

pc1
04-09-2009, 05:05 AM
Actually one approach to the question would be this, if Nadal won the French and Wimbledon, who would probably still rank above him?

I'll throw out a few names, Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Federer, Tilden. Now Nadal would jump ahead of a number of them in total majors like McEnroe but Mac has I believe 77 or more tournament victories, Year End Masters titles, WCT titles so I think Mac would still be ahead etc. Connors has over 100 tournament victories and eight majors so I believe Connors would still be ahead, same with Lendl. I don't want to go over the achievement of every player here but I think it's reasonable that these guys would still rank over Nadal.

Laver would be tough for anyone to catch, about 200 tournaments won, two Grand Slams plus a Pro Slam in 1967 and about 19 total majors. Possible but very hard but that's why Laver is called the GOAT by many. The resume is ridiculous.

cknobman
04-09-2009, 06:55 AM
I like how Nadal fans like to diminish Feds achievements by saying hes played against a weak field and then have the nerve to boast about how great Nadal is on clay when the reality is Nadal has won all of his French Opens, Wimbledon, and AO(not to mention his masters titles) playing against the exact same field. LOL

Of course the argument from a Nadal fan would be that the field has gotten immensely stronger the last two years and that is why Fed has struggled. Well, Nadals first couple of French Opens were against a weak field still so we shouldnt count those when we speak of his greatness then, correct? If the logic applies to Fed how can it not apply to Nadal?

And true Nadal does have a huge lead in the h2h against Federer and that does not look good on Feds greatness but I dont think its an apples to apples comparison. Fed is Nadals elder of what 5-6 years? So while they have played each other and can be considered same generation I feel its more of a "similar" generation and not same. Same would be Nadal and Fed being close to same age much like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

vtmike
04-09-2009, 07:12 AM
I like how Nadal fans like to diminish Feds achievements by saying hes played against a weak field and then have the nerve to boast about how great Nadal is on clay when the reality is Nadal has won all of his French Opens, Wimbledon, and AO(not to mention his masters titles) playing against the exact same field. LOL

Of course the argument from a Nadal fan would be that the field has gotten immensely stronger the last two years and that is why Fed has struggled. Well, Nadals first couple of French Opens were against a weak field still so we shouldnt count those when we speak of his greatness then, correct? If the logic applies to Fed how can it not apply to Nadal?

And true Nadal does have a huge lead in the h2h against Federer and that does not look good on Feds greatness but I dont think its an apples to apples comparison. Fed is Nadals elder of what 5-6 years? So while they have played each other and can be considered same generation I feel its more of a "similar" generation and not same. Same would be Nadal and Fed being close to same age much like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

That was exactly my point in post below...Apparently the weak field logic only applies to Fed and not Nadal :roll:

By implying he had a weak playing field, got rigged draws, you are implying that he was a pathetic player who just got "lucky". Ok then I agree that Federer was a pathetic player...but you cannot have it both ways...If Fed was and is a pathetic player then so is Nadal...because all he had to do was beat this pathetic player time after time in GS finals!

Oh and btw what have today's "strong field" i.e. players like Murray and Djokovic done that that is so far ahead in terms of accomplishment as compared to GS winners, multiple GS finalists & former number 1's like Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi (who played his best tennis in his 30's according to him), Safin, Philippoussis...etc.?

He has also defeated Djokovic twice in grand slams & Murray once...All Murray has done is win Masters 1000 tournaments and all of a sudden he is one of the best in history? Djokovic has won only one slam, has a hundred physical conditioning problems, who breaks down in 80 F temperatures after playing two sets, and finally Federer who is pathetic player according to you........So you are trying to say these players are the strongest competition for a ranked 1 player and comprise of what you call a "strong playing field"? :confused:

Cesc Fabregas
04-09-2009, 07:14 AM
If Nadal wins another French-Wimby double this year to go along with his Australian he bursts into the top 10 for me.

vtmike
04-09-2009, 07:31 AM
While Murray has yet to win a slam, and Djoker is struggling now it still doesnt negate the fact IMO that both he and Murray, along with Nadal now are better competition and better players than ANY PLAYER Fed played for that 4 year time span. Murray's time has not yet come but its almost there, and Djoker is flat out better than Hewitt, Roddick, and the rest were. Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition and are just plain better players than those of a few years ago. Im not saying Fed's field was 04-07 was WEAK. Just not as strong as many different eras of the past. Most will never equate 04-07 to being some memorable field of great players and its not just because Fed made it mook so easy. Yes Im saying Murray, Djoker, Prime Nadal present better competition than the others. You havent convinced me yet Hewitt, Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Safin, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, etc provided any better competition.

Why does it not negate the fact that they are better competition? You are only speculating that the field is better, and this argument is backed up by nothing!
YOU want the current field now be better because Fed is not winning, but in reality the field was as strong as the current one...Fed just made it look weak which is very difficult (almost impossible) for you to accept...

You proved my point with this statement below:-

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

So the same argument can be made for Fed just by replacing Nadal's name with Federer in your post,

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Federer has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

The field looks better now because Federer has declined...If he was in his prime form, he still would have been winning 3 slams a year...and If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

egn
04-09-2009, 07:48 AM
Nadal's only loss to Coria was when he was 16 years old and his last loss to Gaudio was when he was 18!! Here is a list of all the players Borg lost to on clay when he was 17 and 18 years old (have fun with it): Guillermo Vilas, Barry Phillips-Moore, Jose Higueras, Manuel Orantes, Raul Ramirez, Stan Smith, Adriano Panatta, Paul Gerken, Tadeusz Nowicki, Ilie Nastase, Corrado Barazzutti, Jimmy Connors and Rod Laver. Still think Rafa is worse? Lol.
Also at 22 years old, Borg had won 3 RG and non consecutive. Rafa has won 4 consecutive RG.
The records show that Nadal is better on clay than Borg at least at this point in time.

You completly missed my point..it was saying that saying yadayada lost to this person on clay doesn't make an arguement since everyone loses on any given day. If you would have pay attention to the post I was countering he was trying to say Nadal is better because Borg lost to Connors on har-tur (not even red clay.)

tudwell
04-09-2009, 07:57 AM
Why does it not negate the fact that they are better competition? You are only speculating that the field is better, and this argument is backed up by nothing!
YOU want the current field now be better because Fed is not winning, but in reality the field was as strong as the current one...Fed just made it look weak which is very difficult (almost impossible) for you to accept...

You proved my point with this statement below:-

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

So the same argument can be made for Fed just by replacing Nadal's name with Federer in your post,

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Federer has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

The field looks better now because Federer has declined...If he was in his prime form, he still would have been winning 3 slams a year...and If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

Ahem...That's a nice bit of ownage right there, vt. Good work.

Nadalfan89
04-09-2009, 08:16 AM
What is it about Nadal that people find him so hard to give credit to? He's won 6 GS, on all surfaces, including being undefeated at RG by the age of 23. I can't even concieve how he can't be included in the top10 atleast. Based on pure talent, he's deffinitely top 5.

vtmike
04-09-2009, 11:06 AM
Ahem...That's a nice bit of ownage right there, vt. Good work.

Thank you! :)

Bud
04-09-2009, 11:25 AM
What is it about Nadal that people find him so hard to give credit to? He's won 6 GS, on all surfaces, including being undefeated at RG by the age of 23. I can't even concieve how he can't be included in the top10 atleast. Based on pure talent, he's deffinitely top 5.

You are correct.

egn
04-09-2009, 01:56 PM
Why does it not negate the fact that they are better competition? You are only speculating that the field is better, and this argument is backed up by nothing!
YOU want the current field now be better because Fed is not winning, but in reality the field was as strong as the current one...Fed just made it look weak which is very difficult (almost impossible) for you to accept...

You proved my point with this statement below:-

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

So the same argument can be made for Fed just by replacing Nadal's name with Federer in your post,

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Federer has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

The field looks better now because Federer has declined...If he was in his prime form, he still would have been winning 3 slams a year...and If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

Give this man a cigar that right there is pure ownage and one of the best things I have read in a while.

egn
04-09-2009, 02:03 PM
What is it about Nadal that people find him so hard to give credit to? He's won 6 GS, on all surfaces, including being undefeated at RG by the age of 23. I can't even concieve how he can't be included in the top10 atleast. Based on pure talent, he's deffinitely top 5.

Okay he is not the first man to be amazing and since when has the age you accomplished something made you great. THe problem is what Nadal has done is amazing but it has been done before and he has to now do more to be great.

Mats Wilander, Andre Agassi and Jimmy Connors have all won slams on all 3 surfaces and all have more slams than Nadal. It took them longer but they still did it, sure Nadal gets the hey you did it fast but if he fails to do anything more what is your case for ranking them above them?

Borg had just as many slams as Nadal at 23

I give him credit but he needs to do a bit more, he has a lot of potential and he will probably pass most of the guys mentioned but he has to do more. He is playing against history and he needs to accomplish more than what they did. Every slam he wins now he goes shooting up the ranks, by the time he hits 8 he is easily top 5 of open era and in the the top 10 of all time, but guys like Laver, Rosewell, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Pancho Gonzales, Budge, Tilden etc. etc. have done so much more than him and that is just a handful. As of now cases can also be made for ranking Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi and a handful of others ahead of him. Nadal has talent and potential but so did a lot of the other past tennis players and as of right now Nadal has the potential to be one of the greatest ever, but he is not there yet, but my guess is he will be there very very soon.

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 02:32 PM
Why does it not negate the fact that they are better competition? You are only speculating that the field is better, and this argument is backed up by nothing!
YOU want the current field now be better because Fed is not winning, but in reality the field was as strong as the current one...Fed just made it look weak which is very difficult (almost impossible) for you to accept...

You proved my point with this statement below:-

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

So the same argument can be made for Fed just by replacing Nadal's name with Federer in your post,

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Federer has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

The field looks better now because Federer has declined...If he was in his prime form, he still would have been winning 3 slams a year...and If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?



Do u even watch tennis at all? The field only looks better because Fed is declined? Thats completely idiotic to think that. So I guess Nadal hasnt got better. I guess , Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, Baghaditis are better than Djoker, Murray, and Nadal.

Then answer me this wise guy. Where are is Fed's 04-06 crowd then outside of Nadal if Fed has declined? Where are they at the slams? Where is Blake, Safin, Gonzales, Baghaditis, Nalbandian? Shouldnt they be winning slams? If Fed has declined why the hell hasnt Roddick won 1 ****ing slam or Masters? Ohh yea because he he gets tallywhacked by Djoker, Murray, or Nadal because he just isnt that good? Thats right. Roddick ISNT THAT GOOD and he was Fed's main competition for most of that time outside of pre pubescent Nadal.

Where is Safin? Where is Gonzales? Ljubicic? Nalbandian? Baghaditis? Davydenko and down the line? Where have these guys been since Fed has declined? I dont see any slams there.. Do you? Shouldnt they be winning slams since Fed has declined? They should be winning multiple titles right?


Yea major ownage huh? More like crappty crap. Why would I argue with someone who prolly doesnt even watch tennis and cant see the glaring truth in their face.


Djoker, Murray, Nadal are better players any day of the week and twice on Sunday than Fed's 04-06 competition.

Nadalfan89
04-09-2009, 02:35 PM
^^ We have to take into account the competition at the time. Nadal had to accomplish all these feats while Federer and Djokavic were around. Can you say the same for Sampras?

vtmike
04-09-2009, 02:39 PM
Give this man a cigar that right there is pure ownage and one of the best things I have read in a while.

Thank you!

I will repeat this statement again for GameSamp because he seems to be getting into a hissy fit right now...and I don't like repeating the same thing over and over again...

If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

Calm down buddy...Sampras is the best in the history of the universe...does that make you happy? you want a cookie now?

Oh and btw how do you know I don't watch tennis?

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 02:40 PM
^^ We have to take into account the competition at the time. Nadal had to accomplish all these feats while Federer and Djokavic were around. Can you say the same for Sampras?


Has Nadal had to play on a fast wimbeldon surface thats not sodded to the moon? Has Nadal had to play on the most polarized conditions of surfaces? has Nadal had to play against great Serve-volleyers like Becker, Sampras, Edberg? Has Nadal had to play on indoor carpet? Has Nadal had to play against a strong clay field? Has Nadal had to face anyone with the mental toughness, attack, serve, volley of Sampras. Has Nadal had to play anyone with the game of Andre's with the master of dictation from the baseline?.... NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.


We can play these games all day.

egn
04-09-2009, 02:48 PM
Then answer me this wise guy. Where are is Fed's 04-06 crowd than outside of Nadal if Fed has declined? Where are they at the slams? Where is Blake, Safin, Gonzales, Baghaditis, Nalbandian? Shouldnt they be winning slams? If Fed has declined why the hell hasnt Roddick one 1 ****ing slam or Masters? Ohh yea because he he gets tallywhacked by Djoker, Murray, or Nadal because he just isnt that good? Thats right. Roddick ISNT THAT GOOD and he was Fed's main competition for most of that time outside of pre pubescent Nadal.


Yea major ownage huh? More like crappty crap. Why would I argue with someone who prolly doesnt even watch tennis and cant see the glaring truth in their face.


Djoker, Murray, Nadal are better players any day of the week and twice on Sunday than Fed's 04-06 competition.

Where are they, they are all pushing 30, they are old. They are not in top form anymore. They spent their prime getting their butts kicked. Roddick hasn't won a slam now because he can't compete with the youth. He is not as good as he was in 03-05 yet he is stably in the top 5 but not a slam threat because he is not at best form. Where are the rest of those guys most of them are what 26-30, guys whose primes started before most of the top 10 today even were close to professional level. Nalby made his slam final in 01 hit his prime in 03-06. In 2001 a lot of the top was probably between the ages of 13-17. How many guys even win slams past 25. It's called changing of the guard. The new young guys are replacing the old guns...that is why they are not winning slams.

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 02:51 PM
Where are they, they are all pushing 30, they are old. They are not in top form anymore. They spent their prime getting their butts kicked. Roddick hasn't won a slam now because he can't compete with the youth. He is not as good as he was in 03-05 yet he is stably in the top 5 but not a slam threat because he is not at best form. Where are the rest of those guys most of them are what 26-30, guys whose primes started before most of the top 10 today even were close to professional level. Nalby made his slam final in 01 hit his prime in 03-06. In 2001 a lot of the top was probably between the ages of 13-17. How many guys even win slams past 25. It's called changing of the guard. The new young guys are replacing the old guns...that is why they are not winning slams.


Oh stop making excuses. Players HAVE won slams at older ages. Youre telling me Roddick has gotten so decrepid he hasnt been in postitions to win titles and slams? Hell he still capable of beating most of the field today. Who does he usually lose to? Yea one of the 3. Murray, Djoker, or Fed. whats Nalbandian been doing? Hes been off the radar so long he should be ready to win slams. Hell Andre managed to even into his 30s. Its not like Nalbandian should be burned out. The guy hasnt done crap in his career to speak of

And yet this other idiot poster above me wants to tell me of how much better Roddick (among others) is better than Djoker, Murray or Prime Nadal.:? Or how Nalbandian is so much better. HogWASH. Roddick at ANY AGE is not better than Djoker, Murray, or Nadal

egn
04-09-2009, 03:00 PM
Oh stop making excuses. Players HAVE won slams at older ages. Youre telling me Roddick has gotten so decrepid he hasnt been in postitions to win titles and slams? Hell he still capable of beating most of the field today. Who does he usually lose to? Yea one of the 3. Murray, Djoker, or Fed.

And yet this idiot above me wants to tell me of how much better Roddick is than Djoker, Murray or Prime Nadal.:?

Roddick has been winning titles and beats Murray. Nobody was saying ROddick is better than prime nadal, but most are challenging the claim that Djoker and Murray are better than all of them. You are talking about a bunch of guys who in their prime were not winning the slams but losing to the top guy in slams. They were the Djokovic and Murray types but Federer was that far ahead of them. Roddick loses to more than just those 3, he is on a comeback as of recently and actually might be in slam contention but last year he was not in that good form and was losing to a bunch of players. Nalby and most of the other guys you mentioned were hanging out in the top 10 making deep runs in slams losing to each other and Fed and Nadal. Similar to what Djokovic and Murray have done with the current top 10 bunch, no offense Murray on the court does not compare to Safin at his top of his game and is very similar to in prime Hewitt.

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 03:04 PM
Im done arguing about this. Because definitely Fed fans do not want to accept the truth of the way it is. Competition has gotten much better (especially at the top) than it was 4 or 5 years ago and this no doubt has affected Roger is various ways. Lack of confidence the most of finally having opposition that have the talent and do not back down to Roger. Thus why he has turned into what he has. If Roger was 30 I would understand such a "decline" at 27 years old and only beginning his career really at least the meaningful part at 22 is not that long of a career really when u look at the other greats.


So keep on believing Blake, Davydenko, Ljubcic, Hewitt, Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Kiefer, etc are better than Prime Nadal Murray, Djoker and the only reason competition is better because Fed has declined.. and I will laugh:)

egn
04-09-2009, 03:06 PM
Im done arguing about this. Because definitely Fed fans do not want to accept the truth of the way it is. Competition has gotten much better (especially at the top) than it was 4 or 5 years ago and this no doubt has affected Roger is various ways. Lack of confidence the most.


So keep on believing Blake, Davydenko, Ljubcic, Hewitt, Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Kiefer, etc are better than Prime Nadal, Murray, Djoker

You amazingly ignore all posts made nobody is saying anyone is better than Nadal...people are saying that guys like Murray and Djokovic have not proven to be any better than the others please leave the arguement you were not doing much of it anywhere you were whining and cursing and throwing out insults in attempts to prove your points. Only one player has truly affected Federer and it is Nadal as he is the only one that can consistently beat him at the biggest events and that has been the same way since 2005.

Also pre prime Nadal 2005-2007 is far better than Murray and Djokovic now.

Breaker
04-09-2009, 03:15 PM
Oh stop making excuses. Players HAVE won slams at older ages. Youre telling me Roddick has gotten so decrepid he hasnt been in postitions to win titles and slams? Hell he still capable of beating most of the field today. Who does he usually lose to? Yea one of the 3. Murray, Djoker, or Fed. whats Nalbandian been doing? Hes been off the radar so long he should be ready to win slams. Hell Andre managed to even into his 30s. Its not like Nalbandian should be burned out. The guy hasnt done crap in his career to speak of

And yet this other idiot poster above me wants to tell me of how much better Roddick (among others) is better than Djoker, Murray or Prime Nadal.:? Or how Nalbandian is so much better. HogWASH. Roddick at ANY AGE is not better than Djoker, Murray, or Nadal

Roddick beat Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal all last year.

He has beaten Djokovic both times they have played this year, yet lost to Federer both times, he is weak competition when playing Federer but gets stronger when playing Djokovic I guess?

Djokovic has only been stopped by Nadal at Roland Garros, Murray stopped by him ONCE at Wimbledon. Explain what happened the last time these guys played Federer at a slam, were they weak competition then?

Blake has always been trouble for Nadal in their matchups, he just fits into the back pocket of Federer and Hewitt. EVEN THEN he beat Federer last year, is that because Blake has suddenly become better competition as he has fallen from the top 8?

Using Baghdatis as an example is weak, that's like saying one of Nadal's contemporary rivals is Verdasco, it's a stale comparison as Baghy had one good year and then had injury problems.

Out of form Safin DESTROYED Djokovic at Wimbledon last year and then lost to Federer in straight sets, Safin was weak when he played Federer but good competition when he played Djokovic I supposed.

Gonzalez has made ONE top 10 finish in his 2007 season where he crushed Nadal on the way to the Aussie Open final before losing to Federer, another case of Nadal facing a strong opponent whilst Federer faced a weak one I suppose.

Ljubicic was a good player, obviously not the best but a good one nonetheless, made his way to a Roland Garros semifinal and even then only was at number three for a short while, but was always a top quality player in his best year of 2006.

Hewitt was at the top of the game for 5 years, Roddick has been up there for8, Djokovic has spent TWO years at the top and Murray only one so far.

You are vastly underating Roddick, Hewitt, and others from his generation in a weak attempt to make a point.

veroniquem
04-09-2009, 03:18 PM
You completly missed my point..it was saying that saying yadayada lost to this person on clay doesn't make an arguement since everyone loses on any given day. If you would have pay attention to the post I was countering he was trying to say Nadal is better because Borg lost to Connors on har-tur (not even red clay.)
My response was to your sentence that said "Nadal has lost to his fair share of players on clay" and then went on to mention Coria and Gaudio, which is really ridiculous given how young Nadal was when he lost to those guys and that was my point.
My point was also to point out that Borg lost to more players on clay than Rafa ever has and worse players too (regardless of the kind of clay).

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 03:33 PM
You amazingly ignore all posts made nobody is saying anyone is better than Nadal...people are saying that guys like Murray and Djokovic have not proven to be any better than the others please leave the arguement you were not doing much of it anywhere you were whining and cursing and throwing out insults in attempts to prove your points. Only one player has truly affected Federer and it is Nadal as he is the only one that can consistently beat him at the biggest events and that has been the same way since 2005.

Also pre prime Nadal 2005-2007 is far better than Murray and Djokovic now.

Pre primed Nadal better than Djoker and Murray how? On what? Certainly not Hardcourts. Nadal was losing to stiffs like Ferrer and Youzhny on Hardcourts. Clay yes.. Grass maybe but Murray has yet to prove himself on those surfaces and I imagine he eventually will and Djoker isnt all that bad on grass. Hardcourts CERTAINLY NOT. Not even close. Both are light years ahead on Hardcourts NOW than Nadal was THEN.

vtmike
04-09-2009, 03:35 PM
Roddick beat Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal all last year.

He has beaten Djokovic both times they have played this year, yet lost to Federer both times, he is weak competition when playing Federer but gets stronger when playing Djokovic I guess?

Djokovic has only been stopped by Nadal at Roland Garros, Murray stopped by him ONCE at Wimbledon. Explain what happened the last time these guys played Federer at a slam, were they weak competition then?

Blake has always been trouble for Nadal in their matchups, he just fits into the back pocket of Federer and Hewitt. EVEN THEN he beat Federer last year, is that because Blake has suddenly become better competition as he has fallen from the top 8?

Using Baghdatis as an example is weak, that's like saying one of Nadal's contemporary rivals is Verdasco, it's a stale comparison as Baghy had one good year and then had injury problems.

Out of form Safin DESTROYED Djokovic at Wimbledon last year and then lost to Federer in straight sets, Safin was weak when he played Federer but good competition when he played Djokovic I supposed.

Gonzalez has made ONE top 10 finish in his 2007 season where he crushed Nadal on the way to the Aussie Open final before losing to Federer, another case of Nadal facing a strong opponent whilst Federer faced a weak one I suppose.

Ljubicic was a good player, obviously not the best but a good one nonetheless, made his way to a Roland Garros semifinal and even then only was at number three for a short while, but was always a top quality player in his best year of 2006.

Hewitt was at the top of the game for 5 years, Roddick has been up there for8, Djokovic has spent TWO years at the top and Murray only one so far.

You are vastly underating Roddick, Hewitt, and others from his generation in a weak attempt to make a point.

I agree! Good points!...I think someone just got owned AGAIN

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 03:36 PM
And Djoker and Murray have affected Fed in someway. Dont kid yourself. Djoker was one of the few giving Fed problems way back in 07 and Djoker had yet to hit his stride. He whooped on Roger at the AO in 08.

Murray was the only player in 06 outside of Nadal who even got a match off Roger, while the rest of the field could barely even take a set.

The-Champ
04-09-2009, 03:41 PM
Has Nadal had to play on a fast wimbeldon surface thats not sodded to the moon? Has Nadal had to play on the most polarized conditions of surfaces? has Nadal had to play against great Serve-volleyers like Becker, Sampras, Edberg? Has Nadal had to play on indoor carpet? Has Nadal had to play against a strong clay field? Has Nadal had to face anyone with the mental toughness, attack, serve, volley of Sampras. Has Nadal had to play anyone with the game of Andre's with the master of dictation from the baseline?.... NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.


We can play these games all day.


In five of Nadal's 6 slams he had to beat a GOAT contender in Federer. Sampras didn't have to beat anyone of Federer's level...oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention he beat a GOAT contender like Pioline twice in slams and Michael Chang (GOAT contender) who undoubtedly was in Laver's class right? Class dismissed!


Are you telling us, Agassi is better than Federer from the baseline?

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 03:56 PM
In five of Nadal's 6 slams he had to beat a GOAT contender in Federer. Sampras didn't have to beat anyone of Federer's level...oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention he beat a GOAT contender like Pioline twice in slams and Michael Chang (GOAT contender) who undoubtedly was in Laver's class right? Class dismissed!


Are you telling us, Agassi is better than Federer from the baseline?

Nope not at all. But Andre's BH wouldnt competely deteriorate and breakdown against Nadal as Fed's always does. Andre at 35 took Nadal to 3 sets. Not to mention Andre could rattle Nadal's 2nd serve since Nadal is not that big of a server especially 2nd serve. Andre IMO would be a much deadlier matchup problem for Nadal than Fed has been.

GameSampras
04-09-2009, 04:01 PM
In five of Nadal's 6 slams he had to beat a GOAT contender in Federer. Sampras didn't have to beat anyone of Federer's level...oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention he beat a GOAT contender like Pioline twice in slams and Michael Chang (GOAT contender) who undoubtedly was in Laver's class right? Class dismissed!


Are you telling us, Agassi is better than Federer from the baseline?

Tennis is alot about matchups in case u havent figured that out. Who is Nadal most likely going to have more problems with? A player like Edberg? A player like Becker? Goran? or Sampras? who could not only hurt players from the baseline but hold serve much easier and attack the net and put Nadal on the defensive. Or a style like Fed's game or Fed's mentality? Fed doesnt have much to rely on against Nadal. Fed's serve isnt as a big as Pete so he cant rely on free points like Pete could or hold serve as well. Fed's volley game is not all that impressive against Nadal since Fed is good but not great at the net. Certainly not a serve-volley marvel. If Fed's baseline game isnt clicking on all fronts, he doesnt have the Serve-volley attacking capablity to put Nadal on his toes. That should be apparent by now after all this time I thought.

If you listen to some of the analysts they tell how Fed should approach certain matches against Nadal. Serve big, attack. Who could do these things to their utmost? Yep Sampras. Obviously its more of an uphill to beat Nadal from the baseline as it is Attacking and serving big.

egn
04-09-2009, 04:11 PM
Pre primed Nadal better than Djoker and Murray how? On what? Certainly not Hardcourts. Nadal was losing to stiffs like Ferrer and Youzhny on Hardcourts. Clay yes.. Grass maybe but Murray has yet to prove himself on those surfaces and I imagine he eventually will and Djoker isnt all that bad on grass. Hardcourts CERTAINLY NOT. Not even close. Both are light years ahead on Hardcourts NOW than Nadal was THEN.

Outside of slams 2005 and 2006 Nadal was making deep runs and winning titles. He won 4 Master Series in 2005 and one was on hardcourts and one was on indoor courts. He made the wimbledon finals in 2006 and 2007. He was number 2 in the world and his 2005-2007 season are better than any season Murray has put up to date, and 2006 is probably just as good as Djokovic 2008. Just because he is not better than them on hardcourts does not mean he was not better competition, he challenged Fed for a good portion of the year. Nadal in 2006 is better than Murray and Djokovic on clay and grass now. Nadal was not a piece of crap on hardcourts either he wasn't at his peak like he is now, but in the master series he was winning a couple hardcourt ones. I would rather have in my field if I was Fed Djoker and Murray now than pre prime Nadal because at least I would be crushing clay and grass.

edberg505
04-09-2009, 04:33 PM
Nope not at all. But Andre's BH wouldnt competely deteriorate and breakdown against Nadal as Fed's always does. Andre at 35 took Nadal to 3 sets. Not to mention Andre could rattle Nadal's 2nd serve since Nadal is not that big of a server especially 2nd serve. Andre IMO would be a much deadlier matchup problem for Nadal than Fed has been.

I'm gonna guess that you either a.) didn't see the matches between Agassi and Nadal or b.) didn't hear Agassi's interview after the matches. He basically said it was hard for him to get a read on Nadal's serve. He thought going in he would be able to take advantage of a weak second serve but that obviously didn't happen.

The-Champ
04-09-2009, 04:43 PM
Nope not at all. But Andre's BH wouldnt competely deteriorate and breakdown against Nadal as Fed's always does. Andre at 35 took Nadal to 3 sets. Not to mention Andre could rattle Nadal's 2nd serve since Nadal is not that big of a server especially 2nd serve. Andre IMO would be a much deadlier matchup problem for Nadal than Fed has been.

But Andre's court coverage is not even comparable to Federer's.


Andre at 35? They played in 2005, how old was Nadal? 18? 19? who was closer to their prime? In your own words, Nadal was pre-pubecent at that time.



Q. You said you'd have the best seat in the house. I'm curious as to your impressions of the young man.

ANDRE AGASSI: Well, he has a difficult game. It's certainly easy to see why he's won so many matches. He does a lot of things really well. Just a great mover on the court. Gets good power from very stretched positions so you're never quite sure if you have complete control of the point. I found his serve more awkward than I was anticipating because if you don't hit a good return, he immediately gets on the offense. That's a sign of a great player: somebody who can play good defense, but also when they get ahold of a point, they don't let go of it. He's one of those guys that if he gets ahold of a point, he's not going to let go of it. It puts more pressure on you to hit a quality return, and it moves a little bit. I felt like today that was a big difference. I wasn't getting neutral enough right off his serve. That surprised me a little bit.

how come one of the greatest returners ever, had difficulty figuring out such WEAK serve. Shouldn't he just blast winner off every Nadal's serve? Maybe Agassi was an overrated returner after all. What do you think GameSampras?


Q. We know you like to take the ball pretty early. It looked like you were a little bit closer up to the baseline at the start of the match on Nadal's serve, a little bit further back towards the end. Is that a good assessment?

ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, that is a good assessment. That was the case. I thought -- you know, you watch him on TV, it looks like he just rolls that serve in. It looks like you should be able to hit it pretty effectively. But it is a lefty action with sort of a slice sometimes kick to it. So the ball's moving around a bit. If you don't hit it square, you leave anything hanging, and that's where he's really dangerous. So it's not so much that you can't stand up on the serve as much as if you don't hit it perfectly, you're going to pay for that. And I felt like I wasn't getting into enough points on his serve, so I drifted back to give myself a chance just to hit a quality cut and get into the point, which turned out to be pretty necessary. You know, the ball's jumping out there. The way he hits it, it's even jumping that much more.


So, GameSampras, have you actually experienced receiving Nadal's serve or are you basing your assessment on what you see on TV?

Here, we have one of the all-time greatest returner of the game having problems with Rafa's WEAK serve, and felt he had to stand further back to have a chance. BTW, Rafa serves better today than 4 years ago.



Q. Can you compare him to other players in terms of his quickness?


ANDRE AGASSI: You know, there's so many different ways to assess speed. You got guys that are tremendously fast, but they only use their speed defensively, then you really don't care about how fast they are because they're only going to have to run more. You got other guys that can use their speed offensively, but if you get them on the defense they can't hurt you on the stretch, so you can take a point over early and they can be fast but never turn a point around. Nadal has the ability to run as fast as the best of 'em, but on the stretch actually hurt you. You know, he can transition those points into offense. That makes you sort of walk on egg shells. He draws out errors that I think normally you wouldn't make against any other player, which is a credit to the way he plays the game.


http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=39

The-Champ
04-09-2009, 05:25 PM
Tennis is alot about matchups in case u havent figured that out. Who is Nadal most likely going to have more problems with? A player like Edberg? A player like Becker? Goran? or Sampras? who could not only hurt players from the baseline but hold serve much easier and attack the net and put Nadal on the defensive. Or a style like Fed's game or Fed's mentality? Fed doesnt have much to rely on against Nadal. Fed's serve isnt as a big as Pete so he cant rely on free points like Pete could or hold serve as well. Fed's volley game is not all that impressive against Nadal since Fed is good but not great at the net. Certainly not a serve-volley marvel. If Fed's baseline game isnt clicking on all fronts, he doesnt have the Serve-volley attacking capablity to put Nadal on his toes. That should be apparent by now after all this time I thought.

If you listen to some of the analysts they tell how Fed should approach certain matches against Nadal. Serve big, attack. Who could do these things to their utmost? Yep Sampras. Obviously its more of an uphill to beat Nadal from the baseline as it is Attacking and serving big.


You're right, it's all about match-ups, Therefore we cannot draw any conclusion until they've actually had those match-ups. It's funny that Bruguera has a losing record against krajicek on clay, but a winning record on indoor carpet. Maybe Sampras would tripple bagel Nadal at the French and Nadal tripple bagel him at wimbledon.



So basically, those players have no weaknesses. They had amazing baseline games (that could hurt anyone), great at the net and monster serves. That's a deadly combination. That would make them lethal on clay. Nadal doesn't have a monster serve and certainly not amazing net game. How many FO titles did these unbeatable players you've mentioned collected in their carreers? With the arsenal they had at their disposal, shouldn't they have at least won one?

clayman2000
04-09-2009, 05:39 PM
Pre primed Nadal better than Djoker and Murray how? On what? Certainly not Hardcourts. Nadal was losing to stiffs like Ferrer and Youzhny on Hardcourts. Clay yes.. Grass maybe but Murray has yet to prove himself on those surfaces and I imagine he eventually will and Djoker isnt all that bad on grass. Hardcourts CERTAINLY NOT. Not even close. Both are light years ahead on Hardcourts NOW than Nadal was THEN.

Have the Djoker and Murray won 4 AMS titles and 1GS title in one year?
So while Nadal lost on hard to Ferrer and Youznhy, Djokovic now is out loosing to Jarko Neminen, Tsonga

Easy to forget Nadal won Montreal in 05, Dubai vs Fed in final in 06, IW in 2007.

What were Djokovic and Murray doing in 2005 - 2007 (well for Djokovic 1/2 way into 07). They would be around the same age as Rafa, and Djokovic in 05 wasnt even on the map

clayman2000
04-09-2009, 05:42 PM
And Djoker and Murray have affected Fed in someway. Dont kid yourself. Djoker was one of the few giving Fed problems way back in 07 and Djoker had yet to hit his stride. He whooped on Roger at the AO in 08.

Murray was the only player in 06 outside of Nadal who even got a match off Roger, while the rest of the field could barely even take a set.

So two straight set losses in GS matches and one win for Djokovic against an uninterested Fed counts as giving Federer problems?

In 06, Murray beat Fed right after 3 straight 3 set matches in Toronto. Back then of course the Cincy draw was 64, so Fed was back at it on Tuesday

JoshDragon
04-09-2009, 08:59 PM
I like how Nadal fans like to diminish Feds achievements by saying hes played against a weak field and then have the nerve to boast about how great Nadal is on clay when the reality is Nadal has won all of his French Opens, Wimbledon, and AO(not to mention his masters titles) playing against the exact same field. LOL

Of course the argument from a Nadal fan would be that the field has gotten immensely stronger the last two years and that is why Fed has struggled. Well, Nadals first couple of French Opens were against a weak field still so we shouldnt count those when we speak of his greatness then, correct? If the logic applies to Fed how can it not apply to Nadal?

And true Nadal does have a huge lead in the h2h against Federer and that does not look good on Feds greatness but I dont think its an apples to apples comparison. Fed is Nadals elder of what 5-6 years? So while they have played each other and can be considered same generation I feel its more of a "similar" generation and not same. Same would be Nadal and Fed being close to same age much like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

The people who think that Fed plays during a weak era are living in denial. Fed, could have 20 slams and it wouldn't mean anything to some people because he didn't have to beat Connors or Agassi or Rosewall.

rafan
04-09-2009, 09:47 PM
Where would Nadal rank? - good heavens! He's won RG, Wimbledon, Olympics and Australian open - and this is all in one year. He is already a phenomenen. He has quietly swept the board when a lot of the media were shouting for Federer or Murray to do the job.

srinrajesh
04-09-2009, 10:12 PM
He would be just behind Laver, Sampras, Borg, federer to reach the Top 5 of alltime.
To win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces would be something no one has done in the history of tennis...

srinrajesh
04-09-2009, 10:38 PM
The people who think that Fed plays during a weak era are living in denial. Fed, could have 20 slams and it wouldn't mean anything to some people because he didn't have to beat Connors or Agassi or Rosewall.

We do not dispute federer is one of the greatest but definitely he won during probably one of the weakest era in world tennis.
He won most of his grand slams in 2004-2007 (one four year period does not constitute dominance or longevity) when there was no djoker, murray and nadal only just cutting his teeth on grass and hard courts.

Nadal on the other hand won all his 6 grand slams having to beat a GOAT contender Federer in all 6 tournaments (5 finals and 1 SF)
If Roger had beaten Nadal in at least 1-2 FO after Nadal won at least 2 FO then we would agree that Federer had the all court game.

Remember nadal is less than 5 years younger than Federer. So the last year and this year would be prime age for both. 21-22 agaisnt 26-27.

Definitely we have never seen a GOAT player overall who had losing records during his NO.1 days to 2 contenders in top 10 -Nadal and Murray like Federer has.

saram
04-09-2009, 10:51 PM
I have noticed that a lot of people in the forum rank Borg above Federer, even though Fed has won more GS and has been 4 straight years #1, so I guess it's because winning the channel slam weights heavily in the list of acomplishments. So, if Nadal wins it two years in a row, where would you rank him among the all time greats?

You cannot compare generations to generations. It is impossible.

I think Rafa is the greatest thus far--but someone will come along even better.

There is NO GOAT.

NEVER WILL BE, either....

cknobman
04-10-2009, 05:03 AM
Do u even watch tennis at all? The field only looks better because Fed is declined? Thats completely idiotic to think that. So I guess Nadal hasnt got better. I guess , Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, Baghaditis are better than Djoker, Murray, and Nadal.

Then answer me this wise guy. Where are is Fed's 04-06 crowd then outside of Nadal if Fed has declined? Where are they at the slams? Where is Blake, Safin, Gonzales, Baghaditis, Nalbandian? Shouldnt they be winning slams? If Fed has declined why the hell hasnt Roddick won 1 ****ing slam or Masters? Ohh yea because he he gets tallywhacked by Djoker, Murray, or Nadal because he just isnt that good? Thats right. Roddick ISNT THAT GOOD and he was Fed's main competition for most of that time outside of pre pubescent Nadal.

Where is Safin? Where is Gonzales? Ljubicic? Nalbandian? Baghaditis? Davydenko and down the line? Where have these guys been since Fed has declined? I dont see any slams there.. Do you? Shouldnt they be winning slams since Fed has declined? They should be winning multiple titles right?


Yea major ownage huh? More like crappty crap. Why would I argue with someone who prolly doesnt even watch tennis and cant see the glaring truth in their face.


Djoker, Murray, Nadal are better players any day of the week and twice on Sunday than Fed's 04-06 competition.

And you think you have come tennis knowledge? LMAO your making yourself look stupid.

Safin, Nalby, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Roddick are all 4-8 years older than Nadal, Murray, and Djoker so as Federer is older they all are a semi generation ahead of Murray, Djoker, and Nadal.

Furthermore when Hewitt, and Safin were the age of Nadal, Murray, Djoker they were winning slams (both have more than 1), and contending heavily at every slam (even Roddick was a contender and a slam winner).
You act like Murray and Djoker are so great that they are leagues above the crowd from 00-04 but in reality they havent even really proven themselves yet.
Murray has 0 SLAMS and Djoker has 1 SLAM. Big whoopee!!!!!

You are very shortsighted person with a narrow vision and will never see past your own deluded little world into what everyone else calls REALITY.

I dont discredit anything Nadal has done. He earned everything hes achieved and is a great player but it really chaps my arse to see people put down Fed achievements based on unfounded facts or deluded fantasies of a player they like more.

Pirao
04-10-2009, 05:18 AM
And you think you have come tennis knowledge? LMAO your making yourself look stupid.

Safin, Nalby, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Roddick are all 4-8 years older than Nadal, Murray, and Djoker so as Federer is older they all are a semi generation ahead of Murray, Djoker, and Nadal.

Furthermore when Hewitt, and Safin were the age of Nadal, Murray, Djoker they were winning slams (both have more than 1), and contending heavily at every slam (even Roddick was a contender and a slam winner).
You act like Murray and Djoker are so great that they are leagues above the crowd from 00-04 but in reality they havent even really proven themselves yet.
Murray has 0 SLAMS and Djoker has 1 SLAM. Big whoopee!!!!!

You are very shortsighted person with a narrow vision and will never see past your own deluded little world into what everyone else calls REALITY.

I dont discredit anything Nadal has done. He earned everything hes achieved and is a great player but it really chaps my arse to see people put down Fed achievements based on unfounded facts or deluded fantasies of a player they like more.

I agree. Fed didn't play in a weak era, it's that he didn't let anyone else win slams because he was winning everything (with the exception of clay). And yeah, Nadal, Murray and Djoker are like the new generation, while Hewitt, Safin, Fed, Roddick, etc, are the old guard now. But don't write Murray and Djokovic off in slams just yet, I'm sure they'll win some in the years to come.

vtmike
04-10-2009, 06:06 AM
And you think you have come tennis knowledge? LMAO your making yourself look stupid.

Safin, Nalby, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Roddick are all 4-8 years older than Nadal, Murray, and Djoker so as Federer is older they all are a semi generation ahead of Murray, Djoker, and Nadal.

Furthermore when Hewitt, and Safin were the age of Nadal, Murray, Djoker they were winning slams (both have more than 1), and contending heavily at every slam (even Roddick was a contender and a slam winner).
You act like Murray and Djoker are so great that they are leagues above the crowd from 00-04 but in reality they havent even really proven themselves yet.
Murray has 0 SLAMS and Djoker has 1 SLAM. Big whoopee!!!!!

You are very shortsighted person with a narrow vision and will never see past your own deluded little world into what everyone else calls REALITY.

I dont discredit anything Nadal has done. He earned everything hes achieved and is a great player but it really chaps my arse to see people put down Fed achievements based on unfounded facts or deluded fantasies of a player they like more.

I have been trying to get this through his thick skull for some time now...I have given up now...The guy is so blindsighted by his eternal love for Sampras to the point that he wants to turn down every other tennis players achievements no matter how good they are!

mandy01
04-10-2009, 07:04 AM
We do not dispute federer is one of the greatest but definitely he won during probably one of the weakest era in world tennis.
He won most of his grand slams in 2004-2007 (one four year period does not constitute dominance or longevity) when there was no djoker, murray and nadal only just cutting his teeth on grass and hard courts.

Nadal on the other hand won all his 6 grand slams having to beat a GOAT contender Federer in all 6 tournaments (5 finals and 1 SF)
If Roger had beaten Nadal in at least 1-2 FO after Nadal won at least 2 FO then we would agree that Federer had the all court game.

Remember nadal is less than 5 years younger than Federer. So the last year and this year would be prime age for both. 21-22 agaisnt 26-27.

Definitely we have never seen a GOAT player overall who had losing records during his NO.1 days to 2 contenders in top 10 -Nadal and Murray like Federer has.
are you kidding yourself or others? First you say Federer won in an era of nobodies ( which is utter BS) then you say Nadal had to contend with Fed everytime and then you call Federer GOAT contender...why are you contradicting yourself? You talk like Federer is the ultimatum and then you dont even give enough crediblity to his achievements :lol:
You're ignorant and your post is extremely lame :wink:

Bud
04-10-2009, 09:34 AM
Where would Nadal rank? - good heavens! He's won RG, Wimbledon, Olympics and Australian open - and this is all in one year. He is already a phenomenen. He has quietly swept the board when a lot of the media were shouting for Federer or Murray to do the job.

Exactly! Interesting how some on these boards seem to forget his accomplishments in the last year, alone.

When he wins the US Open at some point (and he will) he'll have a non-calendar year Golden Grand Slam.

If he wins the USO in 2009, he'll hold all majors' titles and the Olympic Gold medal concurrently. That's pretty darn close to a Golden Slam.

Pirao
04-10-2009, 10:03 AM
Exactly! Interesting how some on these boards seem to forget his accomplishments in the last year, alone.

When he wins the US Open at some point (and he will) he'll have a non-calendar year Golden Grand Slam.

If he wins the USO in 2009, he'll hold all majors' titles and the Olympic Gold medal concurrently. That's pretty darn close to a Golden Slam.

I didn't forget anything lol, if you hadn't figured by my location Iím a huge Nadal fan, I just wanted to know other people's opinion.

egn
04-10-2009, 10:25 AM
He would be just behind Laver, Sampras, Borg, federer to reach the Top 5 of alltime.
To win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces would be something no one has done in the history of tennis...

Mats Wilander - 2 Australian Opens on Grass, 1 Australian Open on Hard, 3 French Opens on Clay 1 US Open on Hard
Andre Agassi - 4 AO on hard, 1 FO on clay, 1 Wimby on grass, 2 USO on hard
Jimmy Connors - 5 USO, on all three surfaces I believe it is 2 grass 1 clay 2 hard not sure off the top my head, 1 AO on grass and 2 Wimbys on grass

It has been done before.

Bud
04-10-2009, 10:26 AM
I didn't forget anything lol, if you hadn't figured by my location Iím a huge Nadal fan, I just wanted to know other people's opinion.

I wasn't referring to you. I was speaking in generalities.

egn
04-10-2009, 10:40 AM
Exactly! Interesting how some on these boards seem to forget his accomplishments in the last year, alone.

When he wins the US Open at some point (and he will) he'll have a non-calendar year Golden Grand Slam.

If he wins the USO in 2009, he'll hold all majors' titles and the Olympic Gold medal concurrently. That's pretty darn close to a Golden Slam.

Olympics happens once every four years and Olympics goes out the window when comparing him to anyone prior to 1984 and post 1920 because there was no Olympics. Saying Nadal for having a golden grand slam is better than Laver because he has no olympics is completely unjust as Laver never had an Olympics to play in.

Nadal accomplished a lot last season but the olympics is not one of the biggest tournaments in tennis, I can name five ahead of it.

Wimbledon
US Open
French Open
Australian Open
Year-End Masters

In all of those the fields are stronger and it is held with more regard. Other tournaments held with more regard include

Italian Open
Monte Carlo
Indian Wells
Miami
Queens Club

etc. The Olympics is a nice tournament to win, but no offense prior to Nadal's winning it I never heard it ever used in GOAT discussion. Does anyone hold Sampras not having the gold medal against him? Or Lendl? Nope. It frankly is not one of the biggest tournaments in tennis. Nadal's season last year was impressive but it was not one of the best ever seen. It might just make top 10. There have been better years if you look at statistics and some that can be arguebly better with more or just as many titles, and equal or higher winning percentages.

Laver 69 - won 4 GS and sources say somewhere between 10-15 titles
Connors 74 - won 3 GS and 15 titles
McEnroe 84 - 2 GS out of 3, final in third one, 13 titles, best winning percentage of each season
Borg 78 - 2 GS final in third one he entered 9 titles
Borg 80 - 2 GS final in third one he entered 9 titles including year end masters
Federer 04, 05, 06 (07 even has a case) - you know the facts for these
Lendl 86, 87 - 2 slams each year, runner up at wimby both years, semi in australia in 87, won the masters both year, 9 titles in 86, 8 in 87, 90% wins all years

Case can be made that all of those are better years it is all matter of opinion. Nadal's season was great but it was not the best tennis season ever and is not even top 5, but than it is about overall career. He accomplished a lot for himself last season, but what people seem to not take into accounts is other people have accomplished it.


Also if he is to win USO2009 he would have to defend France and Wimby for it to even be concurrent. Which would then be a real grand slam. If he fails to defend one of those and then wins USO2009 he is not holding all four at the same time as he would have not won four in a row.

Nadalfan89
04-10-2009, 10:40 AM
Regardless of the accomplishments that Rafa has done or will do, he'll never recieve the credit that he should. The God of tennis that is Roger Federer has captivated tennis fans for the last 5 years with his beautiful strokes and graceful footwork. Nadal comes in and starts grinding out matches and grunting and running all over the place and people automatically write him off as some mindless baseline basher that will have his 15 minutes of fame and fade away. The truth is that he's already accomplished things that Federer hasn't, including the FO, winning a GS on all surfaces, winning a gold medal in olympics singles and doing it all by the age of 23.

He may not be the GOAT but to not even include him in the top 5 would be ridiculous and just flat out wrong.

egn
04-10-2009, 10:44 AM
He may not be the GOAT but to not even include him inthe top 5 would be ridiculous and just flat out wrong.

Okay so in the open era who are you kicking out

Laver, Sampras, Borg, Federer or Lendl. I guess you can edge Lendl out but of all time you have to contest with the following

Laver
Rosewell
Sampras
Borg
Federer
Lendl
Budge
Tilden
Gonzales
the list continues..

those are just a few who can claim better resumes than Nadal? Putting Nadal in the top 5 means excluding one of them who have done a lot more than Nadal has done to date. It's not all about federer he isn't the whole top 5..there are 4 other great players.

Nadalfan89
04-10-2009, 10:48 AM
^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

egn
04-10-2009, 10:58 AM
^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

You still make a case for one player. Are you telling me you are not going to include Laver because he won his GS on clay and grass. Well he won professional majors in the mid 60s on surfaces like indoor wood and indoor carpet. So there are extra surfaces. Laver dominated his field and even took down his biggest foes like Pancho and Rosewell.

Pancho and Rosewell the same dominated the pro circuit in the 50s and 60s gather tons of majors and Rosewell has something like 7 slams if I recall correctly. Rosewell played top tennis for about 20 years..most players today are lucky if they are top tennis for 10 years. The two were forces to be reckoned with and were winning tournaments on multiple surfaces left and right. I am too lazy to go pull up all the stats but in former pro player talk you can find some good threads on them.

Borg never got a hardcorut grandslam because he only had the oppurtunity to compete in 4... out of the 40 slams he played in. He was winning tons of tournaments on hard and carpet though he was not bad on the surface. He was not the best in his era, but I would reckon if there would have been 2 hard court slams like there are today he could have won at least one. Borg dominated two completely opposite surfaces slow clay and fast grass. Besides the masters were played on indoor courts and he did really well there.

Sampras never had any problems with a rival except if you want to note his losing record against Kracijek (sp?) but he dominated his major rivals, he excelled on hardcourts and grass. He won 7 Wimbledons and was year end number 1 for 6 straight years in the open era? He played in a tough clay court field where there was 3 great clay courters playing at one point in top form 92-95. Sure go ahead 96 on the clay field was weak, but by then Sampras was in his late 20s and his game was bad as it was for clay. I mean come on Muster, Brugera and Courier were all rotating winning slams at France and at all times at least 2 of them were playing their best.

Federer from 2004-2007 broke and shattered records. He won 2 slams 5 times in a row, the US Open and Wimbledon and he is no crappy clay courter. He has issues against Rafael Nadal who is a future GOAT candidate. His record against Nadal without clay puts him in the lead...he can't beat him on clay, he managed it once though. He has 13 slams and he can be credited with creaming some really good players. He beat Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi and even Nadal for some of his slams. Sure now he falls to Nadal but Nadal is now at his peak and Federer is out of it. Federer crushed his field and his field was good people make it out to be worse than it is.

So really how can you discredit them? Where does Nadal fit in? It is not like he has 10 slams right now. If he wins the calendar year then yes he will fit in, but please wait until he does something that should have him be called one of the greatest before you crown him it.

deltox
04-10-2009, 10:59 AM
^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

when you rate Borg or Sampras on your list, do you look back and think how did he do in those finals or those semis, or who he faced?

ive said it tons here on this forum so far, in ten years people will rarely even remember who you faced during the tourney. only the stats and the final scores for accomplishments.

deltox
04-10-2009, 11:04 AM
^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.

its not so important because his wins come on one surface against roger for the overall record. ok so concede the point rafa is better on clay. now were does that leave the statement

Andyk028
04-10-2009, 11:17 AM
Fair enough, but I actually think that winning finals means more than reaching more. Plus the 2 consecutive channel slams would weight heavily on Nadal's favour.

I definetly agree with this statement..If a guy gets beat 6-0 6-0 I wouldn't exactly consider the final to be a statistic worth noting.

AprilFool
04-10-2009, 12:34 PM
^^^ It's not just about resumes; you have to look at things like competition, how they won, what surfaces they won and their records against other top players. Federer is obviously great but he's 6-13 against Nadal...and that is an important statistic.


But that is offset by the fact that Federer was the only player in tennis history to have won 5 consecutive Grand Slam titles at two separate Grand Slam Events (Wimbledon 2003ľ2007 and US Open 2004ľ2008). Nadal was in the finals only three of those ten slams. But I do think Nadal is going to be one of the GOATS if he keeps on playing at his current level. (Unless Fed wakes up)

JoshDragon
04-10-2009, 12:48 PM
We do not dispute federer is one of the greatest but definitely he won during probably one of the weakest era in world tennis.
He won most of his grand slams in 2004-2007 (one four year period does not constitute dominance or longevity) when there was no djoker, murray and nadal only just cutting his teeth on grass and hard courts.

Nadal on the other hand won all his 6 grand slams having to beat a GOAT contender Federer in all 6 tournaments (5 finals and 1 SF)
If Roger had beaten Nadal in at least 1-2 FO after Nadal won at least 2 FO then we would agree that Federer had the all court game.

Remember nadal is less than 5 years younger than Federer. So the last year and this year would be prime age for both. 21-22 agaisnt 26-27.

Definitely we have never seen a GOAT player overall who had losing records during his NO.1 days to 2 contenders in top 10 -Nadal and Murray like Federer has.

Federer, is definitely not in his prime right now. If you compare Wimbledon 2006 (one of Fed's best tournaments) to the Australian Open 2009 you will see a huge difference in his consistency and his shot placement. Federer, has not been playing anywhere near his 2006 level for a long time.

One of the biggest changes in Fed's game is his forehand. 3 years ago his forehand was an unbelievable weapon. Today his forehand is a joke, he basically beat himself when he was playing Djokovic last week in Miami.

P_Agony
04-10-2009, 12:53 PM
Nadal is already one of the greats, and anybody who says otherwise is in denial. His ability to turn a losing situation to a great win is amazing, his spirit and his will to win are unmatched, and the results show it. I don't like his game at all, but gotta give the guy credit, he is already a tennis legend IMO.

egn
04-10-2009, 12:54 PM
Federer, is definitely not in his prime right now. If you compare Wimbledon 2006 (one of Fed's best tournaments) to the Australian Open 2009 you will see a huge difference in his consistency and his shot placement. Federer, has not been playing anywhere near his 2006 level for a long time.

Fed is still prime. He is not peak. He is still one of the best players on the tour. Top 4. Maybe even top 3. He only gets beat by the other top 3 players. He has not lost to anyone this year outside of the top 4. One loss to Nadal, One lose to Djokovic and 2 to Murray. So he beats everyone else. He is struggling against the other top guys who are now just as good or better than him. He might not be in his peak but he is still prime and still capable of beating them. he is having a mental block. He has lost a bit of movement and yes his shots are not as consistent but he is not fallen of the top. He still has some of the best game out there and can still bring it.

Fed is probably going through a slump that most players go through, I imagine he turns things around against Murray and DJokovic soon and starts to win some against them soon, but to say he is far from his 2006 level and has been that way for a long time is a bit of a stretch. 2007 he was probably playing 90 percent of his 2006 level. I think he is playing better now than he was last year and the results are showing as he actually did better this year early off than last year. Federer is still playing way to well for people to say he is out of his prime. He has been better but he is still one of the top notch players currently on the tour. Fed 2008 played poorly at points but Fed 2009 has showed more consistency and actually improved game over 2008, if he was still playing in his 2008 form he would have been bounced by Berdych and probably not made nearly as good runs at IW or Miami, he is playing like he was in 2007. Just now unlike 2007 Nadal is ten times as good.

Bud
04-10-2009, 03:33 PM
Olympics happens once every four years and Olympics goes out the window when comparing him to anyone prior to 1984 and post 1920 because there was no Olympics. Saying Nadal for having a golden grand slam is better than Laver because he has no olympics is completely unjust as Laver never had an Olympics to play in.

Nadal accomplished a lot last season but the olympics is not one of the biggest tournaments in tennis, I can name five ahead of it.

Wimbledon
US Open
French Open
Australian Open
Year-End Masters

In all of those the fields are stronger and it is held with more regard. Other tournaments held with more regard include

Italian Open
Monte Carlo
Indian Wells
Miami
Queens Club

etc. The Olympics is a nice tournament to win, but no offense prior to Nadal's winning it I never heard it ever used in GOAT discussion. Does anyone hold Sampras not having the gold medal against him? Or Lendl? Nope. It frankly is not one of the biggest tournaments in tennis. Nadal's season last year was impressive but it was not one of the best ever seen. It might just make top 10. There have been better years if you look at statistics and some that can be arguebly better with more or just as many titles, and equal or higher winning percentages.

Laver 69 - won 4 GS and sources say somewhere between 10-15 titles
Connors 74 - won 3 GS and 15 titles
McEnroe 84 - 2 GS out of 3, final in third one, 13 titles, best winning percentage of each season
Borg 78 - 2 GS final in third one he entered 9 titles
Borg 80 - 2 GS final in third one he entered 9 titles including year end masters
Federer 04, 05, 06 (07 even has a case) - you know the facts for these
Lendl 86, 87 - 2 slams each year, runner up at wimby both years, semi in australia in 87, won the masters both year, 9 titles in 86, 8 in 87, 90% wins all years

Case can be made that all of those are better years it is all matter of opinion. Nadal's season was great but it was not the best tennis season ever and is not even top 5, but than it is about overall career. He accomplished a lot for himself last season, but what people seem to not take into accounts is other people have accomplished it.


Also if he is to win USO2009 he would have to defend France and Wimby for it to even be concurrent. Which would then be a real grand slam. If he fails to defend one of those and then wins USO2009 he is not holding all four at the same time as he would have not won four in a row.

Where did I compare Nadal to Laver? Did I say that those playing tennis prior to Olympic tennis in 1984 weren't great? Please, don't put more into my post than what was there.

The bottom line is since 1984, only 2 players have a Golden Grand Slam and a career Golden Slam and they are married to one another. For Nadal to be in that company would be impressive, whether you think so or not.

Bud
04-10-2009, 03:35 PM
Nadal is already one of the greats, and anybody who says otherwise is in denial. His ability to turn a losing situation to a great win is amazing, his spirit and his will to win are unmatched, and the results show it. I don't like his game at all, but gotta give the guy credit, he is already a tennis legend IMO.

Agreed. You can't argue with what the guy has accomplished.

veroniquem
04-10-2009, 04:30 PM
Mats Wilander - 2 Australian Opens on Grass, 1 Australian Open on Hard, 3 French Opens on Clay 1 US Open on Hard
Andre Agassi - 4 AO on hard, 1 FO on clay, 1 Wimby on grass, 2 USO on hard
Jimmy Connors - 5 USO, on all three surfaces I believe it is 2 grass 1 clay 2 hard not sure off the top my head, 1 AO on grass and 2 Wimbys on grass

It has been done before.
Yes but holding slam titles on 3 different surfaces simultaneously has never been done before, Nadal is the first one to do it.

egn
04-10-2009, 04:39 PM
Yes but holding slam titles on 3 different surfaces simultaneously has never been done before, Nadal is the first one to do it.

That is true and is a good point he was one of the best on each surface at a single given point in time.

rafan
04-13-2009, 06:12 AM
I was an enormous fan of Borg but Rafa puts him in the shade. He has done wonders on his less than favourite surface (HC) and he isn't going to stop now.