PDA

View Full Version : Players and True Grand Slam Total


McEnroeisanartist
04-11-2009, 10:40 AM
In my opinion, a player's True Grand Slam total is how many Wimbledons and US Opens they won. These were and are the two most prestigious tennis tournaments. For example: I don't think anyone would contend that Mats Wilander Australian Open championship in 1983 was equal to John McEnroe's Wimbledon championship the same year. I think one of the reasons Ivan Lendl doesn't get his due is because he "only" won three Grand Slams total at the big two tournaments compared to eight for Jimmy Connors and seven for John McEnroe.

Is it fair to say that Federer's career is far more impressive than Nadal's, as Nadal has only won one title at the two big tournaments whereas Federer has won 10.

Thoughts....

gj011
04-11-2009, 10:43 AM
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.

bluetrain4
04-11-2009, 10:43 AM
In your opinion.

GameSampras
04-11-2009, 10:55 AM
I always thought Wimby was the most prestigous of all the slams.

tacou
04-11-2009, 11:20 AM
W is the only one with an edge. but they are still all slams. not counting RG and AO, or for some reason USO, is foolish. there are 4 slams in tennis, not 2.

egn
04-11-2009, 11:40 AM
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.

And since America is larger than Europe then just as many people probably value it. Rolland Garros also has had its period of falling out, note the 70s when top players were not allowed to play it due to WTT contracts including greats like Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors. You keep beating the "European people find it more prestigious" However Andy Murray proves you wrong every time as he has said, his favorite slam is the US Open. So really yours is just an opinion with limited factual backing. Your obnoxious euro-centric attitude just seems so ignorant when in reality all four slams should be weighted equally, Wimbledon gets the prestige factor, but all four are should be equal in worth. Wimbledon is the only one that really has anything prestigious about it, it was the first one and it still maintains traditional value..any more of your obnoxious I HATE AMERICA attitude you would like to share.

Oh and for the OP that is pretty unfair to say. Federer's slam total is 13 and Nadal's is 6. Just like Court has so many even if she won so many in the Australian Open where nobody really played.

Nadalfan89
04-11-2009, 11:45 AM
They've both won Wimbledon, they've both won Australian open, Fedrer won the USO and Nadal won the FO.

Here's the thing. Nadal won on all surfaces. Nadal won a singles gold medal. Nadal won it all at 23.

veroniquem
04-11-2009, 11:51 AM
They've both won Wimbledon, they've both won Australian open, Fedrer won the USO and Nadal won the FO.

Here's the thing. Nadal won on all surfaces. Nadal won a singles gold medal. Nadal won it all at 23.
He won it all at 22 actually! (He won't be 23 before June.) At Nadal's age, Federer had also won Wimbledon and AO but not USO yet and of course not RG.
There used to be differences in the past but as it stands today all the slams have the same worth and importance.
I agree that Nadal did 1 thing that is unique which is hold 3 slams on 3 different surfaces at the same time. Noone had done it before!

Pirao
04-11-2009, 11:54 AM
It's a good thing that's only YOUR opinion.

veroniquem
04-11-2009, 11:58 AM
It's a good thing that's only YOUR opinion.
His username is "McEnroeisanartist" and guess which 2 slams McEnroe has never won! Makes sense now, no? :lol:

Pirao
04-11-2009, 12:04 PM
His username is "McEnroeisanartist" and guess which 2 slams McEnroe has never won! Makes sense now, no? :lol:

Yeah it's a pathetic attempt to put some players above others based on a completely biased criteria. But I doubt many people agree with TS.

Giggs The Red Devil
04-11-2009, 01:03 PM
They've both won Wimbledon, they've both won Australian open, Fedrer won the USO and Nadal won the FO.

Here's the thing. Nadal won on all surfaces. Nadal won a singles gold medal. Nadal won it all at 23.

Winning after 30 is more impressive than winning at 20. As other things.

canuckfan
04-11-2009, 01:09 PM
Wimbledon has some extra mystique as the birthplace of tennis. In practical terms, however, all the slams are equally meaningful these days because the fields are all composed of the best 100ish ranked players plus some wildcards and quallies. In the past perhaps that was not the case. Since all 4 majors now have great fields, and have had since around 1990, debating which slam 'means' more has no practical value at all. Different players will have different emotional attachments, but those differences don't mean any single slam is somehow better or worse.

P_Agony
04-11-2009, 01:11 PM
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.

I'm not from the US and I find the USO more prestigious, hence your post fails.

Cesc Fabregas
04-11-2009, 01:15 PM
I'm not from the US and I find the USO more prestigious, hence your post fails.

Thats because you're a Federer fan boy.

Lotto
04-11-2009, 01:24 PM
They're all the feckin same, get that into your head.

egn
04-11-2009, 01:27 PM
Thats because you're a Federer fan boy.

He is outside the US nonetheless.

fps
04-11-2009, 01:33 PM
Maybe in the distant past. Not any more.

They're all best of 5 against the very best of your peers in the world.

To win any of them is an achievement you could be proud of til your last day on earth, and rightly so.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-11-2009, 01:39 PM
He won it all at 22 actually! (He won't be 23 before June.) At Nadal's age, Federer had also won Wimbledon and AO but not USO yet and of course not RG.
There used to be differences in the past but as it stands today all the slams have the same worth and importance.
I agree that Nadal did 1 thing that is unique which is hold 3 slams on 3 different surfaces at the same time. Noone had done it before! How many times do I have to tell you. Its been done before. You seriously need to brush up on your tennis history!

veroniquem
04-11-2009, 02:09 PM
How many times do I have to tell you. Its been done before. You seriously need to brush up on your tennis history!
It has NEVER been done, not simultaneously. It has been done over several years (like Agassi) but noone before Nadal has ever been the title holder of 3 slams on 3 different surfaces at once.

380pistol
04-11-2009, 02:17 PM
RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.

Says who??? European claycourters who need the slowness of the clay to enable their triumphs??? I mean who says the French Open is "more prestigious than the US"... I really wanna know.

gj011
04-11-2009, 02:32 PM
And since America is larger than Europe then just as many people probably value it. Rolland Garros also has had its period of falling out, note the 70s when top players were not allowed to play it due to WTT contracts including greats like Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors. You keep beating the "European people find it more prestigious" However Andy Murray proves you wrong every time as he has said, his favorite slam is the US Open. So really yours is just an opinion with limited factual backing. Your obnoxious euro-centric attitude just seems so ignorant when in reality all four slams should be weighted equally, Wimbledon gets the prestige factor, but all four are should be equal in worth. Wimbledon is the only one that really has anything prestigious about it, it was the first one and it still maintains traditional value..any more of your obnoxious I HATE AMERICA attitude you would like to share.

Oh and for the OP that is pretty unfair to say. Federer's slam total is 13 and Nadal's is 6. Just like Court has so many even if she won so many in the Australian Open where nobody really played.

WTF? Where this all comes from. I am not sure where did I "shared" any of the attitude you mentioned. Saying one slam is more prestigious than the other does not equal hating the country where the other slam is from? I am talking from my own experience and it was always common knowledge that Wimbledon and RG are the two most important tournaments in the world. IMO all 4 are equal these days, but you can often hear here that USO is "far bigger and more important" tournament than RG, which is simply not true. Also I didn't see you accuse people who claim that, like OP for example, for supposed "I HATE FRANCE" attitude.

I was just answering to, as you say as well, unfair statements from OP.

Also US is not larger than Europe. Europe has more than twice as many people than US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe

P_Agony
04-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Thats because you're a Federer fan boy.

It's because it's true. I thought so already in the Sampras era, long before Federer. I don't have to explain anything to the likes of you though.

Blinkism
04-11-2009, 02:38 PM
How many times do I have to tell you. Its been done before. You seriously need to brush up on your tennis history!

When has it been done before?

clayman2000
04-11-2009, 04:27 PM
Idiot thread......in todays game, a slam is a slam... Im sure anyone would take 2 AO's over 1 USO (even / especaily Roddick)

In the past AO fields were still decent.... FO had top fields....the Americans just sucked there

egn
04-11-2009, 04:33 PM
WTF? Where this all comes from. I am not sure where did I "shared" any of the attitude you mentioned. Saying one slam is more prestigious than the other does not equal hating the country where the other slam is from? I am talking from my own experience and it was always common knowledge that Wimbledon and RG are the two most important tournaments in the world. IMO all 4 are equal these days, but you can often hear here that USO is "far bigger and more important" tournament than RG, which is simply not true. Also I didn't see you accuse people who claim that, like OP for example, for supposed "I HATE FRANCE" attitude.

I was just answering to, as you say as well, unfair statements from OP.

Also US is not larger than Europe. Europe has more than twice as many people than US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe

Note last sentence of my post called the OP ridiculous and you didn't say all four were equal, you simple said Rolland Garros and Wimbledon were most important and disregarded the other two and made a comment that the USO is only viewed important in America. I believe I countered the OP in my last post. Also I was referring to literal size not population which Europe is double but then again I am not sure how much of Russia is in Europe so it could be suspect on which is larger.

Besides the French Open throughout most of the 70s was held with some disdain due to its banning of players contracted by World Team Tennis as top pros including Europens like Navratilova and Borg etc. were not allowed to participate due to contracts so there was some issues involving it. The US Open and Wimbledon were the big two events for a good portion of the 70s but either way they are all still of equal value. Anyone who says otherwise is being ridiculous and I said that in my comment to the OP.

gj011
04-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Note last sentence of my post called the OP ridiculous and you didn't say all four were equal, you simple said Rolland Garros and Wimbledon were most important and disregarded the other two and made a comment that the USO is only viewed important in America. I believe I countered the OP in my last post. Also I was referring to literal size not population which Europe is double but then again I am not sure how much of Russia is in Europe so it could be suspect on which is larger.

Besides the French Open throughout most of the 70s was held with some disdain due to its banning of players contracted by World Team Tennis as top pros including Europens like Navratilova and Borg etc. were not allowed to participate due to contracts so there was some issues involving it. The US Open and Wimbledon were the big two events for a good portion of the 70s but either way they are all still of equal value. Anyone who says otherwise is being ridiculous and I said that in my comment to the OP.

No, all I was saying is that if you had to pick two, like OP was doing, that it would be Wimbledon and RG for many people. Maybe I was not clear enough.

Anyway I get your point and most of it is valid, but it was wrong of you to accuse me of hate and any such attitude, since this is not what I am doing here.

AndrewD
04-11-2009, 05:13 PM
In my opinion, a player's True Grand Slam total is how many Wimbledons and US Opens they won. These were and are the two most prestigious tennis tournaments. For example: I don't think anyone would contend that Mats Wilander Australian Open championship in 1983 was equal to John McEnroe's Wimbledon championship the same year.

In 1983 John McEnroe beat Chris Lewis to win the Wimbledon title. Along the way he beat Ben Testerman, Florin Segarceanu, Brad Gilbert, Bill Scanlon, Sandy Mayer and Ivan Lendl. The players he beat had 0 majors to their name.

In 1983 Mats Wilander beat Ivan Lendl to win the Australian Open title. Along the way he beat Ben Testerman, Roscoe Tanner, Paul McNamee, Johan Kriek and John McEnroe. Kriek had won the Aus title twice, Tanner had won it once, Kriek was a semi-finalist at the US Open twice, Tanner was a Wimbledon runner-up and twice a semi-finalist at both the US Open and Wimbledon, McEnroe had won 5 majors and Lendl was still Lendl.

Now, exercise those little grey cells and tell us - without bias- which was the tougher draw and which player deserves more credit for their win?

Wimbledon is always the biggest win (of any tournament) but Wilander's Aus Open win deserves more praise due to the difficulty.

crabgrass
04-11-2009, 05:15 PM
i'd have them about level in stature, though generally most if not all americans rank their own championship higher while many europeans would probably favour the french.

RFtennis
04-11-2009, 05:52 PM
All slams are equal and I think that most players think the same except for Wimbledon. Its more prestigious and i think players want to win it to become part of its tradition, because all the top players of old times won it.

THERAFA
04-11-2009, 05:56 PM
Roland Garros is easily more important than the US. It is played on CLAY, very unique surface. US Open and Wimbledon are quite similar surfaces relatively speaking. And let's face it, from an American perspective there is no greater challenge in tennis than winning Roland Garros.

380pistol
04-11-2009, 07:10 PM
No, all I was saying is that if you had to pick two, like OP was doing, that it would be Wimbledon and RG for many people. Maybe I was not clear enough.

Anyway I get your point and most of it is valid, but it was wrong of you to accuse me of hate and any such attitude, since this is not what I am doing here.

No you didn't. You said.....

RG is more prestigious and more valued than USO everywhere except in US, especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour.

So if you want to count only two slams it should be Wimbledon and RG. They are the two big tournaments.

The bolded part isn't your opionion. I mean read the last sentence if someone wanted to count two slams they should be RG and SW19. Come on B?? So unless you are the only one outside of the United States, then that statement is a general one, not you stating your opinion. And then you said "especially for all European players which currently dominate the ATP tour"... so then who was the rest of your post reffering to then?? Only yourself, forgive if I don't believe that.

egn
04-11-2009, 08:09 PM
Roland Garros is easily more important than the US. It is played on CLAY, very unique surface. US Open and Wimbledon are quite similar surfaces relatively speaking. And let's face it, from an American perspective there is no greater challenge in tennis than winning Roland Garros.

Eh prior to the recent slowing of Wimbledon they were actually unique. Wimbledon was blazing fast with an extremely low bounce and favored serve and volley, while the US Open was fast but was higher bouncing and although serve and volley was successful it was also a good surface for baseliners both had relatively equal success there. The US Open hasn't changed much at all it is Wimbledon that has. Also the 90s Americans saw success on clay it is as of now that something has happened..but I see that changing soon as the USTA is focusing on clay courts. Courier and Agassi were two of the better clay courters of the 90s and grabbed 3 slams from that decade at France.

So for your case shouldn't countries like Spain find the US Open most prestigious as when was the last time a spanish player won them? Same guys for Brazil, France, Italy, Portugal etc. When was the last time any of them won the US Open?

Tshooter
04-11-2009, 08:54 PM
"These were and are the two most prestigious tennis tournaments"

Certainly the "were" is accurate. RG was a distant third in the 70s and early 80s (and, not that it's relevant, but I was a huge Borg-Vilas-Pannata clay court fan). The Austalian was not even the 4th biggest tourney.

But I think it today's game the four are the closest they've ever been in terms of parity though I would still agree with you as a result of history, prize money, fan interest, TV exposure, sponsorship opportunities for the winner and other factors it's still W and the USO.

THERAFA
04-11-2009, 09:25 PM
Eh prior to the recent slowing of Wimbledon they were actually unique. Wimbledon was blazing fast with an extremely low bounce and favored serve and volley, while the US Open was fast but was higher bouncing and although serve and volley was successful it was also a good surface for baseliners both had relatively equal success there. The US Open hasn't changed much at all it is Wimbledon that has. Also the 90s Americans saw success on clay it is as of now that something has happened..but I see that changing soon as the USTA is focusing on clay courts. Courier and Agassi were two of the better clay courters of the 90s and grabbed 3 slams from that decade at France.

So for your case shouldn't countries like Spain find the US Open most prestigious as when was the last time a spanish player won them? Same guys for Brazil, France, Italy, Portugal etc. When was the last time any of them won the US Open?

No. Spanish players value Wimbledon more than the US Open, because Spanish players in the 90s skipped Wimbledon - that is how much confidence they had in their grasscourt abilities. And the Rafa said Wimbledon has always been the tournament he wanted to win more than any other since he was 3 year old, probably because its the biggest challenge in tennis for a Spanish player/crasscourter.

Spanish players may not win the US Open, but they regularly get to the QF and win hardcourt nonslams, Moya, Ferrero, Corretja etc. all did great on hardcourts, and did very well at the US Open, but not at Wimbledon.

egn
04-11-2009, 09:34 PM
No. Spanish players value Wimbledon more than the US Open, because Spanish players in the 90s skipped Wimbledon - that is how much confidence they had in their grasscourt abilities. And the Rafa said Wimbledon has always been the tournament he wanted to win more than any other since he was 3 year old, probably because its the biggest challenge in tennis for a Spanish player/crasscourter.

Spanish players may not win the US Open, but they regularly get to the QF and win hardcourt nonslams, Moya, Ferrero, Corretja etc. all did great on hardcourts, and did very well at the US Open, but not at Wimbledon.

Well a lot of clay courters in general skipped wimby not just spanish players, muster skipped it on occasion. Clay courters just felt it was not worth traveling to to lose in a round. But Wimbledon as a whole is every tennis prodigies dream I would think. I mean wimbledon is probably the thing you best associate with tennis. It is like wimbledon oh hey they are talking tennis..

THERAFA
04-11-2009, 09:40 PM
I think Roland Garros and Wimbledon are the 2 most important slams because they are the only slams of their particular surface. In other words the Australian Open has taken some gloss away from the US Open by making it not the only hardcourt slam. So now if you've won RG, Wimbledon, Aust Open you can say you've won a clay, grasscourt and hardcourt slam even though you never won the US Open.

egn
04-11-2009, 09:44 PM
I think Roland Garros and Wimbledon are the 2 most important slams because they are the only slams of their particular surface. In other words the Australian Open has taken some gloss away from the US Open by making it not the only hardcourt slam. So now if you've won RG, Wimbledon, Aust Open you can say you've won a clay, grasscourt and hardcourt slam even though you never won the US Open.

Well Aussie is slow hard court and US is fast hard court. Though yes I see what you are getting at it is harder to win a clay or grass slam than a hardcourt one in theory. It is also a bit favoring to hardcourt players. Someone like Fed who was dominant on hardcourts can get 2 slams a year..someone dominate on grass and clay only can get one slam a year.

BlahDow
04-11-2009, 09:58 PM
In my opinion...it's how many RG's they've won...so sorry Federer...you're down to 0.

THERAFA
04-11-2009, 10:04 PM
I think winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year is the rarest achievement compared to winning Australian Open-US Open or US Open-Wimbledon or Australian Open-Wimbledon.

TheNatural
04-11-2009, 10:11 PM
Roland Garros, Wimbledon and The Olympics is even rarer since the Olympics is so unique and difficult to win as it occurs only once every 16 slams.

This may never be repeated again by a male.

I think winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year is the rarest achievement compared to winning Australian Open-US Open or US Open-Wimbledon or Australian Open-Wimbledon.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-11-2009, 11:54 PM
It has NEVER been done, not simultaneously. It has been done over several years (like Agassi) but noone before Nadal has ever been the title holder of 3 slams on 3 different surfaces at once. 1933, 1938, 1955, 1956, 1962, 1969. All times one player has held three slam titles on three surfaces at once.

Leublu tennis
04-12-2009, 12:24 AM
And since America is larger than Europe Huh?? America is about the same size as Europe, just a little smaller, but it exceeds Europe only in poorly educated people. Since most Americans get their education in the states, thats quite a group of dummies.

Oh, Europe has roughly 11% of the world population. And the states have less than half of that.

timnz
04-12-2009, 03:19 AM
The Pro winning of Wembley, US Pro, French Pro should also be included (from around 1930 to 1968 inclusive).

By that count Rosewall is the record holder having around 23 Slams.

Thanks

Mungo73
04-12-2009, 03:51 PM
Roland Garros is the most prestigious, then Wimbledon, then AO and USO

LMAO how many times did the USO change the surface? what a joke!!!

thejoe
04-12-2009, 03:54 PM
Roland Garros is the most prestigious, then Wimbledon, then AO and USO

LMAO how many times did the USO change the surface? what a joke!!!

Winning Wimbledon is a bigger deal than winning RG. It just is.

EDIT:

To the older guys here. (I am 34)

These Rafter fans can only be kids. because their knowledge regarding not only other players. But tennis history in general is very poor at best.

If they don't know their tennis history, and focus on only one player. Then there is no way you will get any sense out of them..

Waste of time really. Because as soon as Rafa starts to fade. They will simply jump on the next best thing...

Do you actually mean Rafter? Because I'm only 17, but was a big fan of Rafter (mainly because of my Dad and his hatred for Sampras)

Mungo73
04-12-2009, 04:10 PM
Winning Wimbledon is a bigger deal than winning RG. It just is

no its not. nobody cares about grass. clay gives more ranking points than grass.
sampras aint goat cos he didnt win roland garros. he did win 7 wimbledons but he is no goat, thats the ultimate proof.

oh you are 17, another Fed fan teen, i see...

jamesblakefan#1
04-12-2009, 04:11 PM
Roland Garros, Wimbledon and The Olympics is even rarer since the Olympics is so unique and difficult to win as it occurs only once every 16 slams.

This may never be repeated again by a male.

But the olympics are meaningless when it comes to judging all time greats, and not on the level of Slams or even MS events.

thejoe
04-12-2009, 04:15 PM
no its not. nobody cares about grass. clay gives more ranking points than grass.
sampras aint goat cos he didnt win roland garros. he did win 7 wimbledons but he is no goat, thats the ultimate proof.

oh you are 17, another Fed fan teen, i see...

If I had to guess your age, I would honestly say no older than 13. Statements like these are the reason that you are perhaps the dumbest poster on this site.

And how can you, a Nadal fan, a player who has been on tour less time than Federer, give me crap about my age? Are you honestly saying that you are even capable of taking the moral or intellectual high ground. You can barely string a legible sentence together...

EDIT: And clay gives more points than grass because it is a longer season you idiot. Not because it is more prestigious.

THERAFA
04-12-2009, 04:33 PM
It is a lot more likely that most Federer fans are kids because Federer is easily the most hyped bandwagon (by the media) of the 21st century. Even today world number 2 Federer gets more media hype than anyone, so any rookie tennis fan would jump on "GOAT" Federer's bandwagon. Whereas Nadal fans if they are like me were Agassi fans for decades and could see when Nadal was 17 that he would be the next dominant baseliner in tennis, was an easy choice to support him.

oberyn
04-12-2009, 04:38 PM
1933, 1938, 1955, 1956, 1962, 1969. All times one player has held three slam titles on three surfaces at once.

In all those years, three out of the four slams (all but the French Open) were played on grass.

Before 1975, when the U.S. Open switched (first to har-tru and then to hard court), it simply wasn't possible to hold slam titles on more than 2 surfaces.

ETA: If you want to make the "rebound ace is a different surface than decoturf" argument, then Mats Wilander held slam titles on three different surfaces when he won the Australian Open (rebound ace), French Open (clay), and U.S. Open (deco turf) in 1988, Pete Sampras did it when he won the 1994 Australian Open (after winning 1993 Wimbledon and 1993 U.S. Open), and again when he won Wimbledon in 1997 (after winning 1996 U.S. Open and 1997 Australian Open), Agassi did it when he won the 2000 Australian Open (1999 French Open and 1999 U.S. Open) and Federer accomplished this feat numerous times between 2004and 2007.

Tennis_Monk
04-12-2009, 04:54 PM
USO better than RG and AO?. Does OP watch or know about tennis?

One slam being better than other is largely subjective. Everyone has their fav slams/tournaments.

to me USO is the least likeable of all the slams.I am not a big fan of NY.

Cyan
04-12-2009, 04:56 PM
In my opinion, a player's True Grand Slam total is how many Wimbledons and US Opens they won. These were and are the two most prestigious tennis tournaments. For example: I don't think anyone would contend that Mats Wilander Australian Open championship in 1983 was equal to John McEnroe's Wimbledon championship the same year. I think one of the reasons Ivan Lendl doesn't get his due is because he "only" won three Grand Slams total at the big two tournaments compared to eight for Jimmy Connors and seven for John McEnroe.

Is it fair to say that Federer's career is far more impressive than Nadal's, as Nadal has only won one title at the two big tournaments whereas Federer has won 10.

Thoughts....



LMAO! You gotta be fecking kidding me! Typical ******* thread. Like no. I disagree. Specially considering that winning the AO is really tough because of the weather and winning FO is really tough as well because of the surface. So no. Actually Nadal has already won slams on all surfaces and he is only 22.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-12-2009, 05:33 PM
The hardest double these days isn't Wimbledon-FO, its USO-FO. The Fastest and Slowest surface.

Mungo73 seriously how old are you. Wimbledon is the biggest deal, everyone knows that and I laughed hard at your clay gives more ranking points than grass. You can't be serious?

THERAFA
04-12-2009, 06:28 PM
Ever think that because the guy can speak about 5 different languages, that he might be able to appeal to a whole range of people in the world, and is also very afluent when presenting himself? No

You guys are just strange.. Why hate a guy, because he plays against your guy?.. Its seems that all you people do is look at coveres, but don't read the whole book... I actually don't mind Rafa, but I wish he would retire tomorrow (not because I don't like him) But just so you lot would dissapear!

You should focus on the issue instead of the posters, thats why you get so emotional. Nobody hates Federer, they just prefer Nadal. Why would you expect everybody to be a Federer fan? Some of us value hard work and intelligent play.

THERAFA
04-12-2009, 06:41 PM
Once again emotional, playing the man instead of the ball.

Re-read what I wrote? I wrote that I appreciate hard work (Nadal very hard working as we know) and Intelligent play (tactically the best, refused to play a 2-handed backhand v Simon, sliced everything and won in straight sets to avenge last year's loss). If you think Federer can provide hard work and intelligent play then good luck to you.

miyagi
04-12-2009, 07:59 PM
In my opinion, a player's True Grand Slam total is how many Wimbledons and US Opens they won. These were and are the two most prestigious tennis tournaments. For example: I don't think anyone would contend that Mats Wilander Australian Open championship in 1983 was equal to John McEnroe's Wimbledon championship the same year. I think one of the reasons Ivan Lendl doesn't get his due is because he "only" won three Grand Slams total at the big two tournaments compared to eight for Jimmy Connors and seven for John McEnroe.

Is it fair to say that Federer's career is far more impressive than Nadal's, as Nadal has only won one title at the two big tournaments whereas Federer has won 10.

Thoughts....

This doesn't make any sense to me, there are 4 slams.

So the number a player posseses includes all 4 and is not restricted to the two most popular. Seems to me you're trying to devalue Nadals achievements, that isn't necessary everyone knows Roger has achieved more. It's safe to say that Nadal even if he continues this good form wont catch Federer for some time if at all.

However we do know the F.O is extremely important as both Fed and Sampras spent years trying to capture it and neither could.

I think if you are trying to claim that USO is more important than RG then that may be true in your eyes but I think that is very subjective.

Plus as RG is the ONLY clay court slam, like wombledon is the ONLY grass slam then I think it is a little more difficult to claim that RG is not important.

No doubt Rogers achievements are greater than Nadals but we all know Nadal may potentially still have many years in him to reign.

But I dont think it has anything to do with the number of USO and Wimbledon titles whatsoever!

Once both of their carears are over then we will be able to more easily compare I doubt we will be able to agree anymore easily but for now we are only looking at part of the picture.

THERAFA
04-12-2009, 08:15 PM
Most tennis players that do well at Wimbledon also do well at US Open. But how many can also do well at RG? That is the true test of a Champion. The 2 most opposite surfaces are the 2 most important if versatility counts for anything in grading a champion.

To be a great player you must dominant the slowest surface and the fastest surface. So if you think Wimbledon is the fastest then the most important slams are Roland Garros and Wimbledon. If you think US Open is the fastest then you must dominate Roland Garros and US Open. Its really a toss of the coin, but I think grass is a greater measure of versatility than hardcourt, since so many claycourters did well on hardcourt but struggled on grass, so I'd say French Open and Wimbledon are the 2 most important slams if you are measure greatness.

And its no coincidence that most of the 'great' players could never wrap up the GOAT status, because they couldn't win Roland Garros.

Now we have a player who can win slams at RG, Wimbledon and is a dominant hardcourt player too having won the Australian Open and hardcourt Masters Series Titles and with a great chance at the US Open.

Bud
04-12-2009, 08:21 PM
1933, 1938, 1955, 1956, 1962, 1969. All times one player has held three slam titles on three surfaces at once.

Three DIFFERENT surfaces is what they stated (hard, grass and clay). You're listing wins on 2 different surfaces (clay and grass).

veroniquem
04-12-2009, 08:37 PM
1933, 1938, 1955, 1956, 1962, 1969. All times one player has held three slam titles on three surfaces at once.
Wrong, none of those were on 3 different surfaces...
Nadal is the only player to have ever held 3 slam titles at once on hard, clay and grass. Cheers!

thejoe
04-13-2009, 02:54 AM
Once again emotional, playing the man instead of the ball.

Re-read what I wrote? I wrote that I appreciate hard work (Nadal very hard working as we know) and Intelligent play (tactically the best, refused to play a 2-handed backhand v Simon, sliced everything and won in straight sets to avenge last year's loss). If you think Federer can provide hard work and intelligent play then good luck to you.

You are an idiot. Federer is an incredibly intelligent player. You think he doesn't work hard, and you don't think he is clever in his play? What exactly is so special about Nadal tactically? You think that "hitting everything to the guy's backhand" is some new and revolutionary thing?

THERAFA
04-13-2009, 03:15 AM
You are an idiot. Federer is an incredibly intelligent player. You think he doesn't work hard, and you don't think he is clever in his play? What exactly is so special about Nadal tactically? You think that "hitting everything to the guy's backhand" is some new and revolutionary thing?

Idiot? Do all Federer fans speak like this?

Where did I mention "hitting everything to the guy's backhand"? I was talking about Nadal refusing to play a 2-handed backhand for the entirety of the Simon match at Aust Open, led to a straight sets win over a guy who beat him last year.

Simon was blasting winners when they met last year but this year he couldn't because every ball was sliced back to him so Simon had to decide between hitting to Nadal's backhand slice or hitting to Nadal's killer forehand. He chose to hit to Nadal's slice and found it hard to hit winners off the low sliced ball.

Notice that Federer has had problems with Simon too, so will Federer also find a winning tactic if Simon meets him in a slam?

thejoe
04-13-2009, 03:22 AM
Idiot? Do all Federer fans speak like this?

Where did I mention "hitting everything to the guy's backhand"? I was talking about Nadal refusing to play a 2-handed backhand for the entirety of the Simon match at Aust Open, led to a straight sets win over a guy who beat him last year.

Simon was blasting winners when they met last year but this year he couldn't because every ball was sliced back to him so Simon had to decide between hitting to Nadal's backhand slice or hitting to Nadal's killer forehand. He chose to hit to Nadal's slice and found it hard to hit winners off the low sliced ball.

Notice that Federer has had problems with Simon too, so will Federer also find a winning tactic if Simon meets him in a slam?

Only when you make statements such as "Federer doesn't work and isn't intelligent."

You may not have mentioned it, but that is Nadal's go to plan against most of the field. It is no coincidence that Murray, Nalbandian and Simon give him trouble, as it can be argued that all three of their backhands are stronger than their forehands.

Safinator_1
04-13-2009, 03:32 AM
Idiot? Do all Federer fans speak like this?

Where did I mention "hitting everything to the guy's backhand"? I was talking about Nadal refusing to play a 2-handed backhand for the entirety of the Simon match at Aust Open, led to a straight sets win over a guy who beat him last year.

Simon was blasting winners when they met last year but this year he couldn't because every ball was sliced back to him so Simon had to decide between hitting to Nadal's backhand slice or hitting to Nadal's killer forehand. He chose to hit to Nadal's slice and found it hard to hit winners off the low sliced ball.

Notice that Federer has had problems with Simon too, so will Federer also find a winning tactic if Simon meets him in a slam?


Simon has to get to QF's first assuming hes in Rogers Quater to test your theory out.

THERAFA
04-13-2009, 03:32 AM
Only when you make statements such as "Federer doesn't work and isn't intelligent."

You may not have mentioned it, but that is Nadal's go to plan against most of the field. It is no coincidence that Murray, Nalbandian and Simon give him trouble, as it can be argued that all three of their backhands are stronger than their forehands.

That Simon match is the first and only match in Nadal's career where he's sliced EVERY backhand, played no 2-handers the whole match. Against Murray and Nalbandian he mostly uses his 2-handed backhands, not much slicing relatively speaking.

Federer is lacking tactically because when he plays Nadal he doesn't take risks on breakpoints, he hits weak backhands rather than stepping around it and smashing forehand winners. On Nadal's 2nd serve on a breakpoint Federer refuses to attack. That is not smart to say the least.

thejoe
04-13-2009, 03:34 AM
That Simon match is the first and only match in Nadal's career where he's sliced EVERY backhand, played no 2-handers the whole match. Against Murray and Nalbandian he mostly uses his 2-handed backhands, not much slicing relatively speaking.

Federer is lacking tactically because when he plays Nadal he doesn't take risks on breakpoints, he hits weak backhands rather than stepping around it and smashing forehand winners. On Nadal's 2nd serve on a breakpoint Federer refuses to attack. That is not smart to say the least.

Fair enough, but to say his play in general is unintelligent is unjustified and ridiculous.

THERAFA
04-13-2009, 03:35 AM
Fair enough, but to say his play is unintelligent is unjustified and ridiculous.

It is obvious if you saw the Australian Open.

thejoe
04-13-2009, 03:39 AM
His "unintelligent" play kept him in the match until he crumbled mentally. He should have won that match, even playing the way he was playing.

THERAFA
04-13-2009, 03:42 AM
In terms of tennis quality the Aust Open Final was Nadal's worst performance of the Aust Open, but a brilliant achievement given the context of that Verdasco match preceding it.

THERAFA
04-13-2009, 03:53 AM
Anybody who saw the Australian Open Final would have observed how scrappy that match was on both sides (Nadal not moving so great for periods, conceding return games occasionally when up a break, clearly not himself) and if you saw the Australian Open as a whole you would see Nadal playing the sharpest hardcourt tennis of his life. The difference between this year's Aust Open and last year's was this year Nadal attacked more (except for the Simon slice tactic), thats the evolution of his hardcourt game.