PDA

View Full Version : Who is your GOAT on each surface?


Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-03-2009, 10:01 AM
Clay-Borg
Grass-Sampras
Rebound Ace- Agassi
Fast Hardcourt-Federer
Indoors-Becker

boojay
11-03-2009, 10:05 AM
Clay - Borg
Grass - Federer
Aussie HC - Federer
US HC - Federer
Indoors - Federer

If it weren't for goNads, clay would've been Fed too. How scary?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-03-2009, 10:08 AM
Clay-Borg
Grass-Sampras
Rebound Ace- Agassi
Fast Hardcourt-Federer
Indoors-Becker
Thats a good list.

Mine would look like this:
Clay-Borg
Grass-Sampras/Federer
Rebound Ace-Agassi
Fast Hardcourt-Federer
Indoor-Carpet: Becker/Lendl/Jmac

Gorecki
11-03-2009, 10:09 AM
to the OP's list i take nothing and add nothing... it's the perfect one.

unless...


Stephane Lambiel - Ice

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-03-2009, 10:12 AM
Thats a good list.

Mine would look like this:
Clay-Borg
Grass-Sampras/Federer
Rebound Ace-Agassi
Fast Hardcourt-Federer
Indoor-Carpet: Becker/Lendl/Jmac

Very good list. Of course grass has changed so much maybe we have to divide into eras. Like pre 01-02 faster grass and post 01-02 Slower grass?

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-03-2009, 10:14 AM
Clay - Borg
Grass - Federer
Aussie HC - Federer
US HC - Federer
Indoors - Federer

If it weren't for goNads, clay would've been Fed too. How scary?

How do u have Fed as the GOAT for indoor carpeting? its obsolete anymore.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-03-2009, 10:15 AM
Very good list. Of course grass has changed so much maybe we have to divide into eras. Like pre 01-02 faster grass and post 01-02 Slower grass?
Thanx. Absolutely, according to the "experts" the grass in Wimbledon slowed down in 2002, i guess thats why Hewitt could win it? I doubt Hewitt would have won on the 90`s grass.
GOAT on fast grass: Sampras
slow grass:Federer

TMF
11-03-2009, 10:15 AM
Goat on each surface:
Australian...Andre(for now), slightly ahead of Roger
RG.............Borg(for now)
SW19.........Pete(for now), slightly ahead of Roger
USO...........Roger


who’s the best on each surface:
Australian....Roger
RG..............Nadal
SW19..........Pete/Roger
USO............Roger

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-03-2009, 10:17 AM
Goat on each surface:
Australian...Andre(for now), slightly ahead of Roger
RG.............Borg(for now)
SW19.........Pete(for now), slightly ahead of Roger
USO...........Roger


who’s the best on each surface:
Australian....Roger
RG..............Nadal
SW19..........Pete/Roger
USO............Roger
Hey TMF, about your sig, did Azzurri really write that?? :shock::shock:
He seems to me as a very good poster

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-03-2009, 10:20 AM
Goat on each surface:
Australian...Andre(for now), slightly ahead of Roger
RG.............Borg(for now)
SW19.........Pete(for now), slightly ahead of Roger
USO...........Roger


who’s the best on each surface:
Australian....Roger
RG..............Nadal
SW19..........Pete/Roger
USO............Roger



Roger would have to manage another 2-3 AO's I think to suprass Andre. 2 Wimbeldons to surpass Pete (though he can be arguable I guess if he ties Pete of course that will still be debateable considering most think Pete had more grass court competiton and played under totally different conditions). USO Roger definitely.
Nadal needs another few to surpass Borg. Will Roger actually accomplish these feats though closing in on 30 years of age?

TMF
11-03-2009, 10:22 AM
Hey TMF, about your sig, did Azzurri really write that??

Yep.[10 char]

drakulie
11-03-2009, 10:22 AM
^^^It's being taken out of context. Azzurri meant that it is much worse being defeated in the finals than losing in an earlier round. Once you get to a final, there is more hope, and losing could be devastating as opposed to losing in an earlier round. Winning or losing in a final carries much more weight to it, than winning/losing in an early round. I agree with his assessment.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-03-2009, 10:25 AM
^^^It's being taken out of context. Azzurri meant that it is much worse being defeated in the finals than losing in an earlier round. Once you get to a final, there is more hope, and losing could be devastating as opposed to losing in an earlier round. Winning or losing in a final carries much more weight to it, than winning/losing in an early round. I agree with his assessment.
Oh...well that explains it, words taken out of context can easily mess up things :)

TMF
11-03-2009, 10:37 AM
Roger would have to manage another 2-3 AO's I think to suprass Andre. 2 Wimbeldons to surpass Pete (though he can be arguable I guess if he ties Pete of course that will still be debateable considering most think Pete had more grass court competiton and played under totally different conditions). USO Roger definitely.
Nadal needs another few to surpass Borg. Will Roger actually accomplish these feats though closing in on 30 years of age?

Roger just need one more AO and arguably he is ahead of Andre. Keep in mind Roger lost to the eventual winners….Safin in 2005, Nole in 2008 and rafa in 2009. But Andre lost to players who never became the eventual champion.

If Federer wins another SW19, that will be his 8th final appearances(Pete only 7). Roger is also the record holder for most consecutive match won on grass. About you saying Pete had more competition, that’s subjective or opinion, not facts.

If Nadal win 6 RG, he’s definitely ahead of Borg b/c of his prowess on other clay tournaments including the MS, and the sheer domination of the entire clay season.

zagor
11-03-2009, 10:53 AM
Clay-Borg
Grass-Sampras
Rebound Ace- Agassi
Fast Hardcourt-Federer
Indoors-Becker

Very good lost,I agree with it except the indoor carpet where I would put Mcenroe as the best ahead of Becker(sligthly though,Boris was a beast indoors).

Andres
11-03-2009, 01:05 PM
Very good lost,I agree with it except the indoor carpet where I would put Mcenroe as the best ahead of Becker(sligthly though,Boris was a beast indoors).
I agree with it too, but I'm still undecided if I would put McEnroe or Lendl instead of Becker.

President of Serve/Volley
11-03-2009, 02:30 PM
Fast Hardcourt should be Pete Sampras...

President of Serve/Volley
11-03-2009, 02:31 PM
Clay - Borg
Grass - Federer
Aussie HC - Federer
US HC - Federer
Indoors - Federer

If it weren't for goNads, clay would've been Fed too. How scary?

Becker rules indoors and carpet... The greatest carpet player of all time.

Djokovicfan4life
11-03-2009, 02:58 PM
Clay - Blake
Grass - Lendl
Fast HC - Berasetegui
Indoor carpet - Nadal

Serendipitous
11-03-2009, 02:59 PM
Alex Clayton ????? ??????

SuperFly
11-03-2009, 03:07 PM
Alex Clayton ????? ??????

http://i37.tinypic.com/ngf5dz.jpg

I can tell you're not Fedace. I call tell from my previous experiences with Fedace.

timnz
11-03-2009, 03:22 PM
Becker rules indoors and carpet... The greatest carpet player of all time.


Why do you think that when there are at least 3 players with better records than he?

Indoor Carpet Majors (Masters Cup + WCT Finals + Grand Slam Cup)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McEnroe 3 Masters + 5 WCT Finals = 8 Indoor Majors

Lendl 5 Masters + 2 WCT Finals = 7 Indoor Majors

Sampras 5 Masters + 2 Grand Slam Cups = 7 Indoor Majors

Becker 3 Masters + 1 WCT Final + 1 Grand Slam Cup = 5 Indoor Majors

I do agree he was a fantastic player on the surface though and very hard to beat.


My pick for best indoor is Lendl - 9 Masters finals in a row!

timnz
11-03-2009, 11:08 PM
Fast Grass (Wimbledon pre-2002): Sampras
Slow Grass (Wimbledon 2002+): Federer
Indoor Carpet: Lendl/Sampras
Clay: Borg
Slow Hard (eg Australian Open 1988 onwards): Agassi/Federer
Fast Hard: Federer/Sampras
Wood: Laver

grafselesfan
11-04-2009, 04:11 AM
Women:

True grass: Steffi Graf or Navratilova
2002-onwards grass: Venus or Serena Williams
Decoturf: Serena Williams or Steffi Graf
Rebound Ace: Monica Seles or Steffi Graf
Clay: Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Justine Henin, or Chris Evert
Indoors: Martina Navratilova
Overall: Steffi Graf


Men:

True grass: Pete Sampras
2002-onwards grass: Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal
Rebound ace: Andre Agassi or Roger Federer
Decoturf: Pete Sampras or Roger Federer
Indoors: Pete Sampras
Clay: Bjorn Borg or Rafael Nadal
Overall: Rod Laver or Pete Sampras

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 04:14 AM
Women:

True grass: Steffi Graf or Navratilova
2002-onwards grass: Venus or Serena Williams
Decoturf: Serena Williams or Steffi Graf
Rebound Ace: Monica Seles or Steffi Graf
Clay: Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Justine Henin, or Chris Evert
Indoors: Martina Navratilova
Overall: Steffi Graf


Men:

True grass: Pete Sampras
2002-onwards grass: Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal
Rebound ace: Andre Agassi or Roger Federer
Decoturf: Pete Sampras or Roger Federer
Indoors: Pete Sampras
Clay: Bjorn Borg or Rafael Nadal
Overall: Rod Laver or Pete Sampras

My god...talk about NOT acknowledging Federer...this is ridiculous! Thought you were a good objective poster

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 04:30 AM
Clay-Borg
Grass-Sampras
Rebound Ace- Agassi
Fast Hardcourt-Federer
Indoors-Becker

Good list, but I'd say that Federer is as good of a rebound ace player as Agassi, and Lendl is probably stronger indoors than Becker.

grafselesfan
11-04-2009, 04:40 AM
My god...talk about NOT acknowledging Federer...this is ridiculous! Thought you were a good objective poster

LOL how did I not acknowledge him. I picked him as maybe the best on 3 different surfaces (counting the new grass). Or did you expect I should pick him as the greatest ever on clay, old grass (which he hardly ever played on) or indoors too, LOL!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 04:43 AM
LOL how did I not acknowledge him. I picked him as maybe the best on 3 different surfaces (counting the new grass). Or did you expect I should pick him as the greatest ever on clay, old grass (which he hardly ever played on) or indoors too, LOL!
No i didnt, but what I dont understand is how you can pick Nadal as one of 2 greatest ever on the slow grass.
Federer ever hardly go a chance to play on indoor-carpet but i can assure you he would be just as good as Becker Lendl or JMac
And on decoturf he is clearly the greatest ever, look at his USO run and his MS-titles.

grafselesfan
11-04-2009, 04:50 AM
No i didnt, but what I dont understand is how you can pick Nadal as one of 2 greatest ever on the slow grass.
Federer ever hardly go a chance to play on indoor-carpet but i can assure you he would be just as good as Becker Lendl or JMac
And on decoturf he is clearly the greatest ever, look at his USO run and his MS-titles.

Well since Nadal has turned 21 this is how he has done vs Federer on slow grass:

2007- lost an extremely tough 5 set final, which in many ways he outplayed Federer (this was the consensus at the time amongst many experts all around the world), and with a serious injury obtained just before the 5th set.

2008- won an extremely tough 5 set final.

2009- couldnt play.

So basically the two have been virtually equal when able to play, and when Nadal wasnt a pre pubsecent boy with almost no grass experience yet.

As for decoturf Federer could be the greatest ever, he is more dominant at the U.S Open than Sampras, and in Masters events more successful to some degree. However Sampras had much tougher competition on decoturf, obviously has many more U.S Open finals, and has the same # of U.S Open titles at this point, and much more longevity at the event thus far (12 years apart in the finals). Actually so did McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, and others, even though I still narrowed it down to Federer vs Sampras for the greatest.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 04:59 AM
Well since Nadal has turned 21 this is how he has done vs Federer on slow grass:

2007- lost an extremely tough 5 set final, which in many ways he outplayed Federer (this was the consensus at the time amongst many experts all around the world), and with a serious injury obtained just before the 5th set.

2008- won an extremely tough 5 set final.

2009- couldnt play.

So basically the two have been virtually equal when able to play, and when Nadal wasnt a pre pubsecent boy with almost no grass experience yet.

As for decoturf Federer could be the greatest ever, he is more dominant at the U.S Open than Sampras, and in Masters events more successful to some degree. However Sampras had much tougher competition on decoturf, obviously has many more U.S Open finals, and has the same # of U.S Open titles at this point, and much more longevity at the event thus far (12 years apart in the finals). Actually so did McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, and others, even though I still narrowed it down to Federer vs Sampras for the greatest.

Well, thats your look at it.
Mine is that Nadal came on tour in 2004, did nothing at Wimbledon, in 2005 did nothing at Wimbledon. 2006 he got bagelled in a set, Fed relaxed for a while and Nadal grabbed a tiebreak, then Fed regrouped and strolled to Victory.
2007 WAS very impressive from Nadal, Fed didnt play his best imo (since Nadal is an expert bringing out the worst in him) but could still easily pull the 5th set off.
2008 The first 2 sets was by far the worse ive ever seen from Federer, he didnt play good in this final and still was very close to win it.
Nadal has got LOTS to proove before you can call him one of the greatest grasscourt players ever,imo thats insane.
To go with your theory, Wilander is the clay-GOAT, he beat both Vilas and Lendl in FO-finals.
About tough competition on Decoturf, Sampras had Agassi, nobody else until the end of his career when he ran into prime Safin and Prime Hewitt.

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 04:59 AM
Well since Nadal has turned 21 this is how he has done vs Federer on slow grass:

2007- lost an extremely tough 5 set final, which in many ways he outplayed Federer (this was the consensus at the time amongst many experts all around the world), and with a serious injury obtained just before the 5th set.

2008- won an extremely tough 5 set final.

2009- couldnt play.

So basically the two have been virtually equal when able to play, and when Nadal wasnt a pre pubsecent boy with almost no grass experience yet.

By that logic Kraijcek is the greatest grass court player of all time.

He has 100% success rate (even in sets won) against peak Sampras in Wimbledon.

Nadal nearly lost to grass clown Soderling in Wimbledon 2007. Soderling is a bad match-up for Nadal, it's not about Soderling beeing almost as good on grass as Federer (who barely won against the same Nadal).

Nadal is not in the same leage on grass as Federer, but he has a game that's very difficult for Federer.
If the grass was as fast and low-bouncing as it used to be we wouldn't see Nadal's forehands bouncing over Federer's head, and Federer likely wouldn't have lost the 08 final.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 05:03 AM
By that logic Kraijcek is the greatest grass court player of all time.

He has 100% success rate (even in sets won) against peak Sampras in Wimbledon.

Nadal nearly lost to grass clown Soderling in Wimbledon 2007. Soderling is a bad match-up for Nadal, it's not about Soderling beeing almost as good on grass as Federer (who barely won against the same Nadal).
Agree with this, except Soderling is no grassclown...Had he not played Fed this year he would easily have had a QF or SF at Wimby.

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 05:07 AM
Agree with this, except Soderling is no grassclown...Had he not played Fed this year he would easily have had a QF or SF at Wimby.

Soderling's big game is effective on all surfaces when he plays well, but he isn't a good grass-courter.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 05:09 AM
Soderling's big game is effective on all surfaces when he plays well, but he isn't a good grass-courter.
Id say he belongs to best 10% of the grasscourt-players of the ATP-tour

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 05:15 AM
Id say he belongs to best 10% of the grasscourt-players of the ATP-tour

It all depends on his form. He has the game to beat anyone on grass, he even nearly beat peak Federer on grass once, I think he had MP.

So far he hasn't done that much on grass, but it must be said that he underachieved big time on all surfaces in the last 4 years.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 05:21 AM
It all depends on his form. He has the game to beat anyone on grass, he even nearly beat peak Federer on grass once, I think he had MP.

So far he hasn't done that much on grass, but it must be said that he underachieved big time on all surfaces in the last 4 years.
He was 3 points from winning vs Federer in Halle, no matchpoints. That was until their meeting in this years USO the only time he took a set of Federer. Soderling has said in Swedish newspapers that there is only one player on the ATP-tour that really scares me-Federer.
He did, because he was a nutcase and a mental midget on court, then he started working with Magnus Norman who obviously brought out the best in Soderling and they even made an agreement that if Soderling threw any of his notorious tantrums they would split.
He always had a huge game but had no idea how to bring it.

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 05:23 AM
Federer ever hardly go a chance to play on indoor-carpet but i can assure you he would be just as good as Becker Lendl or JMac


why?

his record on carpet is : 50\19 with 2 titles...

as good as nalbandian and 10% of Borg´s (hardly a carpet goat) records

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 05:30 AM
why?

his record on carpet is : 50\19 with 2 titles...

as good as nalbandian and 10% of Borg´s (hardly a carpet goat) records
As ive said in other threads Fed and Nalbandian are the best indoor-players of this era imo, becker was the best of his and JMac and Lendl are tied in their era imo. Well pure speculation since there are so few, but levelwise. Had there been as many indoor-tourneys as there was in the 80`s Fed would definetely been up there.

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 05:37 AM
why?

his record on carpet is : 50\19 with 2 titles...

as good as nalbandian and 10% of Borg´s (hardly a carpet goat) records

4 out of Federer's first 5 finals where on carpet surfaces (starting in 2000).
Even back in 2000, when Federer was not even half the player he's these days (let alone 05-06 form), he was able to take Enqvis to 5.

That was around the time when more and more tournament stopped using carpet surfaces, one of the few carpet tournaments Federer played at his peak was Basel before the the surface change (06).

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 05:45 AM
As ive said in other threads Fed and Nalbandian are the best indoor-players of this era imo, becker was the best of his and JMac and Lendl are tied in their era imo. Well pure speculation since there are so few, but levelwise. Had there been as many indoor-tourneys as there was in the 80`s Fed would definetely been up there.

how can you say that?

Federer became pro in 1998

if you look to atp callendar in that year alone there were held 12 Carpet Tournaments.

9 in 1999
4 in 2000
5 in 2001
5 in 2002
5 in 2003
6 in 2004
8 in 2005

and so on... ( you get the idea)

so it seems preety lousy for player that you believe had much carpet prowess!

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 05:48 AM
4 out of Federer's first 5 finals where on carpet surfaces (starting in 2000).
Even back in 2000, when Federer was not even half the player he's these days (let alone 05-06 form), he was able to take Enqvis to 5.

That was around the time when more and more tournament stopped using carpet surfaces, one of the few carpet tournaments Federer played at his peak was Basel before the the surface change (06).

your point? the records speak for themselves... fed is impressive on deco, on reboud, on grass, you name it... Carpet? hardly!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 05:50 AM
how can you say that?

Federer became pro in 1998

if you look to atp callendar in that year alone there were held 12 Carpet Tournaments.

9 in 1999
4 in 2000
5 in 2001
5 in 2002
5 in 2003
6 in 2004
8 in 2005

and so on... ( you get the idea)

so it seems preety lousy for player that you believe had much carpet prowess!

Its my humble opinion, how many indoor-tournaments did Fed play since he hit his prime? 4 YE-championships and 1 runner-up isnt to bad right?
And Baby-Fed even toyed with close-to prime Ivanisevic on carpet.

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 05:52 AM
Its my humble opinion, how many indoor-tournaments did Fed play since he hit his prime? 4 YE-championships and 1 runner-up isnt to bad right?
And Baby-Fed even toyed with close-to prime Ivanisevic on carpet.

and i respect that...

i just dont think it's that liquid that fed would be a carpet giant...

ps: there might be a slight confusion - indoor and carpet is not the same thing...

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 05:57 AM
and i respect that...

i just dont think it's that liquid that fed would be a carpet giant...

ps: there might be a slight confusion - indoor and carpet is not the same thing...
Alright then.
Its not,very possible though
I was thinking the same thing...are we talking indoors or indoor-carpet?

Andres
11-04-2009, 05:57 AM
As ive said in other threads Fed and Nalbandian are the best indoor-players of this era imo
I would add Ljubicic and Safin to the mix.

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 05:58 AM
your point? the records speak for themselves... fed is impressive on deco, on reboud, on grass, you name it... Carpet? hardly!

In 2003 Federer played 2 carpet tournemnts after a very long season, losing early in both.
In 2004 he played 0 carpet tournaments.
In 2005 he played 1 carpet tournament, on a bad ankle (TMC) and lost in 5 sets against Nalbandian.
In 2006 he played 1 carpet tournament and won it
In 2007 he played 0 carpet tournaments, but won 2 DC matches on carpet (vs. Stepanek and Berdych)
In 2008 he played 0 carpet tournaments
In 2009 he played 0 carpet tournaments

2 carpet tournaments in the last 5 years, resulting in a final and a title.
Federer moves very well on carpet, has a big serve, solid volleys, can take the ball early on both sides and has a good return of big serves.

It's logical that a player like that does very well on indoor carpet. But even for Federer it's difficult to improve the win/loss record on a near-extinct surface.

Andres
11-04-2009, 06:02 AM
Paris 2007 was still played on Taraflex, if I'm not mistaken. Madrid was indoors hardcourts, while Paris Bercy was still carpet.

2008 is when Paris switched to I.HC (and I think Lyon was probably the only one played on carpet)

2009, no carpet whatsoever.

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 06:02 AM
In 2003 Federer played 2 carpet tournemnts after a very long season, losing early in both.
In 2004 he played 0 carpet tournaments.
In 2005 he played 1 carpet tournament, on a bad ankle (TMC) and lost in 5 sets against Nalbandian.
In 2006 he played 1 carpet tournament and won it
In 2007 he played 0 carpet tournaments, but won 2 DC matches on carpet (vs. Stepanek and Berdych)
In 2008 he played 0 carpet tournaments
In 2009 he played 0 carpet tournaments

2 carpet tournaments in the last 5 years, resulting in a final and a title.
Federer moves very well on carpet, has a big serve, solid volleys, can take the ball early on both sides and has a good return of big serves.

It's logical that a player like that does very well on indoor carpet. But even for Federer it's difficult to improve the win/loss record on a near-extinct surface.

while facing extinction (i agree), the tournaments were there for him even if only 4 or 5 each year. he chose to skip them... who's to blame? why did he skip them?

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 06:03 AM
Alright then.
Its not,very possible though
I was thinking the same thing...are we talking indoors or indoor-carpet?

i was talking about carpet... not indoors hc!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 06:05 AM
while facing extinction (i agree), the tournaments were there for him even if only 4 or 5 each year. he chose to skip them... who's to blame? why did he skip them?
Because his gap down to no 2 was so huge he simply didnt need to play them.

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 06:07 AM
while facing extinction (i agree), the tournaments were there for him even if only 5 or 5 each year. he chose to skip them... who's to blame? why did he skip them?
Those events were either not important enough (like Lyon), or didn't fit his schedule.
Also, carpet is really bad for the ankles. Federer had problems with the ligaments in his ankles around 05, so I'm not surprised that he didn't play more on carpet from that point on.

I think carpet is the kind of surface that would give Federer a edge against the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Retrieving doesn't work on it, and Federer's serve would be even harder to neutralize.

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 06:07 AM
Because his gap down to no 2 was so huge he simply didnt need to play them.

you can do better than that Tmop...

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 06:09 AM
Those events were either not important enough (like Lyon), or didn't fit his schedule.
Also, carpet is really bad for the ankles. Federer had problems with the ligaments in his ankles around 05, so I'm not surprised that he didn't play more on carpet from that point on.

I think carpet is the kind of surface that would give Federer a edge against the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Retrieving doesn't work on it, and Federer's serve would be even harder to neutralize.

why wasnt it then when we look at the (small) sample that we have?

ps: im just trying to understand your views.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 06:10 AM
you can do better than that Tmop...
Hard to say, im sure it wasnt because he felt it wasnt a surface he didnt play well on,I mean who knows? One thing I do know is that he is a master when it comes to tournament-planning. It has worked out OK for him,no?

Andres
11-04-2009, 06:10 AM
Those events were either not important enough (like Lyon), or didn't fit his schedule.
Also, carpet is really bad for the ankles. Federer had problems with the ligaments in his ankles around 05, so I'm not surprised that he didn't play more on carpet from that point on.

I think carpet is the kind of surface that would give Federer a edge against the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Retrieving doesn't work on it, and Federer's serve would be even harder to neutralize.
Carpet is easier on the ankles and joints than any hardcourt. If that's the logic, he should have skipped all hardcourts tournaments. Specially the USO :D

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 06:11 AM
Hard to say, im sure it wasnt because he felt it wasnt a surface he didnt play well on,I mean who knows? One thing I do know is that he is a master when it comes to tournament-planning. It has worked out OK for him,no?

how can i disagree with that? :)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 06:12 AM
Carpet is easier on the ankles and joints than any hardcourt. If that's the logic, he should have skipped all hardcourts tournaments. Specially the USO :D
True, at my club we have 4 thick carpets and they feel wonderful to your ankles knees your whole body. We also have 2 deco turf and i play 8/10 times on the carpets.

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 06:12 AM
why wasnt it then when we look at the (small) sample that we have?

ps: im just trying to understand your views.

Federer got bageled on grass by Byron Black, and by Spadea on clay in 99.

Why would you expect him to win easily on carpet just a year later?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 06:13 AM
how can i disagree with that? :)
Since you wanted me to do better, i guess you cant :)

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 06:14 AM
Carpet is easier on the ankles and joints than any hardcourt. If that's the logic, he should have skipped all hardcourts tournaments. Specially the USO :D
No, but that's a common misconception.

When you stop very quickly on carpet (which would result in a slide on hardcourts) you either sprain or break/tear your ankles/ligments.

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 06:14 AM
Since you wanted me to do better, i guess you cant :)

you did better, by avoiding my question :)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 06:16 AM
No, but that's a common misconception.

When you stop very quickly on carpet (which would result in a slide on hardcourts) you either sprain or break your ankles.
That might be true, but it works both ways, look at what hardcourt will do to your knees.

Gorecki
11-04-2009, 06:16 AM
No, but that's a common misconception.

When you stop very quickly on carpet (which would result in a slide on hardcourts) you either sprain or break your ankles.

i beg to differ. HC is much worse (from my experience) than carpet. no misconception - personal experience...

Andres
11-04-2009, 06:17 AM
No, but that's a common misconception.

When you stop very quickly on carpet (which would result in a slide on hardcourts) you either sprain or break your ankles.
Misconception? I play on carpet very often. It's easier on the joints and ankles. If anything, stopping very quickly on hardcourts is worse than doing it on carpet.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 06:18 AM
you did better, by avoiding my question :)
Well my answer then would be: I have no idea, only Federer knows. :)

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 06:18 AM
That might be true, but it works both ways, look at what hardcourt will do to your knees.

Hardcourts are harder on the knees than clay, but Nadal's style of running is not healthy on any surface, you can't blame the surface for everything.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-04-2009, 06:20 AM
Hardcourts are harder on the knees than clay, but Nadal's style of running is not healthy on any surface, you can't blame the surface for everything.
Im not, i was just comparing the 2.

Andres
11-04-2009, 06:20 AM
Hardcourts are harder on the knees than clay, but Nadal's style of running is not healthy on any surface, you can't blame the surface for everything.
He did not mention Nadal at all. I have had knees issues for playing on hardcourts (both tennis and basketball), yet it never bothered either my ankles or knees playing on carpet, syn grass, grass, barnished wood or red clay (I haven't played on har-tru ever, so I can't comment)

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 06:21 AM
Misconception? I play on carpet very often. It's easier on the joints and ankles. If anything, stopping very quickly on hardcourts is worse than doing it on carpet.

There are different kinds of carpet.

I also play on carpet, but it's not what the pro used to play on.

When you have the modern kind of carpet with that "rubber-sand" on top of it (allows sliding and shows marks) and a dampening layer between the top surface and the base, it's healthier than a hardcourt for the ankles.

But the classic, hard carpet surfaces are terrible for the ankles.

Jchurch
11-04-2009, 06:23 AM
Clay-Borg
Grass-Federer Just ahead of Sampras
Rebound Ace- Agassi Just ahead of Federer. One more Austrailian Open final and Federer overtakes him.
Fast Hardcourt-Federer
Indoors-Becker

dropshot winner
11-04-2009, 06:29 AM
He did not mention Nadal at all. I have had knees issues for playing on hardcourts (both tennis and basketball), yet it never bothered either my ankles or knees playing on carpet, syn grass, grass, barnished wood or red clay (I haven't played on har-tru ever, so I can't comment)

Execpt for the fact that you had no problems on wood that's not surprising, hardcourt doesn't absorb energy at all.

But 90s-style carpet isn't much better for the knees and even worse for ankles than hardcourt.

TMF
11-04-2009, 07:43 AM
Women:

Men:

True grass: Pete Sampras
2002-onwards grass: Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal
Rebound ace: Andre Agassi or Roger Federer
Decoturf: Pete Sampras or Roger Federer
Indoors: Pete Sampras
Clay: Bjorn Borg or Rafael Nadal
Overall: Rod Laver or Pete Sampras

This doesn't make any sense. You included Rafa with Federer on grass, but not Kraijcek with Sampras.

Did it take Pete to win 7 SW19 to eliminate Kraijcek from your goat list?:confused:
And since Roger has 6 SW19, does that means he has to win 1 more to eliminate Rafa from your list?:confused:

Please explain. This got to be good.

grafselesfan
11-04-2009, 08:18 AM
This doesn't make any sense. You included Rafa with Federer on grass, but not Kraijcek with Sampras.

Did it take Pete to win 7 SW19 to eliminate Kraijcek from your goat list?:confused:
And since Roger has 6 SW19, does that means he has to win 1 more to eliminate Rafa from your list?:confused:

Please explain. This got to be good.

It is pretty easy. In the limited time frame thus far Rafa was not 20 years 1 month old or younger and in only his 4th or less grass court tournament of his life he has played Roger virtually equal on grass. Not just Roger head to head. Like I said nearly won in 2007 despite an injury that hampered his movement, won in 2008, couldnt play in 2009. And even going back to 2006 was also in the final.

Many would argue had it not been for Rafa's injury in the 07 final just before the 5th set, and his injury that kept him out of this years Wimbledon that Rafa wins the last 3 Wimbledons in a row. When both Federer and Nadal are healthy and in the same grass event many people expect Rafa, and not Federer to win.

TMF
11-04-2009, 08:31 AM
It is pretty easy. In the limited time frame thus far Rafa was not 20 years 1 month old or younger and in only his 4th or less grass court tournament of his life he has played Roger virtually equal on grass. Not just Roger head to head. Like I said nearly won in 2007 despite an injury that hampered his movement, won in 2008, couldnt play in 2009. And even going back to 2006 was also in the final.

Many would argue had it not been for Rafa's injury in the 07 final just before the 5th set, and his injury that kept him out of this years Wimbledon that Rafa wins the last 3 Wimbledons in a row. When both Federer and Nadal are healthy and in the same grass event many people expect Rafa, and not Federer to win.

Boy, you come up with so many excuses I don't know where to start.
I doesn't matter whether rafa made the final at 20 or 30 years old. The fact is he has one SW19 while Roger has 6. Rafa played NO EQUAL to Federer b/c otherwise, he would of won more SW19 since 2005.

I can argue a healthy Krajicek would beat Sampras on grass, just like you are say healthy rafa would beat Roger. After all, Richard straight set Pete while Nadal struggle 5 sets to beat a lesser stellar 08 Roger.

Injury is part of the sport. You are actually giving nadal = roger at 2009 SW19, when one guy won it and the other failed to show up. Which is pure nonsense.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-04-2009, 10:43 AM
Boy, you come up with so many excuses I don't know where to start.
I doesn't matter whether rafa made the final at 20 or 30 years old. The fact is he has one SW19 while Roger has 6. Rafa played NO EQUAL to Federer b/c otherwise, he would of won more SW19 since 2005.

I can argue a healthy Krajicek would beat Sampras on grass, just like you are say healthy rafa would beat Roger. After all, Richard straight set Pete while Nadal struggle 5 sets to beat a lesser stellar 08 Roger.

Injury is part of the sport. You are actually giving nadal = roger at 2009 SW19, when one guy won it and the other failed to show up. Which is pure nonsense.

Kind of a difference there though kind of IMO. Krajicek never reached the heights of Nadal nor a was a proven consistent all around advesarie or rival Pete. And Richard only managed one wimbeldon win over Pete much less a consistent 3 years in a row rival to Federer and beating him once. Nadal has been a thorn in Federer's side all throughout his career while Krajciek was to Pete a bit it was only a 5-4 h2h in favor of Richard whereas Nadal is a 13-7 over Fed

TMF
11-04-2009, 12:26 PM
Kind of a difference there though kind of IMO. Krajicek never reached the heights of Nadal nor a was a proven consistent all around advesarie or rival Pete. And Richard only managed one wimbeldon win over Pete much less a consistent 3 years in a row rival to Federer and beating him once. Nadal has been a thorn in Federer's side all throughout his career while Krajciek was to Pete a bit it was only a 5-4 h2h in favor of Richard whereas Nadal is a 13-7 over Fed

LOL. You are just as bad as grafselesfan. Lumping in their h2h with clay when it’s got nothing to do with grass to distort the argument. Fact is Richard is 1-0 by straight setting Pete, while Roger is 2-1 against Rafa on grass. Also Roger won SW19 in 2003-05 when Nadal was non-existing. The truth is I think Richard and Nadal are light years behind Pete/Roger, but for you and grafselesfan having Nadal in the same league with Roger is a complete delusional.

akv89
11-04-2009, 12:37 PM
It is pretty easy. In the limited time frame thus far Rafa was not 20 years 1 month old or younger and in only his 4th or less grass court tournament of his life he has played Roger virtually equal on grass. Not just Roger head to head. Like I said nearly won in 2007 despite an injury that hampered his movement, won in 2008, couldnt play in 2009. And even going back to 2006 was also in the final.

Many would argue had it not been for Rafa's injury in the 07 final just before the 5th set, and his injury that kept him out of this years Wimbledon that Rafa wins the last 3 Wimbledons in a row. When both Federer and Nadal are healthy and in the same grass event many people expect Rafa, and not Federer to win.

Most people will disagree.

Cesc Fabregas
11-04-2009, 12:37 PM
Indoors
1.Lendl
2.McEnroe
3.Borg
4.Becker
5.Sampras

Badger
11-04-2009, 12:46 PM
Fast Grass (Wimbledon pre-2002): Sampras
Slow Grass (Wimbledon 2002+): Federer
Indoor Carpet: Becker
Clay: Borg at the moment but Nadal may take this in years to come
Slower Hard (Australian Open): Federer
Faster Hard (U.S. Open) : Federer

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-04-2009, 09:40 PM
LOL. You are just as bad as grafselesfan. Lumping in their h2h with clay when it’s got nothing to do with grass to distort the argument. Fact is Richard is 1-0 by straight setting Pete, while Roger is 2-1 against Rafa on grass. Also Roger won SW19 in 2003-05 when Nadal was non-existing. The truth is I think Richard and Nadal are light years behind Pete/Roger, but for you and grafselesfan having Nadal in the same league with Roger is a complete delusional.


Im not putting Nadal in Fed's league persay. Im not even trying to argue that.. But you must be blind to think there is a direct correlation with Richard Freakin one slam Krajciek NEVER a rival to Sampras and NEVER even reaching the top 1-2 spot in the world compared to Nadal who btw did not just beat Fed at a wimbeldon. Beat him consistently on clay, Australian Open as well.

dropshot winner
11-05-2009, 01:07 AM
Kind of a difference there though kind of IMO. Krajicek never reached the heights of Nadal nor a was a proven consistent all around advesarie or rival Pete. And Richard only managed one wimbeldon win over Pete much less a consistent 3 years in a row rival to Federer and beating him once. Nadal has been a thorn in Federer's side all throughout his career while Krajciek was to Pete a bit it was only a 5-4 h2h in favor of Richard whereas Nadal is a 13-7 over Fed

Kraijcek actually owned Sampras pretty badly (6-2 between 93 and 99, Sampras peak).

Kraijcek was often injured, yet he still beat Sampars more often than not, but in 99 he got injured worse than usual, I think he wrecked his knee.
Against injury ridden Kraijcek Sampras got two straight wins to make the head-2-head more respectable.

I expect that Federer does the same if Nadal can't get back to his usual level, he could reverse the head-to-head until the end of the 2010 season.

zagor
11-05-2009, 01:48 AM
Im not putting Nadal in Fed's league persay. Im not even trying to argue that.. But you must be blind to think there is a direct correlation with Richard Freakin one slam Krajciek NEVER a rival to Sampras and NEVER even reaching the top 1-2 spot in the world compared to Nadal who btw did not just beat Fed at a wimbeldon. Beat him consistently on clay, Australian Open as well.

Which has exactly what to do when we're talking about modern grass? Since modern grass is so recent in tennis terms(2002)there aren't many greats on it aside from Fed so Nadal does fall in the elite group there since he reached 3 finals in a row and won a title(and will probably add more in the future)but no he isn't in Fed's league yet(he might be in the future,Fed has a 5 year headstart on him)as Fed has 7 finals in a row and 6 titles.

navratilovafan
11-05-2009, 01:49 AM
GrafSelesfan is sniffing glue. Saying Nadal is as good as Federer on grass is like saying Seles or Henin are as good as Graf or Navratilova on grass.

sh@de
11-05-2009, 01:52 AM
Rebound Ace - Fed/Agassi
Clay - Nadal/Borg
Fast, old grass - Sampras
Slower, new grass - Fed
Fast hard courts - Fed
Indoor carpet - Becker

zagor
11-05-2009, 01:53 AM
Kraijcek actually owned Sampras pretty badly (6-2 between 93 and 99, Sampras peak).

Kraijcek was often injured, yet he still beat Sampars more often than not, but in 99 he got injured worse than usual, I think he wrecked his knee.
Against injury ridden Kraijcek Sampras got two straight wins to make the head-2-head more respectable.

I expect that Federer does the same if Nadal can't get back to his usual level, he could reverse the head-to-head until the end of the 2010 season.

Doubtfully since although Nadal may not be back to his best level neither will Fed as he'll be 29 next year(and he isn't a guy like Agassi who wasted his prime years so he's pretty spent).Maybe he'll get a slam win or two agaisnt Nadal in the future(maybe in USO if Nadal decides to show up in the damn final before Fed's 37)which would be great but I have little doubt Nadal will end his career with a winning H2H against Fed,probably by a fair margin too.

dropshot winner
11-05-2009, 01:55 AM
Doubtfully since although Nadal may not be back to his best level neither will Fed as he'll be 29 next year(and he isn't a guy like Agassi who wasted his prime years so he's pretty spent).Maybe he'll get a slam win or two agaisnt Nadal in the future(maybe in USO if Nadal decides to show up in the damn final before Fed's 37)which would be great but I have little doubt Nadal will end his career with a winning H2H against Fed,probably by a fair margin too.

Federer doesn't need slam wins to reverse the head-to-head.
But it all depends on Nadal anway, he could easily have another great season next year. If he keeps struggling, Federer could pick up two wins this year (13-9), one at IW/Miami (13-10), one in Wimbledon (13-11), one in Montreal/Cincinatti (13-12) and maybe one or two afterwards. It's not very likely, but definately possible.

jelle v
11-05-2009, 02:33 AM
Clay - tough choice.. Nadal or Borg
Rebound Ace - Federer
Grass - Federer
Fast HC - Federer

armsty
11-05-2009, 02:42 AM
Ice - Agassi

Too soon?

TMF
11-05-2009, 08:09 AM
Im not putting Nadal in Fed's league persay. Im not even trying to argue that.. But you must be blind to think there is a direct correlation with Richard Freakin one slam Krajciek NEVER a rival to Sampras and NEVER even reaching the top 1-2 spot in the world compared to Nadal who btw did not just beat Fed at a wimbeldon. Beat him consistently on clay, Australian Open as well.

Ok. Although it sound like you agree with grafselesfan by having Nadal up their with Roger as a goat(which is absurb) on grass from your previous post. However, since it was about grass, it was unnecessary from you to bring up rafa 13-7 h2h against Roger just to boost Rafa over Richard on grass. See my point?

borg number one
11-05-2009, 08:56 AM
Clay:
Borg, with Nadal a strong second.

http://www.ina.fr/sport/tennis/video/CAA7800743501/finale-simple-messieurs-des-internationaux-de-france-de-tennis-borg-oppose-a-vilas.fr.html

(Borg-Vilas 1977)

http://www.ina.fr/sport/tennis/video/CAA8100833401/finale-messieurs-des-internationaux-de-france-de-tennis-borg-oppose-a-lendl.fr.html
(Borg-Lendl 1981)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPMpYEYZK_w
(Nadal-Federer 2007 FO Final)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lia1v4riTsI
(Nadal-Federer 2006 FO Final)


Rebound Ace/Decoturf (Borg/McEnroe/Connors, etc. and players before them are excluded b/c they never played on it)

I would give the nod to Federer for longevity and track record, but Nadal for peak performance for last year's AO Final on a hard court. Nadal should win more AO's in the future and possibly some US Opens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgFHPNimU3M

(Fed-Nadal at the AO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2YLxMz7uSY
(Federer-Safin in 2004 AO Final)


Faster Hard Courts:
Pete Sampras , with a slight edge over Federer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pifYXOpu8I
(Sampras-Ivanisevic 1996 US Open SF)

Fast Indoor Carpet: (Lendl/Borg/McEnroe all slightly ahead of Federer. Lendl was extremely tough in the mid 1980's, as was Borg through 1981.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAPwx3z950 (Lendl KO's Mcenroe)

Borg-Lendl 1981 Masters Final:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU

Borg-McEnroe 1981 Masters Final:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpgAKQ3dQfg


McEnroe-Wilander (1984 Davis Cup):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvVDFdf5Zeo


Grass: (This is a very tough call. I think you can flip a coin between Federer/Borg/Sampras, who on a given day were all unbelievable in terms of peak performance. The three were the best grass players in history. Sampras gets the nod for total wins though.)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-j46d1eQ0w (Federer-Nadal 2006 Wimbledon Final)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOedxoa_0J0 (Bjorn Borg-Wimbledon Great)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSRp7FDZPD8
Sampras at Wimbledon

akv89
11-05-2009, 09:10 AM
[I]Rebound Ace/Decoturf (Borg/McEnroe/Connors, etc. and players before them are excluded b/c they never played on it)

I would give the nod to Federer for longevity and track record, but Nadal for peak performance for last year's AO Final on a hard court. Nadal should win more AO's in the future and possibly some US Opens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgFHPNimU3M

(Fed-Nadal at the AO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2YLxMz7uSY
(Federer-Safin in 2004 AO Final)



A little strange that you think Nadal's peak performance on rebound ace is better than some others like Federer, Agassi, or Sampras...especially considering that Nadal was pushed to 5 sets twice when he won the tournament. I thought Federer's play in 04 and 07 and Agassi's play in '95 were certainly better peak performances than Nadal '09.

borg number one
11-05-2009, 09:35 AM
AKV89, well from 1988 until 2007, Rebound Ace was the official surface of the Australian Open. So, the Federer-Nadal 2009 Final was on "Plexicushion Prestige" which is similar to Decoturf, the surface of the US Open. On Rebound Ace, I would put Federer at the top, but I thought Nadal on the Decoturf like surface reached a very high level. That's why I put Nadal higher than Federer in terms of peak performance on Decoturf. I think Federer was just outplayed during that match and overmatched. Of course, Federer has been the best on the Decturf at the US Open.

Per Wikipedia: "In 2008, the Rebound Ace surface, which had been in place for the past 20 years at Melbourne Park, was replaced by a cushioned, medium-paced, acrylic surface known as Plexicushion Prestige."

Jchurch
11-05-2009, 09:44 AM
AKV89, well from 1988 until 2007, Rebound Ace was the official surface of the Australian Open. So, the Federer-Nadal 2009 Final was on "Plexicushion Prestige" which is similar to Decoturf, the surface of the US Open. On Rebound Ace, I would put Federer at the top, but I thought Nadal on the Decoturf like surface reached a very high level, and higher than Federer in terms of peak performance on Decoturf. I think Federer was just outplayed during that match and overmatched.

Per Wikipedia: "In 2008, the Rebound Ace surface, which had been in place for the past 20 years at Melbourne Park, was replaced by a cushioned, medium-paced, acrylic surface known as Plexicushion Prestige."

So you think that Nadal's performance on Plexicushion is more impressive than Federer's on Decoturf? I can't disagree more. Federer won five US Opens and dismantled some great hard court players in the process.

borg number one
11-05-2009, 09:47 AM
JChurch, though Federer has a better track record and better record overall on Decoturf (US Open and the AO), in terms of peak performance, I think '09 AO Nadal could beat peak Federer on Deco.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-05-2009, 09:58 AM
GrafSelesfan is sniffing glue. Saying Nadal is as good as Federer on grass is like saying Seles or Henin are as good as Graf or Navratilova on grass.

Not as good as Fed on grass overrall. But as Zagor did point out Nadal still has time though I doubt he will grab 6 wimbeldon titles. But Nadal does have 2 finals appearances at wimbeldon and had won a wimbeldon Over Fed. The best on grass in this era. Something Seles couldnt do

Cantankersore
11-05-2009, 10:18 AM
JChurch, though Federer has a better track record and better record overall on Decoturf (US Open and the AO), in terms of peak performance, I think '09 AO Nadal could beat peak Federer on Deco.

That's ridiculous. He didn't beat Federer by that much when Federer wasn't even close to being at his best.

TMF
11-05-2009, 10:29 AM
That's ridiculous. He didn't beat Federer by that much when Federer wasn't even close to being at his best.

It took Roger one of his worst serving day(especially in the 5th set) by averaging 51% 1st serve in order for rafa to squeeze out the win.

borg number one
11-05-2009, 10:38 AM
Yeah, but by the 5th set, Federer was just spent/resigned to losing. Nadal had broken down all his game's weapons/defenses, and that's why he was so flat in the 5th. You have to give Nadal credit for actually being stronger in the 5th, while Federer was spent in that 5th set. Federer was actually playing at a high level himself in the 3rd and 4th sets.

akv89
11-05-2009, 10:41 AM
AKV89, well from 1988 until 2007, Rebound Ace was the official surface of the Australian Open. So, the Federer-Nadal 2009 Final was on "Plexicushion Prestige" which is similar to Decoturf, the surface of the US Open. On Rebound Ace, I would put Federer at the top, but I thought Nadal on the Decoturf like surface reached a very high level. That's why I put Nadal higher than Federer in terms of peak performance on Decoturf. I think Federer was just outplayed during that match and overmatched. Of course, Federer has been the best on the Decturf at the US Open.

Per Wikipedia: "In 2008, the Rebound Ace surface, which had been in place for the past 20 years at Melbourne Park, was replaced by a cushioned, medium-paced, acrylic surface known as Plexicushion Prestige."

I'm aware. I was curious because you had Nadal above Federer in "Rebound Ace/Decoturf" by which I thought you meant peak performance at AO. If you want to compare peak performances on Decoturf or Plexicushion then I still think Federer's play through each of the 04-08 USO's was still better than Nadal's at 08 AO.

dropshot winner
11-05-2009, 10:42 AM
Yeah, but by the 5th set, Federer was just spent/resigned to losing. Nadal had broken down all his game's weapons/defenses, and that's why he was so flat in the 5th. You have to give Nadal credit for actually being stronger in the 5th, while Federer was spent in that 5th set. Federer was actually playing at a high level himself in the 3rd and 4th sets.

The greatness of a player is not measured by how he does against Federer.

borg number one
11-05-2009, 10:50 AM
Dropshot Winner, I think Federer ranks above everyone overall on Rebound Ace/Deco, but I mentioned Nadal because of his peak performance against Federer in that final. I give the advantage to Federer overall on these 2 fast surfaces. (Rebound Ace/Decoturf). Of course Rebound Ace began back in 1988, and it was at Kooyong until then. So, we're not thinking about players before then.

jrepac
11-05-2009, 11:00 AM
Thats a good list.

Mine would look like this:
Clay-Borg
Grass-Sampras/Federer
Rebound Ace-Agassi
Fast Hardcourt-Federer
Indoor-Carpet: Becker/Lendl/Jmac

This is very tough, partly in that Roger is good on a lot of surfaces and some of the early players were EXCEPTIONALLY good on 1 or 2 surfaces, at most. And, I can only judge from '75 on, but, I'm far off from the above list.

Clay--Borg (Nadal right behind)

Grass--Federer/Sampras, in either order, tho' Mac was a genius on grass and Borg a freaking miracle worker

Rebound Ace--Agassi, but who cares about this crap surface?

Hardcourt--not so sure about Fed as all time best..despite 5 USOs on the decoturf, you've got to look at Lendl and Connors as well...they rocked on the decoturf hardcourts for many years and many titles.

Indoor--well, when carpet was used Lendl, I think was the very best and Connors was quite sharp on it, which is forgotten. I do think Becker was the last great indoor carpet player, but Lendl likely has the most wins, I'm betting (and maybe Jimbo right behind him). Since carpet appears to be phased out, I'm not sure really who the "best" indoor player is anymore...

srinrajesh
11-05-2009, 11:02 AM
Grass-Sampras
Clay-Borg/Nadal
Hard-Federer
Indoors-Becker/ Lendl

Andres
11-05-2009, 12:02 PM
Indoor--well, when carpet was used Lendl, I think was the very best and Connors was quite sharp on it, which is forgotten. I do think Becker was the last great indoor carpet player, but Lendl likely has the most wins, I'm betting (and maybe Jimbo right behind him). Since carpet appears to be phased out, I'm not sure really who the "best" indoor player is anymore...
Lendl:
Carpet record: 267-56
Carpet titles: 32
Carpet Winning %: 82.66%
Indoors Record: 344-71
Indoors titles: 41
Indoors Winning %: 82.89%


McEnroe:
Carpet record: 346-65
Carpet titles: 42
Carpet Winning %: 84.18%
Indoors Record: 419-73
Indoors titles: 51
Indoors Winning %: 85.16%


Borg:
Carpet record: 176-37
Carpet titles: 22
Carpet Winning %: 82.63%
Indoors Record: 215-51
Indoors titles: 23
Indoors Winning %: 80.83%


Sampras
Carpet record: 144-44
Carpet titles: 15
Carpet Winning %: 76.6%
Indoors Record: 213-61
Indoors titles: 23
Indoors Winning %: 77.74%


Becker:
Carpet record: 258-64
Carpet titles: 26
Carpet Winning %: 80.12%
Indoors Record: 297-75
Indoors titles: 30
Indoors Winning %: 79.84%


Connors:
Carpet record: 336-76
Carpet titles: 39
Carpet Winning %: 81.55%
Indoors Record: 464-105
Indoors titles: 53
Indoors Winning %: 81.55%

Everything indicates McEnroe should be on top, both on carpet, and/or any indoor court ;)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-05-2009, 12:07 PM
Lendl:
Carpet record: 267-56
Carpet titles: 32
Carpet Winning %: 82.66%
Indoors Record: 344-71
Indoors titles: 41
Indoors Winning %: 82.89%


McEnroe:
Carpet record: 346-65
Carpet titles: 42
Carpet Winning %: 84.18%
Indoors Record: 419-73
Indoors titles: 51
Indoors Winning %: 85.16%


Borg:
Carpet record: 176-37
Carpet titles: 22
Carpet Winning %: 82.63%
Indoors Record: 215-51
Indoors titles: 23
Indoors Winning %: 80.83%


Sampras
Carpet record: 144-44
Carpet titles: 15
Carpet Winning %: 76.6%
Indoors Record: 213-61
Indoors titles: 23
Indoors Winning %: 77.74%


Becker:
Carpet record: 258-64
Carpet titles: 26
Carpet Winning %: 80.12%
Indoors Record: 297-75
Indoors titles: 30
Indoors Winning %: 79.84%


Connors:
Carpet record: 336-76
Carpet titles: 39
Carpet Winning %: 81.55%
Indoors Record: 464-105
Indoors titles: 53
Indoors Winning %: 81.55%

Everything indicates McEnroe should be on top, both on carpet, and/or any indoor court ;)

Great list Andres, really interesting!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-05-2009, 12:08 PM
Lets all agree that it is really impressive that Borg won 22 indoor-titles.

lambielspins
11-05-2009, 12:16 PM
Rebound Ace/Decoturf (Borg/McEnroe/Connors, etc. and players before them are excluded b/c they never played on it)

I would give the nod to Federer for longevity and track record, but Nadal for peak performance for last year's AO Final on a hard court. Nadal should win more AO's in the future and possibly some US Opens.


LOL crazy crazy crazy crazy. First of all Nadal on Decoturf has never even managed to make a U.S Open final. Whatever peak Nadal is on that surface, it still isnt even close to the best today, so that already eliminates him in this category if you count Rebound Ace and Decoturf together. Nadal to possibly win some U.S Opens in the future?! Dream on. The guy couldnt even make the final and what will almost certainly be his all time peak in 2008. While he is already elminated here just considering Decoturf alone, in Australia his peak was enough to barely beat an almost certain career 0-time slam finalist playing the tournament of his life in the semis, and barely enough to beat a clearly past his hard court prime Federer (and also very bad matchup style wise against Nadal) in the final. No other finals in Australia, not even any other tournament wins in smaller rebound ace surfaces that I know of, and his 2nd best year there ever (and best year overall) was completely overpowered and destroyed by Tsonga. On faster hard courts there are atleast 10 guys with higher peak performance level than Nadal ignoring matchup factors (which come into Nadal's favor vs guys like Federer, and against him vs guys like Blake who Nadal is still having a hard time beating even nearly 30 and washed up pretty much). Even on slower hard courts he does not have the highest peak level of anyone today, let alone in history.

borg number one
11-05-2009, 01:19 PM
As far as Decoturf, I know Nadal is not in the same conversation with Federer overall, but that wasn't my point. As far as Decoturf, I'm not sure any player could have beat Nadal in the '09 AO Final, including Federer from other years.

Now, if you include the US Open and Decoturf, we also have to factor in players going back 30 years, because that's when the US Open started using it in the late 1970's.

Federer, in my opinion has the edge in terms of overall record on Decoturf, but in terms of peak performance, I think Sampras, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, and Nadal are all also in the conversation. Nadal has a weak overall record relative to these others on Decoturf, but I'm only thinking about that 2009 AO, because it's one of the best matches I've ever seen played.

JoshDragon
11-05-2009, 01:28 PM
Hard courts: Roger Federer
Clay: Rafael Nadal
Grass: Roger Federer
Indoor: Pete Sampras

Serendipitous
11-05-2009, 01:34 PM
http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-tennis/mtt/clayton_alex00.html

Andres
11-05-2009, 03:43 PM
As far as Decoturf, I know Nadal is not in the same conversation with Federer overall, but that wasn't my point. As far as Decoturf, I'm not sure any player could have beat Nadal in the '09 AO Final, including Federer from other years.

Now, if you include the US Open and Decoturf, we also have to factor in players going back 30 years, because that's when the US Open started using it in the late 1970's.

Federer, in my opinion has the edge in terms of overall record on Decoturf, but in terms of peak performance, I think Sampras, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, and Nadal are all also in the conversation. Nadal has a weak overall record relative to these others on Decoturf, but I'm only thinking about that 2009 AO, because it's one of the best matches I've ever seen played.
The Australian Open 2009 was played on Plexicushion Prestige, not Decoturf.

borg number one
11-05-2009, 03:59 PM
Andres, you are absolutely right, that is true.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plexicushion

So, with the Australian, you have Rebound Ace, Decoturf and then Plexicushion, thanks for clarifying you are correct. Then, the AO is almost totally separate, with Nadal being the greatest plexicushion player ever, with Federer the best overall on Decoturf, but in terms of peak performance on Decoturf, I think an argument could be made for perhaps Sampras, Mcenroe, Lendl, or Federer being the very best. Imagine Federer vs. Lendl/Sampras/McEnroe in US Open finals. I don't think Federer is the clear winner on Decoturf on a given day, but he has the most impressive overall record.

jrepac
11-05-2009, 04:17 PM
looking at % of hardcourt titles....

Fed with 39/61 leads Connors 52/109 and Lendl 31/94....assuming Fed keeps playing, he may pass Jimbo in total hardcourt titles, which is actually kinda scary...since 52 seems like a ridiculous amount to begin with.

IvanAndreevich
11-05-2009, 04:20 PM
People voting Agassi a GOAT on Rebound Ace should keep in mind that prime Federer would probably beat him if they played a match there.

jrepac
11-05-2009, 04:28 PM
Andres, you are absolutely right, that is true.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plexicushion

.... in terms of peak performance on Decoturf, I think an argument could be made for perhaps Sampras, Mcenroe, Lendl, or Federer being the very best. Imagine Federer vs. Lendl/Sampras/McEnroe in US Open finals. I don't think Federer is the clear winner on Decoturf on a given day, but he has the most impressive overall record.

I tend to agree with this...not sure it is a clean cut win for the Fed...I could see any of the 3 giving him fits if they brought their A-games...perhaps even prime Jimbo as well. Of the 3, I could see Lendl really going toe-to-toe, quite frankly. Eh, would be fun to see...

jrepac
11-05-2009, 04:31 PM
People voting Agassi a GOAT on Rebound Ace should keep in mind that prime Federer would probably beat him if they played a match there.

Is it used ANYWHERE on the globe any longer?

borg number one
11-05-2009, 04:47 PM
People naturally overlook the fact that Borg was actually an extremely good hard court player, having won 9 of his official 63 titles on hard courts, with wins over both McEnroe, Gerulitas, and Connors in hard court finals.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_Borg_career_statistics

If you read through this list of oppononents faced you'll see a ton of variety, as he faced a slew of court specialists. He faced great clay court specialists such as Vilas, Solomon, Orantes, and Clerc, plus great grass specialists, such as Amaya, McEnroe, and Tanner when the grass courts were even faster than now, plus you had just 1 week between the FO and Wimbledon! The US Open went from rublico to hard courts during his career.

So, he was very dangerous on each and every surface, much like the other greats of the game, but Borg was always an extreme threat to win on every surface he played on once he reached the top, from the slowest surface around, Red Clay (he was a seeming lock, with 6 FO titles), to indoor carpet/hard courts (he won many hard court tournaments, big year-end Masters' titles indoors, and he reached 4 US Open finals), and then finally grass courts (Federer/Sampras/Borg have the best W records). For anyone that didn't watch tennis closely in the late 1970's-early 1980's, please don't give me the "they couldn't hit the ball hard then" stuff...Borg would have KILLED the ball with modern frames for anyone that thinks these guys could not have hit the ball hard and deep. What those guys did (Borg/McEnroe) with wood (steel for Connors and the tiny T2000) frames day in and day out is incredible stuff that takes off the chart eye hand control and arm/wrist power. Just go hit with a 1980 Borg Donnay Pro strung at 81 lbs and made EXTRA heavy in weight.

sh@de
11-06-2009, 03:57 AM
The greatness of a player is not measured by how he does against Federer.

QFT. 10 chars.

federerfanatic
11-06-2009, 04:05 AM
People voting Agassi a GOAT on Rebound Ace should keep in mind that prime Federer would probably beat him if they played a match there.

I agree. Plus Federer faced a much tougher field on Decoturf from 2004-2009 than did Agassi during his reign there from 2000-2003. Safin was insane on that surface back in 2004 and 2005, Nadal has been great on it the last couple years, Djokovic the last few years, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Roddick are always very tough on this surface. Most of the old gaurd from the Sampras era including Sampras himself (apart from 2000) were well past it or retired, while the next generation of stars had not yet emerged (some were not even yet pro) during the early 2000s.

abmk
11-06-2009, 10:43 AM
Im not putting Nadal in Fed's league persay. Im not even trying to argue that.. But you must be blind to think there is a direct correlation with Richard Freakin one slam Krajciek NEVER a rival to Sampras and NEVER even reaching the top 1-2 spot in the world compared to Nadal who btw did not just beat Fed at a wimbeldon. Beat him consistently on clay, Australian Open as well.

yet >> he beat sampras at his peak , on his favourite surface, in his favourite slam , in straights, no less ...

and fact is 6 >>>> 1

and unlike the rubbish being sprouted out here >> nadal was totally fine in the 2007 wimbledon F after the time-out and his movement was NOT hampered

and in 2009, there is no guarentee that a short-of confidence nadal ( having been beaten by soderling at his fav slam ) gets past hewitt ,roddick and murray to get to fed in the finals , but hey, logic doesn't work on some people here

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 10:50 AM
yet >> he beat sampras at his peak , on his favourite surface, in his favourite slam , in straights, no less ...

and fact is 6 >>>> 1

and unlike the rubbish being sprouted out here >> nadal was totally fine in the 2007 wimbledon F after the time-out and his movement was NOT hampered

and in 2009, there is no guarentee that a short-of confidence nadal ( having been beaten by soderling at his fav slam ) gets past hewitt ,roddick and murray to get to fed in the finals , but hey, logic doesn't work on some people here

It was one match I wouldnt get too carried away from one match.. I could see if Krajicek did more at Wimbeldon but he didnt. How many wimbeldon finals did he reach and how many has Nadal reached thus far. Nadal has been the 2nd best player at wimbeldon in this era. Krajicek was never 2nd best in the 90s. Totally different situation as I said before. Thats like saying Safin is better at the AO than Fed since he beat Fed at his peak there. I dont draw as many conclusions from one match as u do apparently. Is Del Potro better than Fed at the USO? Any player can catch fire for one match.

abmk
11-06-2009, 10:55 AM
Dropshot Winner, I think Federer ranks above everyone overall on Rebound Ace/Deco, but I mentioned Nadal because of his peak performance against Federer in that final. I give the advantage to Federer overall on these 2 fast surfaces. (Rebound Ace/Decoturf). Of course Rebound Ace began back in 1988, and it was at Kooyong until then. So, we're not thinking about players before then.

umm, rebound ace is NOT a fast surface

abmk
11-06-2009, 11:01 AM
It was one match I wouldnt get too carried away from one match.. I could see if Krajicek did more at Wimbeldon but he didnt. How many wimbeldon finals did he reach and how many has Nadal reached thus far. Nadal has been the 2nd best player at wimbeldon in this era. Krajicek was never 2nd best in the 90s. Totally different situation as I said before. Thats like saying Safin is better at the AO than Fed since he beat Fed at his peak there. I dont draw as many conclusions from one match as u do apparently. Is Del Potro better than Fed at the USO? Any player can catch fire for one match.

LMAO @ the one match part . Point is that nadal is nowhere close to being as great as fed on grass because he's won only 1 compared to fed's 6, just like krajicek has won only one compared to sampras' 7 .

Borg won 5 wimbys, mac 3 and becker 3, edberg won 4 slams on grass >> yet, no mention of any of these on the faster grass part with pete, yet nadal with one wimby on the slowed down grass is there on that list with fed. ROFL !

dropshot winner
11-06-2009, 11:03 AM
Edit: wrong thread

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 11:05 AM
LMAO @ the one match part . Point is that nadal is nowhere close to being as great as fed on grass because he's won only 1 compared to fed's 6, just like krajicek has won only one compared to sampras' 7 .

Borg won 5 wimbys, mac 3 and becker 3, edberg won 4 slams on grass >> yet, no mention of any of these on the faster grass part, yet nadal with one wimby on the slowed down grass is there on that list. ROFL !

You know as well as I do that any player can catch fire for a match or a slam. So dont sit there and make it seem Fed hasnt been on the receiving end of his opponent catching fire and beating him. Safin 05, Djoker 08 Del Potro 09 etc, I agree Fed has been more impressive at wimbeldon thus far than Nadal. But the door has not closed on Nadal's career and he may grab quite a few wimbeldon titles himself. We dont know. And Nadal should be somwhere on the list. 3 wimbeldon finals, 1 win over Federer. Not bad. Not samprasesque or borgesque or laveresque but he deserves to be mentioned. The court has changed but wimbeldon is still wimbeldon. And Nadal has been hands down the 2nd best player at wimbeldon this era

abmk
11-06-2009, 11:21 AM
You know as well as I do that any player can catch fire for a match or a slam. So dont sit there and make it seem Fed hasnt been on the receiving end of his opponent catching fire and beating him. Safin 05, Djoker 08 Del Potro 09 etc, I agree Fed has been more impressive at wimbeldon thus far than Nadal. But the door has not closed on Nadal's career and he may grab quite a few wimbeldon titles himself. We dont know. And Nadal should be somwhere on the list. 3 wimbeldon finals, 1 win over Federer. Not bad. Not samprasesque or borgesque or laveresque but he deserves to be mentioned. The court has changed but wimbeldon is still wimbeldon. And Nadal has been hands down the 2nd best player at wimbeldon this era

uhh, u are obviously slow. Let me explain again ...

No one is arguing that nadal isn't the 2nd best player on slowed down grass. But is he anywhere close to being the best on it as of now ?? A big NO . So he shouldn't be on the list ....

GSF mentioned ONLY sampras on "true" grass, forgetting >> borg,edberg,becker,mac , whereas nadal was mentioned along with federer on the slower grass >> you can see how dumb that is, can't you ....

krajicek part was only just a fun diversion, LOL !

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 11:26 AM
uhh, u are obviously slow. Let me explain again ...

No one is arguing that nadal isn't the 2nd best player on slowed down grass. But is he anywhere close to being the best on it as of now ?? A big NO . So he shouldn't be on the list ....

GSF mentioned ONLY sampras on "true" grass, forgetting >> borg,edberg,becker,mac , whereas nadal was mentioned along with federer on the slower grass >> you can see how dumb that is, can't you ....

krajicek part was only just a fun diversion, LOL !



Well who said Nadal is the best at wimbeldon in this era? The numbers clearly show Fed. But thats not to say Nadal doesnt have more time and at least come close with 5-6 wimbeldons. I think Nadal will probably focus more on getting the RG record and continue doing well on grass while HC season takes a backseat. So in the end Nadal may come close and he will have a wimbeldon win over Fed in the process.

Wimbeldon should be broken down into two separate eras I feel anyways since its like night and day compared to prior 2002

abmk
11-06-2009, 11:43 AM
Well who said Nadal is the best at wimbeldon in this era?

Grafselesfan did >>



Men:

True grass: Pete Sampras
2002-onwards grass: Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal
Rebound ace: Andre Agassi or Roger Federer
Decoturf: Pete Sampras or Roger Federer
Indoors: Pete Sampras
Clay: Bjorn Borg or Rafael Nadal
Overall: Rod Laver or Pete Sampras





http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4078043&postcount=24

which is why that ludicrous post was called out

The numbers clearly show Fed. But thats not to say Nadal doesnt have more time and at least come close with 5-6 wimbeldons. I think Nadal will probably focus more on getting the RG record and continue doing well on grass while HC season takes a backseat. So in the end Nadal may come close and he will have a wimbeldon win over Fed in the process.

Wimbeldon should be broken down into two separate eras I feel anyways since its like night and day compared to prior 2002

we'll see if and when that happens, as of now, he isn't close . Period .

sh@de
11-06-2009, 09:02 PM
Well who said Nadal is the best at wimbeldon in this era? The numbers clearly show Fed. But thats not to say Nadal doesnt have more time and at least come close with 5-6 wimbeldons. I think Nadal will probably focus more on getting the RG record and continue doing well on grass while HC season takes a backseat. So in the end Nadal may come close and he will have a wimbeldon win over Fed in the process.

Wimbeldon should be broken down into two separate eras I feel anyways since its like night and day compared to prior 2002

All about what ifs isn't it? Who's to say Nadal will get 5-6 Wimbys later on? Don't you think Murray has a legitimate chance at challenging him? Players are remembered for what they have achieved, not what they might be able to in the future. As of now, Nadal has one wimbldon, no more than that. You can't say he's 'going to be really good because he'll win more'. That's stupid logic.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-06-2009, 09:39 PM
All about what ifs isn't it? Who's to say Nadal will get 5-6 Wimbys later on? Don't you think Murray has a legitimate chance at challenging him? Players are remembered for what they have achieved, not what they might be able to in the future. As of now, Nadal has one wimbldon, no more than that. You can't say he's 'going to be really good because he'll win more'. That's stupid logic.

Nadal in top form or close to it should be enough to defeat Murray. I mean we saw what Roddick did to Murray and Roddick isnt as good at wimbeldon as Nadal has been. So no... if Nadal is in top form or close to it, Murray should not be able to beat Nadal there. Hardcourts yes.. Not grass IMO.. Murray is nothing special on grass. Hes good but not great. Though he could devlop more.

sh@de
11-07-2009, 12:07 AM
Nadal in top form or close to it should be enough to defeat Murray. I mean we saw what Roddick did to Murray and Roddick isnt as good at wimbeldon as Nadal has been. So no... if Nadal is in top form or close to it, Murray should not be able to beat Nadal there. Hardcourts yes.. Not grass IMO.. Murray is nothing special on grass. Hes good but not great. Though he could devlop more.

You haven't answered the second part...

lambielspins
11-07-2009, 12:08 AM
Nadal in top form or close to it should be enough to defeat Murray. I mean we saw what Roddick did to Murray and Roddick isnt as good at wimbeldon as Nadal has been. So no... if Nadal is in top form or close to it, Murray should not be able to beat Nadal there. Hardcourts yes.. Not grass IMO.. Murray is nothing special on grass. Hes good but not great. Though he could devlop more.

It is unlikely Nadal will ever return to his 2008 level, while Murray can easily still improve on his 2009 level on grass.

GustafsonFanatic
11-07-2009, 01:38 AM
It is unlikely Nadal will ever return to his 2008 level, while Murray can easily still improve on his 2009 level on grass.

Murray's accomplishments on grass are, to say the least, unconvincing.

lambielspins
11-07-2009, 01:59 AM
Murray's accomplishments on grass are, to say the least, unconvincing.

Of course this is true but this year he made the semis of Wimbledon and won Queens. And I think he will improve further on grass. Whereas Federer will never return to his 2003-2006 level on grass, nor Nadal his 2007-2008 IMO.

Netspirit
11-07-2009, 02:09 AM
Federer won Wimbledon 2009, beating Soderling on fire, reborn Haas and reborn Roddick (who beat Murray). If this is not "his 2003-2006 level", then yeah, um, ok. Being old sucks.

lambielspins
11-07-2009, 02:13 AM
Federer won Wimbledon 2009, beating Soderling on fire, reborn Haas and reborn Roddick (who beat Murray). If this is not "his 2003-2006 level", then yeah, um, ok. Being old sucks.

You make it sound like Federer needs his 2003-2006 level just to beat guys like Soderling, who other than this years French has done almost nothing in slams his whole career, or a 31 year old Haas who was always Federer's beetch even when younger, LOL! Lets not be silly.

dh003i
11-07-2009, 11:55 AM
Men:

True grass: Pete Sampras
2002-onwards grass: Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal
Rebound ace: Andre Agassi or Roger Federer
Decoturf: Pete Sampras or Roger Federer
Indoors: Pete Sampras
Clay: Bjorn Borg or Rafael Nadal
Overall: Rod Laver or Pete Sampras

I don't even know how you can say Federer or Nadal for greatest on grass from 2002 onwards. 6 Wimbledons to 1. There is absolutely no question. And the 1 that Nadal won, he barely beat Federer in Federer's worst year. Whether your talking about greatest or best on grass, there is no question that the greatest and best player on grass of this decade has been Federer.

CMM
11-07-2009, 12:03 PM
And the 1 that Nadal won, he barely beat Federer in Federer's worst year.
:roll:

Federer may have 6, but the 1 that Rafa won will be the one that people will remember the most. Nadal winning is a thing of beauty.

IvanAndreevich
11-07-2009, 12:06 PM
:roll:

Federer may have 6, but the 1 that Rafa won will be the one that people will remember the most. Nadal winning is a thing of beauty.

That's an amazing unbiased view :shock:

dh003i
11-07-2009, 12:12 PM
Yeah, but by the 5th set, Federer was just spent/resigned to losing. Nadal had broken down all his game's weapons/defenses, and that's why he was so flat in the 5th. You have to give Nadal credit for actually being stronger in the 5th, while Federer was spent in that 5th set. Federer was actually playing at a high level himself in the 3rd and 4th sets.

Nadal won the AO because Federer was serving horribly. Same reason why Del Potro won the USO. If Federer had merely served average -- either overall, or his average serving against those guys -- he would've won.

Federer didn't look tired at all in the 5th set. It did, however, seem like he mailed in the match and just didn't try as hard then. Federer has incredible endurance, so it's pretty silly to say he was "spent".

In any event, there really isn't any question that in this decade, Federer has been the greatest and best player on all surfaces except clay. And on clay, he's probably the 2nd greatest or best of this decade, although it is by a large margin (just like Nadal may be the 2nd best & greatest on grass of this decade, but he's still way behind Federer there).

dh003i
11-07-2009, 12:13 PM
:roll:

Federer may have 6, but the 1 that Rafa won will be the one that people will remember the most. Nadal winning is a thing of beauty.

Right, because no-one is going to remember the great 5-setter that Federer won over Nadal; or the epic 16-14 win over Roddick this year.

CMM
11-07-2009, 12:19 PM
Nadal won the AO because Federer was serving horribly. Same reason why Del Potro won the USO. If Federer had merely served average -- either overall, or his average serving against those guys -- he would've won.
This is one of the few reasons that I don't like Federer. I could easily imagine him saying these words.:)

T1000
11-07-2009, 01:22 PM
Rebound Ace: Agassi
Pre 2002 grass: Sampras
Modern grass: Federer
Clay: Borg
Fast hardcourt: Federer
Indoor: Jmac or Becker

Gorecki
11-08-2009, 08:30 AM
so... the indoor giant is getting is ***** handed by Djokovic...


well... now you know! assumption is indeed the mother of all...

abmk
11-08-2009, 09:25 PM
so... the indoor giant is getting is ***** handed by Djokovic...


well... now you know! assumption is indeed the mother of all...

Sampras lost to muster,corretja,ferriera etc on carpet ( indoor )

Becker lost to kafelnikov,Anders Järryd etc on carpet ( indoor )

So your point would be ?

Gorecki
11-09-2009, 01:05 AM
Sampras lost to muster,corretja,ferriera etc on carpet ( indoor )

Becker lost to kafelnikov,Anders Järryd etc on carpet ( indoor )

So your point would be ?

my point... ? read the previous posts and guess what is my point...

i was not the one assuming and making predictions...

ill give you a cookie...

Fedex
11-09-2009, 01:15 AM
to the OP's list i take nothing and add nothing... it's the perfect one.

unless...


Stephane Lambiel - Ice

On paper, who is best?

dropshot winner
11-09-2009, 01:34 AM
so... the indoor giant is getting is ***** handed by Djokovic...


well... now you know! assumption is indeed the mother of all...

In 1998 indoor god Sampras lost indoors to Corretja, Stoltenberg (1st round), Rusedski, Krajicek, Haas, Ferreira (1st round), and in 1999 he needed 3 sets to beat Francisco Clavet in his only indoor match.

Federer reached the final in his only indoor tournament and lost a close match to Djokovic, so what is your point?

aphex
11-09-2009, 03:19 AM
Women:

True grass: Steffi Graf or Navratilova
2002-onwards grass: Venus or Serena Williams
Decoturf: Serena Williams or Steffi Graf
Rebound Ace: Monica Seles or Steffi Graf
Clay: Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Justine Henin, or Chris Evert
Indoors: Martina Navratilova
Overall: Steffi Graf


Men:

True grass: Pete Sampras
2002-onwards grass: Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal
Rebound ace: Andre Agassi or Roger Federer
Decoturf: Pete Sampras or Roger Federer
Indoors: Pete Sampras
Clay: Bjorn Borg or Rafael Nadal
Overall: Rod Laver or Pete Sampras

Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it. Now that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion.

Pete Sampras

Andres
11-09-2009, 03:31 AM
Right, because no-one is going to remember the great 5-setter that Federer won over Nadal; or the epic 16-14 win over Roddick this year.
When was that!?









:mrgreen:

sh@de
11-09-2009, 03:31 AM
:roll:

Federer may have 6, but the 1 that Rafa won will be the one that people will remember the most. Nadal winning is a thing of beauty.

AHAHAH.

AHAHAHAHHAHA.

I can't stop laughing...

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously...

Gorecki
11-09-2009, 05:27 AM
In 1998 indoor god Sampras lost indoors to Corretja, Stoltenberg (1st round), Rusedski, Krajicek, Haas, Ferreira (1st round), and in 1999 he needed 3 sets to beat Francisco Clavet in his only indoor match.

Federer reached the final in his only indoor tournament and lost a close match to Djokovic, so what is your point?

and i dont remember posting that i considered Sampras the greatest indoor player.

while you (plus another poster) stated that based on his results, he would be a inddor giant, had there been more indoor tournaments.

so what is your point on bringing sampras?

dropshot winner
11-09-2009, 05:45 AM
and i dont remember posting that i considered Sampras the greatest indoor player.

while you (plus another poster) stated that based on his results, he would be a inddor giant, had there been more indoor tournaments.

so what is your point on bringing sampras?
Sampras was just one example, I could've brought up Becker at the tail end of his career too.

I'm still convinved that Federer would've had amazing results indoor from 2004 until at least 2007 (as he did on all other non-clay surfaces). There's no other evidence.

But when Federer plays as bad as yesterday the surface doesn't matter.
If he shanks every 2nd forehand he has a tough time winning, be it on grass, hardcourt, indoor or any other surface.

Gorecki
11-09-2009, 05:51 AM
Sampras was just one example, I could've brought up Becker at the tail end of his career too.

I'm still convinved that Federer would've had amazing results indoor from 2004 until at least 2007 (as he did on all other non-clay surfaces). There's no other evidence.

But when Federer plays as bad as yesterday the surface doesn't matter.
If he shanks every 2nd forehand he has a tough time winning, be it on grass, hardcourt, indoor or any other surface.

fair enough...

i agree that Fed has some indoor prowess, but i dont see him doing much better average wise, had there been more indoor tournaments.

dropshot winner
11-09-2009, 06:01 AM
fair enough...

i agree that Fed has some indoor prowess, but i dont see him doing much better average wise, had there been more indoor tournaments.
In the few indoor tournaments he played in the last few years he almost always either won or reached finals.
That's why I think that he would've won quite a few indoor tournaments during his peek 2005-07. In that case he would've improved his winning percentage on the surface significantly.

Back in 2000 #32 ranked Federer took one of the best indoors player of the time (Enqvist) to 5-sets in the Basel-final.

jean pierre
11-09-2009, 07:08 AM
Grass : Higueras.
Clay : Denton.
Hard : Kent Carlsson.

borg number one
11-09-2009, 07:16 AM
When trying to analyze the greatest of all time on each surface, it is useful to look at LOSSES as well as WINS/TITLES. So, I looked up the track records of Borg, Federer, and Sampras at the 3 biggest Grand Slams. The Australian Open is catching up, but of course, the tournament was not the same during the era of Borg and Sampras as it is now.

Borg's track record especially as far as "bad losses" is a big reason I give him the slight nod over both Sampras and Federer as the greatest player overall.

Of course, for all 3, many of these losses were while they young and upcoming, and I'm sure some occurred primarily due to injury (Sampras at the US Open, Borg retired vs. Stockton and was not well for 2 US Open matches vs. Connors).

Yet, this list of losses is illustrative of the fact that even these 3 greats get beat by lesser mortals from time to time. In my estimation, Borg was the most consistently dangerous/dominating player around considering all the surfaces, and he is underrated on grass/hard courts, relative to Sampras and Federer. Just look at the dearth of bad losses (big upsets) by Borg even on the fastest surfaces. Of course, he and Nadal should be considered tops in terms of prowess on red clay.

See the losses compiled below by Sampras, Federer, and Borg at the "Big 3" Slams:


Bjorn Borg:

US Open:
Jimmy Connors (3), John McEnroe (2), Roscoe Tanner, Dick Stockton (retired), N. Pilic, and V. Amritraj.

Wimbledon:
Roger Taylor, I. El-Shafei, John McEnroe, A. Ashe.

French Open:
Adriano Panatta (2).


Roger Federer:

US Open:
J. Del Potro, D. Nalbandian, M. Mirnyi, A. Agassi, J. Carlos Ferrero.

Wimbledon:
R. Nadal, M. Ancic, T. Henman, Y. Kafelnikov, and J. Novak.

French Open:
R. Nadal (4), G. Kuerten, L. Horna, H. Arazi, A. Corretja, and P. Rafter.


Pete Sampras:

US Open:
Lleyton Hewitt, M. Safin, P. Rafter, P. Korda, J. Yzaga (2), S. Edberg, J. Courier, and Jay Berger.

Wimbledon:
George Bastl, R. Federer, R. Krajicek, G. Ivanesevic, D. Rostagno, Christo Van Rensburg, and Todd Woodbridge.

French Open:
Andrea Gaudenzi, B. Blanco, M. Philippoussis, A. Medvedev, R. Delgado, M. Norman, Y. Kafelnikov, G. Schaller, J. Courier, S. Bruguera, A. Agassi, T. Champion, and M. Chang.

fed_rulz
11-09-2009, 07:33 AM
When trying to analyze the greatest of all time on each surface, it is useful to look at LOSSES as well as WINS/TITLES. So, I looked up the track records of Borg, Federer, and Sampras at the 3 biggest Grand Slams. The Australian Open is catching up, but of course, the tournament was not the same during the era of Borg and Sampras as it is now.

Borg's track record especially as far as "bad losses" is a big reason I give him the slight nod over both Sampras and Federer as the greatest player overall.

Of course, for all 3, many of these losses were while they young and upcoming, and I'm sure some occurred primarily due to injury (Sampras at the US Open, Borg retired vs. Stockton and was not well for 2 US Open matches vs. Connors).

Yet, this list of losses is illustrative of the fact that even these 3 greats get beat by lesser mortals from time to time. In my estimation, Borg was the most consistently dangerous/dominating player around considering all the surfaces, and he is underrated on grass/hard courts, relative to Sampras and Federer. Just look at the dearth of bad losses (big upsets) by Borg even on the fastest surfaces. Of course, he and Nadal should be considered tops in terms of prowess on red clay.

See the losses compiled below by Sampras, Federer, and Borg at the "Big 3" Slams:


Bjorn Borg:

US Open:
Jimmy Connors (3), John McEnroe (2), Roscoe Tanner, Dick Stockton (retired), N. Pilic, and V. Amritraj.

Wimbledon:
Roger Taylor, I. El-Shafei, John McEnroe, A. Ashe.

French Open:
Adriano Panatta (2).


Roger Federer:

US Open:
J. Del Potro, D. Nalbandian, M. Mirnyi, A. Agassi, J. Carlos Ferrero.

Wimbledon:
R. Nadal, M. Ancic, T. Henman, Y. Kafelnikov, and J. Novak.

French Open:
R. Nadal (4), G. Kuerten, L. Horna, H. Arazi, A. Corretja, and P. Rafter.


Pete Sampras:

US Open:
Lleyton Hewitt, M. Safin, P. Rafter, P. Korda, J. Yzaga (2), S. Edberg, J. Courier, and Jay Berger.

Wimbledon:
George Bastl, R. Federer, R. Krajicek, G. Ivanesevic, D. Rostagno, Christo Van Rensburg, and Todd Woodbridge.

French Open:
Andrea Gaudenzi, B. Blanco, M. Philippoussis, A. Medvedev, R. Delgado, M. Norman, Y. Kafelnikov, G. Schaller, J. Courier, S. Bruguera, A. Agassi, T. Champion, and M. Chang.

1. Australian open may not have been a great deal during Borg's time, but it was certainly a "legitimate" slam during the sampras era.

2. Borg never won the USO; that is a much BIGGER knock than losing to "lesser" mortals.

3. Borg retired pretty early, so there's a lesser chance of him picking up "bad" losses during his waning years.

4. Again, Borg NEVER won the USO; so his "minimal" bad losses cannot compensate for never having won the USO.

5. Only Federer has won all 3 of the slams you have listed. Go figure..

borg number one
11-09-2009, 07:46 AM
With the Australian, it started "reemerging" after about 1983, but it changed from Grass to Hard Courts in 1988 and it still did not attract the same depth relative to the other majors until probably about 1990. I agree that it's somewhat useful to look at Sampras and Federer at the AO, but I kept that one out for more of a "apples to apples comparison".

My central point, is that both Federer and Sampras have been beaten plenty of times at both the US Open and Wimbledon especially by much lower ranked players, especially Sampras. Just revisit the list of losses.

Fedrulz, the fact that Borg never won the US open is a side issue in that I am focusing on losses more than titles with this aspect of analyzing all time greats by surface. Winning titles is one way of proving greatness, but avoiding bad losses is also important. Yes, Borg retired at 26, but both Federer and Sampras had some bad losses in their early 20's. I agree that had Borg continued playing until he was say 30, he would have had more bad losses, but he would have also likely had more GS titles as well. Let's not forget that Borg doesn't have AO titles to help his total, just like Connors and McEnroe don't either, because it was just not the same tourney back then. For those 3, the WCT Finals/NY Masters were the big tournaments at the end of a year with the 3 Big Slams.

When analyzing Borg, for him, retiring at just 26 likely meant fewer bad losses, but also fewer GS titles as well. What would have happened if he had say 4 more shots each at the US Open, the French Open, and Wimbledon (12 total opportunities)? Plus, suppose he had played the AO ALL those years? So, you can't say that retiring young helped him avoid bad losses while ALSO NOT SAYING that he would have likely won more GS titles as well.

fed_rulz
11-09-2009, 08:01 AM
With the Australian, it started "reemerging" after about 1983, but it changed from Grass to Hard Courts in 1988 and it still did not attract the same depth relative to the other majors until probably about 1990. I agree that it's somewhat useful to look at Sampras and Federer at the AO, but I kept that one out for more of a "apples to apples comparison".

My central point, is that both Federer and Sampras have been beaten plenty of times at both the US Open and Wimbledon especially by much lower ranked players, especially Sampras. Just revisit the list of losses.

Fedrulz, the fact that Borg never won the US open is a side issue in that I am focusing on losses more than titles. Winning titles is one way of proving greatness, but avoiding bad losses is also important. Yes, Borg retired at 26, but both Federer and Sampras had some bad losses in their early 20's. I agree that had Borg continued playing until he was say 30, he would have had more bad losses, but he would have also likely had more GS titles as well. Let's not forget that Borg doesn't have AO titles to help his total, just like Connors and McEnroe don't either, because it was just not the same tourney back then. When analyzing Borg, for him, retiring early likely meant fewer bad losses, but also fewer GS titles as well.

BNO, while there is some merit to your line of thought, IMO, it can only be used as a "tie-breaker" to decide between the players involved, if all things were equal (for e.g. Pete Vs. Fed at USO; sampras has more "bad" losses, so Fed scores over him). In Borg's case, this does not apply. Also, IMO, a more credible way of analyzing bad losses would be to consider the player's own rank when they suffered the bad loss. That would help to analyze where the particular player was in terms of prowess when he suffered the bad loss. And I'm sure that that exercise will heavily favor Federer and penalize sampras more.

Secondly, the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that one can avoid "bad" losses by simply not participating in the tourney at all. Fed can avoid bad losses at the USO by simply not participating it in anymore; he has already built a legacy for himself there....

And the fewer GS titles against Borg should be counted against him while evaluating his overall greatness. Excluding the AO, there is still a difference of 1GS (Vs Fed, and still counting), and 1GS (Vs Pete). though the AO was not a big deal at Borg's time, i still think at least some "partial credit" should be given to Fed & Pete for actually putting in the effort to participate and win.

If you were to rank them w.r.t surfaces:

Hard courts:
1. Fed (by virtue of having more aus. open titles, lesser bad losses than pete)
2. Pete
3. Borg

Grass:
1. Pete (by virtue of 1 more wimby than Fed)
2. Fed
3. Borg

Clay:
1. Borg (no contest)
2. Fed
3. Pete

As you can see, it seems to me that it's an open-and-shut case when giving the overall nod. Of the three, Fed has 1 top spot, and 2 second spots. While the other two have 1 each in each of the spots.

borg number one
11-09-2009, 08:26 AM
Much of what you say above has merit, but I disagree with some of it as well. Yes, Sampras and Federer get credit for having more GS titles, and playing the Australian Open and winning it. Yet, the AO was just so different at the time of Borg. If you didn't follow tennis back then (not sure), it's difficult to understand, but it was literally "shunned" as a GS tournament, for lack of depth, court surface, etc. It is now a GREAT GS tournament again though.

Fedrulz, you still focus on TOTAL GS Titles. My point is that a player's track record of winning is most important, losses must also be analyzed to assess overall strength/consistency. As far as "avoiding losses", Borg played the Big 3 above all the time, and even played very injured a few times. Also, remember that Federer is still due to hit a "down period" in terms of his career, as he is still only 28. If he continues to play until say 30-31, he will amass some bad losses most likely. He and Borg are advantaged by a dearth of "post 26 losses". Borg, because he retired, Federer, because he has only a few losses in majors past the age of 26. It is Sampras in the list above that has more "post 26 losses".

I would also like to point out that though RF won the French Open this year, his Clay losses look worse than Borg's US Open losses overall. Plus, he does have some bad losses at Wimbledon, even in his 20's. Borg's losses at Wimbledon happened when he was 17-18, besides his losses to Ashe (about 19) and McEnroe in 1981. Similarly, look at Sampras' early losses at the US Open (though he was injured against Yzaga one year). Though Federer has a SLIGHT EDGE over Borg in terms of "Big 3 GS Titles" (+1 above), he also has more bad losses and is now 28 years of age.

I know we are splitting hairs, but it's just not that easy/clear cut to determine court surface GOATS, MUCH less the ALL TIME GOAT.

jrepac
11-09-2009, 09:34 AM
Much of what you say above has merit, but I disagree with some of it as well. Yes, Sampras and Federer get credit for having more GS titles, and playing the Australian Open and winning it. Yet, the AO was just so different at the time of Borg. If you didn'f follow tennis back then (not sure), it's difficult to understand, but it was literally "shunned" as a GS tournament, for lack of depth, court surface, etc. It is now a GREAT GS tournament again though.

Fedrulz, you still focus on TOTAL GS Titles. My point is that a player's track record of winning is most important, losses must also be analyzed to assess overall strength/consistency.

I know we are splitting hairs, but it's just not that easy/clear cut to determine court surface GOATS, MUCH less the ALL TIME GOAT.

It is really hard to explain that the AO was pretty much a non-event from 1976 to 1982...to be frank, the tennis world just didn't pay it any mind or care about it. The big focus then was always wimbledon and the USO, with a slight edge to Wimby. Even FO was secondary to those 2 as it went thru several years when top players skipped it (connors and evert) due to the World Team Tennis (?) controversy.

Putting the AO aside, you can make a good case for Borg as GOAT, but missing that USO hurts a bit...any injuries aside. Certainly, he was a man of all surfaces, but I don't see him as tops on hard courts...clay, yes, and perhaps on grass, where his is oddly under-rated. [which I don't get given his performances over his peers, which were exceptional]. I tend to give Borg some extra credit, so to speak, as his USO losses were to the very top guys. But, a win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Talent-wise, I don't see Fed as light years ahead of Borg...and in certain respects, Mac's game is even better. Sampras, on hard courts and grass, certainly is on par, or better than Fed. On HC, I'd prefer Pete over Roger.

borg number one
11-09-2009, 09:41 AM
Well, said JREPAC, I tend to agree with much of your post. I like the fact that you appreciate that when we try to differentiate between Sampras, Federer, and Borg during the Open Era, each has some merits. I think on Grass, you can make the case for all 3 of them, and on hard courts, you could argue Federer, Sampras, Lendl, and McEnroe.

Also, picking the clear GOAT on grass/hard courts is not that simple a exercise. I also like your point about McEnroe above. He is in the conversation on both grass and hard courts, especially given his peak performances.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-09-2009, 10:24 AM
It is really hard to explain that the AO was pretty much a non-event from 1976 to 1982...to be frank, the tennis world just didn't pay it any mind or care about it. The big focus then was always wimbledon and the USO, with a slight edge to Wimby. Even FO was secondary to those 2 as it went thru several years when top players skipped it (connors and evert) due to the World Team Tennis (?) controversy.

Putting the AO aside, you can make a good case for Borg as GOAT, but missing that USO hurts a bit...any injuries aside. Certainly, he was a man of all surfaces, but I don't see him as tops on hard courts...clay, yes, and perhaps on grass, where his is oddly under-rated. [which I don't get given his performances over his peers, which were exceptional]. I tend to give Borg some extra credit, so to speak, as his USO losses were to the very top guys. But, a win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Talent-wise, I don't see Fed as light years ahead of Borg...and in certain respects, Mac's game is even better. Sampras, on hard courts and grass, certainly is on par, or better than Fed. On HC, I'd prefer Pete over Roger.



You can make case for Borg but it is a bit tougher than say making a case for Laver, Roger, Pete, Tilden Pancho etc. Borg had almost a solid decade of excellence. But like in Pete's case he is missing that sole slam. Retiring at 25-26 certainly doesnt help his case. When you got guys like Laver, Pete, Pancho, Tilden with the tremendous longevity and perhaps Roger as well winning slams into their latter years. But I agree in regards to the AO. That slam didnt gain much relevance or prominence until years later.

Azzurri
11-23-2009, 11:21 AM
Hey TMF, about your sig, did Azzurri really write that?? :shock::shock:
He seems to me as a very good poster

he's a tool. it was taken out of context and cropped/shortened..whatever.

maddogz32
11-23-2009, 01:10 PM
clay- nadal

grass- sampras

hard- federer