PDA

View Full Version : Comprehensive Assessment


Pwned
06-15-2011, 04:11 PM
Antonio Banderas must be heard:

Nadal has not surpassed the career of Ken Rosewall. Rosewall won eight amateur and open grand slam titles (between 1953 to 1972), as well as 15 professional slam titles (between 1957 to 1967, the record) and two World Championship of Tennis Finals (1971-72, considered bigger than some slams at the time). So Rosewall has won 25 major titles (if tennis was open since the 1950s, Rosewall would have probably won about 16 to 17 Grand Slam titles so he or Federer would be the GOAT, with Laver third in terms of slam titles). So Nadal has not surpassed Federer, Laver, Sampras, Rosewall, Emerson and Borg. In some ways (besides majors), Nadal has not passed Bill Tilden and possibly Lendl as well.

Now, regarding your argument “if one man beats another man half the time, how can the latter man be the greatest of all time? Even more so, when Rafa leads 7-2 in their Slam encounters, how can Roger be the better player?”

To answer these issues comprehensively, I’m going to the source who stirred up the recent debate. Mary Carillo claimed near the end of the French Open final: "Nadal's going for his 17th win against Federer (against just eight losses). The greatest player of all time can't beat the greatest player of his own time?" Let's use common sense, principles, logic and facts to address Carillo's opportunistic soundbite, which translates to 'Nadal is the greatest player of Federer's own time.'

Two basic issues must be clarified before you can assess the validity of Carillo's conclusion that Nadal is "the greatest player" of Federer’s own time:
1. What does "greatest player of his own time" mean?
2. How do you measure whether a player is the "greatest player" in "his own time"?

First, what does "greatest player of his own time" mean? It is reasonable to define the "greatest player of his own time" as the best overall player relative to all other players for the entire Federer era.

- The adjective "GREATEST" has been misused by Carillo and other advocates for Nadal. In English, there are three degrees of comparison of the adjective "great" (great, greater, greatest). "Great" is the positive form (of the degrees of comparison) of the adjective "great". "Greater" is the comparative form of the adjective "great" (denoting "to a greater extent" when comparing one player's quality relative to the quality of another player but not "to the ultimate extent"). "Greatest" is the superlative form of the adjective "great" (denoting "to the ultimate extent" when comparing one player's quality relative to all other players). For example, Djokovic is a 'great' player who has performed 'greater' than Nadal this year. Nadal has the 'greatest' H2H record against Federer. Nadal is the 'greater' player than Federer in most matches between themselves but Federer is 'greater' than Nadal in winning major titles, winning more matches and dominating the overall ATP tour. Federer is the 'greatest' player of his own time based on a comprehensive and acceptable set of measures for evaluating and ranking the best ATP players from mid-2003 to the present.

- "HIS own time" clearly refers to Federer's "own time," not Nadal's time, or both their times. Nadal is in part -- but not all -- of Federer's own time. It is reasonable to define Federer's "OWN TIME" as the Federer 'era' since 2003 Wimbledon (rather than the current moment where Nadal is the number one ranked player, but Djokovic is generally considered the best player right now and leads in ranking points for the year).

Second, how do you measure whether a player is the "greatest player" in "his own time"? What are the measures? The same widely accepted criteria that the ATP, ITF and serious tennis analysts use for determining the best/greatest overall player for the time period of one year should also be used to determine the best/greatest overall player for the longer time period of a player's era or entire tennis history. If the same standards are not consistently applied, we would be comparing apples to oranges.

- Below is my comprehensive set of measures to assess whether Federer or Nadal is the greatest player in Federer's own time (as well as all time).

- Tennis already has acceptable standards and measures for choosing the greatest player. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Any measures of greatness should consider the existing measures used by the ATP and ITF to determine the top players. The ATP and ITF already have accepted criteria and systems in place to choose the best overall player for the entire year as well as the runner-up for that year. The ATP Player Of The Year is given to the top ranked player who, over the previous 52 weeks, has gathered the most ATP Rankings points. The ITF designates a "World Champion" each year based on his performances throughout the year, including Grand Slam tournaments, the ATP World Tour Finals, weekly tour events, etc. The ITF choices differed from the ATP rankings only in 1978 (Jimmy Connors), 1982 (John McEnroe), 1989 (Lendl) and 1990 (Lendl). Mary Carillo has failed to acknowledge and reconcile these accepted precedents that do already exist.

- Martina Navratilova agrees on these acceptable measures of greatness: "It’s a combination of how many grand slams have you won, how many tournaments have you won, how many years you were number one and he’s got all those combinations. The body of work is phenomenal and now he has got that French Open and I think he can just go on and sip Margaritas for the rest of his life."

- These accepted methods for choosing the year's best player addresses the H2H paradox. For example, it is conceivable that Nadal – if he wins another Grand Slam and the WTF – would be the 2011 ATP Year End No. 1 and ITF World Champion even if he has a 0-7 H2H losing record against Djokovic this year. That H2H record would not be factored in the selection of Nadal. Likewise the Federer-Nadal H2H should not be used as evidence that Nadal is the greatest player.

- Nadal's advocates insist on cherry picking unaccepted criteria such as H2H that favor Nadal because they know full well that the accepted criteria do not favor him. Mary Carillo provides no evidence -- ZILCH -- to prove that a head-to-head record between only two players is the authoritatively accepted, valid and reliable measure to select which of those two players is the greatest player over ALL other players (outside of those two players) in their own time. There are no precedents in ATP history for using such H2H record between two players to declare the winner's superiority over all other players. H2H has not been used to indisputably determine greatness (the best player of a year, greatest player in an era or the greatest player in history). For example, the proclamation of Rod Laver as the previous GOAT did not come with an asterisk that Laver had a 5-9 losing record in major finals against Ken Rosewall (two open era Grand Slams, ten closed era Professional Grand Slams, two prestigious World Championship of Tennis finals). What’s more, H2H meant more to the Laver-Rosewall rivalry because in the pre-open era (before 1968), the top professionals played H2H tours against each other. That is not how tennis competition has been structured since the open era. As well, no one mentions that Rosewall -- who was great on clay as well as grass and indoors -- could conceivably have won more grand slam titles than Laver had tennis been open since the 1950s. (If tennis was open since the 1950s, Rosewall would have probably won 16 to 17 grand slams, based on his 8 grand slams, 15 professional slams and 2 WCT Finals. Laver would have probably won about 15 grand slams, based on his 11 Grand Slams and 8 professional slams. My logic: if tennis was always open, Laver and Rosewall would not have won some grand slams as young amateurs when competing against the top pros. E.g., when Laver won his first Calendar Year Grand Slam in 1962, the top players were the pros Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno and Buchholz. Second, a professional slam is worth less than a grand slam because it has a small draw and less rounds.)

Pwned
06-15-2011, 04:12 PM
- Merely assessing the Federer-Nadal H2H record DOES NOT prove that the winner is the greatest player in Federer's own time (Nadal beating Federer does not logically extend to Nadal being superior to the ultimate extent over all other players in the field of the Federer era). The Federer-Nadal H2H only shows that Nadal has beaten Federer more often in direct matches between themselves, especially on clay. The winner and loser of these 25 Federer-Nadal matches are already reflected in the titles and ranking points they have won or lost (so factoring in the H2H is double counting), as part of the larger picture of their overall titles and ranking points won against all players in the field of competition. Nadal's advocates, however, pretend that the only two players who matter are Nadal and Federer.

MEASURES AND RESULTS: FEDERER VS NADAL
From 2005 FRENCH OPEN (May 2005) to 2011 QUEENS (June 2011)

For simplicity, let's first assess the Federer era since 2005 French Open (when Nadal won his first Grand Slam and soon after became the No. 2 player) till today. This gives a clear and direct performance comparison of Federer vs Nadal in the same time period. Thus below I've not counted what Federer accomplished between mid 2003 to before 2005 French Open. Thereafter, add Federer's excellent results from mid 2003 to mid 2005 to complete the picture since the Federer era really started from mid 2003. If Federer is greater than Nadal after mid 2005 – which the measures and data indicate overall – he is certainly going to be even greater once you add his mid 2003 to mid 2005 results.

GRAND SLAM CHAMPIONSHIPS:
- Grand Slam championship titles: Federer 12 vs Nadal 10
[clay is only 25% of the Grand Slams, yet is 60% of Nadal's titles;
Federer took just 20 GS opportunities to win 12 titles; Nadal needed 25 GS opportunities to win 10 titles]
- Career Grand Slams: Federer 1 vs Nadal 1
- Chances to win 4 consecutive GS: Federer 3 vs Nadal 1
[each time, Federer was closer to accomplishing this feat than Nadal ever was]
- Grand Slam finals: Federer 19 vs Nadal 11
- Consecutive Grand Slam Finals: Federer 10 vs Nadal 3
[Federer had a second streak of 8 finals]
- Consecutive Grand Slam Semifinals: Federer 19 vs Nadal 5
- Grand Slam match win-loss: Federer 153-13 vs Nadal 122-13

WORLD TOUR FINALS:
- World Tour Finals championship title: 3 vs Nadal 0
[considered biggest and most prestigious championship after Grand Slams,
winner is "master of tennis," worth up to 1,500 points]
- WTF finals: Federer 4 vs Nadal 0

DOMINANCE OF MAJOR CHAMPIONSHIPS:
- Major Titles (GS + WTF): Federer 15 vs Nadal 10
- Dominance of Major Titles (3 GS, 1 WTF + 1 GS final): Federer 2 vs Nadal 0
- Major Finals: Federer 23 vs Nadal 13

OTHER ATP WORLD TOUR TITLES:
- Masters 1000: Federer 10 vs Nadal 17
[clay makes up 71% or 12 of Nadal's titles]
- Total titles (GS, WTF, Masters 1000, ATP 500, ATP 250, WTC): Federer 40 vs Nadal 40
[clay makes up about 70% of Nadal's titles]
[Note: Olympics and Davis Cup are not part of ATP World Tour.
Prestige of Olympics is debatable as ATP gives only 800 points for Olympic gold
and many top players skipped past Olympics]

MATCHES PLAYED
- Overall winning percentage (match win-loss): Federer 86.9% (426-64) vs Nadal 85.5% (431-73)
- Number of dominant seasons (season winning percentage) in top ten of ATP history: Federer 3 vs Nadal 0
- Match Winning Streak: Federer 41 consecutive matches vs Nadal 32
[Federer had a second win streak of 35 consecutive matches]
- Retirement from a match in progress: Federer 0 vs Nadal 5
- Winning percentage (win-loss) against top ten players: Federer 67.7% (90-43) vs Nadal 67.5% (79-38)
[Federer has played and beaten 16 more top ten players than Nadal (133-117)
because Rafa faces less top ten players during the clay season]
- H2H (Federer vs Nadal win-loss): Federer 7 vs Nadal 16
[14 or 61% of those 23 matches came on Nadal's best surface clay,
where Nadal won 12 matches.
It is more representative if you weight Nadal's tournament schedule according to about 5 clay events,
2 grass events and 9 hardcourt events, then 26% are clay (where he is 12-2 or 86%),
11% grass (where he is 1-2 or 33%) and 63% hardcourts (where he is 4-4 or 50%),
Nadal still has a 58% winning record over Federer (22% + 4% + 32%)]
- Winning percentage (win-loss) against top ten players without Fed-Rafa H2H: Federer 75.5% (83-27) vs Nadal 67.0% (63-31)
[If you take away their H2H matches, Federer dominates the rest of the top ten much more than Nadal does.
Roger has beaten significantly more top ten players than Nadal
and has the better winning percentage, despite Nadal’s winning H2H over him.
This begs the question: if Nadal has a winning H2H over Federer, why is Nadal’s record
over the other top ten players in his time worse than Federer?]

TOTAL ATP RANKING POINTS
- Total ATP points (2005 French Open to today): Federer versus Nadal
[Note: Federer definitely has more points than Nadal. I've not computed the points due to time required and information required for the task. The ATP has changed the method used to calculate a player's ranking points several times over the years, e.g. points in 2011 are generally double what they were in 2006]

NUMBER ONE RANKING:
- Years No. 1 (end of year): Federer 4 vs Nadal 2
- Total Weeks No. 1: Federer 217 vs Nadal 100
- Consecutive Weeks No. 1: Federer 169 vs Nadal 54
- Years No. 1 (for all 52 weeks): Federer 3 vs Nadal 0

AWARDS:
- Laureus World Sportsman of the Year award: Federer 3 consecutive awards vs Nadal 1
[as selected by a jury of sports legends]
- ATP Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award: Federer 5 consecutive awards vs Nadal 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics

Joe Posnanski is wrong. How can Nadal be the most unbeatable or the greatest when he does not have even one single season ranked among the most dominant seasons in modern tennis history? Not only is Nadal beatable (i.e., not invincible), he does not have even one season in the top ten winning percentage (win-loss) in ATP history, while Federer has three seasons that make him the most unbeatable player in ATP history. Nadal's 2005 season (79-10) was his best in terms of win-loss (it included 50 clay wins) is well outside the top ten seasons. Nadal loses to other players more than Federer did or many other great players did. E.g., since 2010 Halle/Queens, the 30 year old Federer has not lost to any player ranked worse than No. 16, yet the No. 1 Nadal in his prime had four losses to players ranked from No. 19 to No. 53 (Baghdatis, Garcia-Lopez, Davydenko and Tsonga). On the other hand, Federer has three of the top ten seasons in terms of winning percentage. Roger holds the record for best two consecutive seasons (2005-2006), best three consecutive seasons (2004-2006), and best four consecutive seasons (2004-2007). In ATP history, Federer's 2005 season (81-4 win-loss) is really the second best single season in terms of match winning percentage, after McEnroe's 1984 season (82-3). As well, Federer's 2006 season (92-5) is really the third best season in ATP history. And Federer's 2004 season (76-4) is the sixth best season. [Note: Arguably, Federer’s 2005 season was tougher than McEnroe's record 1984 season. Of McEnroe's 16 tournaments, only 3 were Grand Slams, 1 WTF, and 3 or 4 'Masters'. Federer -- playing on a recovering ankle ligament tear -- lost his final match of the 2005 season in a fifth set tiebreaker. Otherwise his 2005 season would be better than McEnroe's 1984 season.].

Can Nadal beat Federer in their H2H, yet still be the second-best player of Federer's time? Of course he can. And Nadal is the second best player in Fed's era! How can Nadal be the best player of Federer's time when he is inferior to Federer in most key "best player" measures that are widely accepted in serious tennis?

Based on the accepted measures, we can declare the following (unless Nadal or another player is able to alter these conclusions in the future):
- Federer remains the best player of the Federer era so far -- despite Nadal dominating their head to d matches -- when comparing Federer's accomplishments and Nadal's accomplishments relative to all players. Federer has dominated the overall field of his time better than Nadal has. Nadal is the second greatest player of the Federer era.
- Djokovic is the best player of the year and present time. Nadal is second and Federer third based on ATP points, tournaments won, match win-loss in 2011.
- Federer remains the greatest player of all time (or co-GOAT with Rod Laver), when comparing his comprehensive career accomplishments against all current and past players.
- Even if Nadal ties Federer with 16 Grand Slams, Federer has a much more comprehensive resume than Nadal is likely to get in future.

Antonio Banderas:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/735274-why-rafael-nadal-is-not-the-goat-yet

Raphael
06-15-2011, 04:25 PM
Very interesting!

I do argue, though, that if Laver had been able to compete at Grand Slams during those 7 years of his prime, he would have many, MANY more grand slam titles.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 04:27 PM
you mean this Banderas?

http://www.vivacinema.it/img/antonio_banderas-gatto-con-gli-stivali.jpg

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 04:29 PM
Very interesting!

I do argue, though, that if Laver had been able to compete at Grand Slams during those 7 years of his prime, he would have many, MANY more grand slam titles.

Actually Laver contested in the Pro Slams in 1963-1967 and believe it or not, besides 1967 he wasn't racking most of them, Rosewall was. Either way, Laver doesn't end up with more than 18-20 Slams.

Raphael
06-15-2011, 04:33 PM
Actually Laver contested in the Pro Slams in 1963-1967 and believe it or not, besides 1967 he wasn't racking most of them, Rosewall was. Either way, Laver doesn't end up with more than 18-20 Slams.

I didn't mean to say that Laver would have wound up with 30! :)

I think 18-20 is probably about right.

Cup8489
06-15-2011, 04:38 PM
what a read. Lol.
I liked the comparison of if Nadal never beats djokovic this year but still finishes number 1, does this mean he is not number 1?

Remember the year Simon beat Fed twice in a matter of months and didnt lose a match to him.. does this make him the number 1 in 2008? Lol, just kidding.

TheNatural
06-15-2011, 04:58 PM
Your super long post confirms there there is no certainly yet as to who is even the best of this era between Fed and Rafa. We'll have to wait until their careers end.

John Mcenroe: "There is an argument to be made that Rafael Nadal may be the greatest player eventually, even possibly now,"

Тинана
06-15-2011, 06:36 PM
you mean this Banderas?

http://www.vivacinema.it/img/antonio_banderas-gatto-con-gli-stivali.jpg

That's right. I think OP is talking about him.

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 07:32 PM
Nadal has not surpassed the career of Ken Rosewall. Rosewall won eight amateur and open grand slam titles (between 1953 to 1972), as well as 15 professional slam titles (between 1957 to 1967, the record) and two World Championship of Tennis Finals (1971-72, considered bigger than some slams at the time). So Rosewall has won 25 major titles (if tennis was open since the 1950s, Rosewall would have probably won about 16 to 17 Grand Slam titles so he or Federer would be the GOAT, with Laver third in terms of slam titles)

I've been saying this for months, and he now gets the credit for publishing it? UNFAIR! :evil:

btw, Rosewall has 19+ slams, depending how you count them.

namelessone
06-16-2011, 02:12 AM
Banderas, you traitor :)

http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/06/nadal2.jpg

Gorecki
06-16-2011, 02:30 AM
I've been saying this for months, and he now gets the credit for publishing it? UNFAIR! :evil:

btw, Rosewall has 19+ slams, depending how you count them.

so has Laver... 11 (open) + 8 (pros) and also all the doubles & Mixed he raked

Lsmkenpo
06-16-2011, 02:43 AM
The majors won in this slow era are not worth half of a major 10...20....30 years ago. Back in those days it took some courage and great shot making to win a major. Now all it takes is stamina,a little foot speed, a big game improver racquet and a player can win at least 10 majors.

Sharpshooter
06-16-2011, 02:53 AM
LOL it's funny how for Rafa's winning percentages you don't stop short of mentioning how many of those wins were on clay - Rafa's best surface but don't mention the winning percentage of Federer's matches on HC - which is his best surface.

Povl Carstensen
06-16-2011, 05:00 AM
Your super long post confirms there there is no certainly yet as to who is even the best of this era between Fed and Rafa. We'll have to wait until their careers end.

John Mcenroe: "There is an argument to be made that Rafael Nadal may be the greatest player eventually, even possibly now,"
No, it confirms that Federer is the best of his era. Ofcourse, about the future, no one knows.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-16-2011, 06:14 AM
Your super long post confirms there there is no certainly yet as to who is even the best of this era between Fed and Rafa. We'll have to wait until their careers end.

John Mcenroe: "There is an argument to be made that Rafael Nadal may be the greatest player eventually, even possibly now,"

You're a glutton for being owned aren't you? :) Assuming Federer does indeed retire before Nadal then while Nadal is racking a bunch of slams without Federer there that will be his era. You can only compare them in the parts of the era that overlapped. Generally as the OP did, you don't count 2003-2005 to compare with Nadal. By the same token you won't use the achievements of Nadal after Fed retires. Thus in the parts of their career that overlapped, Fed is definitely the greatest as attested to by the OP.

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 06:51 AM
so has Laver... 11 (open) + 8 (pros) and also all the doubles & Mixed he raked

He has 5 open era slams, so he has 13 slams total. If you count amateur slams, he has 19 slams, but Rosewall has 23.

btw, Pancho Gonzales has 12 pro slams

Gorecki
06-16-2011, 07:04 AM
He has 5 open era slams, so he has 13 slams total. If you count amateur slams, he has 19 slams, but Rosewall has 23.

btw, Pancho Gonzales has 12 pro slams

Grand Slam finals
Singles: 17 finals (11 titles, 6 runner-ups)

11(6 titles) pre Open Era
6(5 Titles) post Open Era

Professional Slam Finals
Singles: 14 (8 titles, 6 runner-ups)

that is what i meant obviously. thanks for splitting hairs!!!!

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 07:28 AM
Grand Slam finals
Singles: 17 finals (11 titles, 6 runner-ups)

11(6 titles) pre Open Era
6(5 Titles) post Open Era

Professional Slam Finals
Singles: 14 (8 titles, 6 runner-ups)

that is what i meant obviously. thanks for splitting hairs!!!!

oh lol

I was referring to Rosewall having 19 slam titles ;)

Gorecki
06-16-2011, 07:30 AM
oh lol

I was referring to Rosewall having 19 slam titles ;)

anyways, to me it's Laver for a more well rounded resume. even though Ken and Pancho made some dents in it!

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 07:39 AM
anyways, to me it's Laver for a more well rounded resume. even though Ken and Pancho made some dents in it!

Rosewall had 12 runner-ups in the slams, so by your count Rosewall has 35 slam finals (that beats Fed, btw)

Amateur:

4 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups

pro slams

15 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups

open era

4 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups

Gorecki
06-16-2011, 07:48 AM
Rosewall had 12 runner-ups in the slams, so by your count Rosewall has 35 slam finals (that beats Fed, btw)

Amateur:

4 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups

pro slams

15 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups

open era

4 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups

the finals are there just as a aid to place us in the conversation. the fact is, Laver has 19 Majors (pre&post open and pro) and Rosewall has 23, whereas Rosewall only has one Pro Calendar slam, Laver has 2 Calendar slams and an aditional Pro calendar slam.

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 07:53 AM
the finals are there just as a aid to place us in the conversation. the fact is, Laver has 19 Majors (pre&post open and pro) and Rosewall has 23, whereas Rosewall only has one Pro Calendar slam, Laver has 2 Calendar slams and an aditional Pro calendar slam.

Rosewall's competition in the amateur slams was harder

Gorecki
06-16-2011, 07:55 AM
Rosewall's competition in the amateur slams was harder

that my dear friend is quite questionable. but i wont go there. i would give one thing thou! both stand (IMHO) as the 2 more consistent GOAT contenders

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 07:59 AM
that my dear friend is quite questionable. but i wont go there. i would give one thing thou! both stand (IMHO) as the 2 more consistent GOAT contenders

haha true :)

Pwned
06-16-2011, 08:24 AM
LOL it's funny how for Rafa's winning percentages you don't stop short of mentioning how many of those wins were on clay - Rafa's best surface but don't mention the winning percentage of Federer's matches on HC - which is his best surface.

Grass is Federer's best surface, imo. You have 2 slams played on HC these days and Fed has 9 compared to 6 Wimbledon wins and 7 finals. For having twice as many opportunities to win HC slams you'd think if it was his best surface he'd have quite a few more. The season is dominated by HCs. It's a shame there are not an even number of tournaments played on all surfaces, or at least much closer to it than the 68% hc - 31% clay - 1% grass that we have now.

larry10s
06-16-2011, 09:13 AM
that was a GREAT READ:)

Bobby Jr
06-16-2011, 01:57 PM
Nice side-by-side comparison in the original posts.

Only thing I don't like seeing is the bracketed bits about clay courts. In true career and all-time greatness the court surface matters little relative to total achievements.

NamRanger
06-16-2011, 10:13 PM
Nice side-by-side comparison in the original posts.

Only thing I don't like seeing is the bracketed bits about clay courts. In true career and all-time greatness the court surface matters little relative to total achievements.



Oh don't get me wrong; it is a slightly biased assessment towards Federer, but for the most part it gets most things right. There's not a single ********* could even imagine of coming up with a counter argument to the main points of the OP.

Pwned
06-18-2011, 12:03 PM
that was a GREAT READ:)

I thought so too.

TheNatural
06-18-2011, 12:12 PM
so has Laver... 11 (open) + 8 (pros) and also all the doubles & Mixed he raked

and davis cups

Gorecki
06-18-2011, 12:24 PM
and davis cups

well, since you mention it, (in serious fashion i trust) i believe that Davis Cup is a important feature in any GOAT contender, but i believe what makes Laver's resume im pressive is having slams + pro slams + doubles + mixed + davis cup + calendar x2, and not the Davis cup per se!