PDA

View Full Version : Why do people say Nadal is the undisputed clay GOAT?


dangalak
09-25-2012, 04:18 PM
He isn't. :?

I mean you can call him the clay GOAT but it's hilarious to me that being a mere ONE RG behind Nadal, completely disqualifies him from the discussion. That is even more laughable once you consider that RG and slams in general didn't have the weight that they hold now. Borg skipped several RG tournaments if I recall correctly. How fair is it to judge him on something that only gained the weight it has now, after he retired?

Not to mention, the "Nadal would beat Borg" nonsense is pathetic as well. Well, yes he would. With his Babolat racket. Good luck trying to hit heavy spin with a wooden racket though. :lol:

In my book they are both co GOATs on that surface. Nadal hasn't done enough to be considered the clear cut best ever on that surface.

Seth
09-25-2012, 04:20 PM
This is why I don't read "General Pro Player Discussion."

jaggy
09-25-2012, 04:23 PM
This is why I read it:lol:

Clarky21
09-25-2012, 04:26 PM
He isn't. :?

I mean you can call him the clay GOAT but it's hilarious to me that being a mere ONE RG behind Nadal, completely disqualifies him from the discussion. That is even more laughable once you consider that RG and slams in general didn't have the weight that they hold now. Borg skipped several RG tournaments if I recall correctly. How fair is it to judge him on something that only gained the weight it has now, after he retired?

Not to mention, the "Nadal would beat Borg" nonsense is pathetic as well. Well, yes he would. With his Babolat racket. Good luck trying to hit heavy spin with a wooden racket though. :lol:

In my book they are both co GOATs on that surface. Nadal hasn't done enough to be considered the clear cut best ever on that surface.



He has done more than enough. This thread is just one big fail.

The Bawss
09-25-2012, 04:28 PM
He has done more than enough. This thread is just one big fail.

As much as I hate to admit it...listen to the lady, people.

dangalak
09-25-2012, 04:28 PM
I can't believe this stuff. :?

kishnabe
09-25-2012, 04:33 PM
Borg is better than Nadal in my books because of his 5 Wimbledon on fast grass with an inferior game to others on grass.

RF20Lennon
09-25-2012, 04:39 PM
First off I dislike nadal. Secondly the 8 consecutive Monte Carlo speaks for itself and who's fault is it that Borg skipped RG's??

RF20Lennon
09-25-2012, 04:40 PM
Borg is better than Nadal in my books because of his 5 Wimbledon on fast grass with an inferior game to others on grass.

Borg is a way better grasscpurter but rafa has achieved more on clay

Virginia
09-25-2012, 04:51 PM
Nobody, but nobody, has as many clay court championships as Anthony Wilding. Google him, or just check the Former Pro Player Talk forum.

Tony48
09-25-2012, 04:54 PM
Errr....RG is just ONE aspect of his clay GOATness

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 05:00 PM
Since he is. Nadal's record on clay eclipses Borg in everyway now. There is no debate, except amongst a few extreme blind Nadal haters. If Rosewall was properly recognized for his career people would be debating who is the 2nd best on clay between Borg and Rosewall right now. The end.

dr. godmode
09-25-2012, 05:01 PM
yeah like winning barcelona and monte carlo 8 times in a row

dangalak
09-25-2012, 05:54 PM
First off I dislike nadal. Secondly the 8 consecutive Monte Carlo speaks for itself and who's fault is it that Borg skipped RG's??

Since he is. Nadal's record on clay eclipses Borg in everyway now. There is no debate, except amongst a few extreme blind Nadal haters. If Rosewall was properly recognized for his career people would be debating who is the 2nd best on clay between Borg and Rosewall right now. The end.

Borg only skipped the 77 French amongst years he was truly an active player. It was his choice to skip it. Evert would have about 25 slams today if she played the Australian and French through the 70s, perhaps she should be crowned the female GOAT by your logic. The previous year Borg played the French and lost to Panatta anyway, so who knows for sure what happens if he plays.

Connors was barred from the 74 French. He did not choose to skip it, he was deprived the chance. One wants to play what if Connors probably would have won it by beating Borg that year. Borg was so far his beetch at the time even beating Connors on red clay would have been nearly impossible, especialy with how easily Connors beat an improved Borg on green clay at the U.S Open next year (and yes I know green is very different from red, but even considering that). Even in 75 Connors probably would have had a real shot of beating Borg.

You fail to understand something: French Open was not nearly as significant as it was now. That is however the reason why people consider Nadal the "undisputed greatest CC ever". Seems a bit daft to me.

And yes, what you say about Evert is true. Modern players such as Graf and Serena are very overrated (Serena even more so) because of their GS prowess. Martina and Chrissie managed to rack the slams up without even trying to win them at every opportunity. That's why I laugh at the notion of Graf being the GOAT because of her 22 majors. (the Parche issue aside)

Likewise, it is laughable to look down on modern players because they are inferior in TOTAL title count. Different standards.

Hood_Man
09-25-2012, 06:10 PM
This is the problem with going purely by numbers IMHO. Guys like Borg, Laver, Connors etc didn't have the goals to aim for that todays players do, they were creating those goals themselves. A great athlete with a determination to meet a goal will achieve amazing things, but if we're trying to determine how "good" these guys were then it's impossible to compare them to each other.

If a player today wins 8 Wimbledons and retires happy and content, are they worse than someone who wins 9 Wimbledons in 20 years time, who then in turn retires happy and content?
Not necessarily, because the former may have carried on and gone for #9 if that was the goal at the time, and the latter would then have had to aim for 10 so on and so forth etc etc...

I wouldn't lose sleep if Nadal was the undisputed clay GOAT as he's pretty much dominated the last 8 clay seasons (or co-dominated in 2009 with Fed and 2011 with Djokovic), and numbers do come into that, they're just not everything. Nadal winning 7 French Opens alone doesn't automatically put him above Borg in my eyes.



...Although Nadal only being beaten once in 8 years and only being pushed to 5 sets once too, now that just might...

[EDIT]

If we use Greatest to mean "largest in number" however, then Nada is the Greatest French Open Player of the Open Era no doubt.

forzamilan90
09-25-2012, 06:13 PM
Nadal is the best ever on clay...Has more majors on clay than Borg, more clay titles overall (a crapload of Masters titles at clay too), better winning percentage on the surface too, not to mention sheer strength of performance and aura on the surface.

dangalak
09-25-2012, 06:18 PM
Nadal is the best ever on clay...Has more majors on clay than Borg, more clay titles overall (a crapload of Masters titles at clay too), better winning percentage on the surface too, not to mention sheer strength of performance and aura on the surface.

Did Masters titles even exist back then?

Not to mention what the hell does "strength of performance and aura on the surface" even mean? :lol: Are you talking about the fact that he hits 6000+ RPM FH winners while Borg couldn't?

forzamilan90
09-25-2012, 06:22 PM
Did Masters titles even exist back then?

Not to mention what the hell does "strength of performance and aura on the surface" even mean? :lol: Are you talking about the fact that he hits 6000+ RPM FH winners while Borg couldn't?

the sheer fact that just about all tennis experts claim him to be the greatest on the surface, that he has more clay titles, winning percentage, and French Opens as a whole point to him being the greatest on the surface...Dude gets taken to one 5 setter in his French Open career....that's ridiculous, one loss too. Can't argue with stuff like that. Best clay courter ever.

Tony48
09-25-2012, 06:23 PM
Not to mention what the hell does "strength of performance and aura on the surface" even mean? :lol:

It means that he hardly ever loses on clay. The perception of being "unbeatable" is what the aura refers to.

dangalak
09-25-2012, 06:27 PM
the sheer fact that just about all tennis experts claim him to be the greatest on the surface, that he has more clay titles, winning percentage, and French Opens as a whole point to him being the greatest on the surface...Dude gets taken to one 5 setter in his French Open career....that's ridiculous, one loss too. Can't argue with stuff like that. Best clay courter ever.

Appeal to authority/popularity. :)

It means that he hardly ever loses on clay. The perception of being "unbeatable" is what the aura refers to.

Same thing went for Borg. :?

dangalak
09-25-2012, 06:28 PM
You can say that he was better than Borg but the margin isn't ginormous.

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 06:29 PM
You fail to understand something: French Open was not nearly as significant as it was now. That is however the reason why people consider Nadal the "undisputed greatest CC ever". Seems a bit daft to me.

And yes, what you say about Evert is true. Modern players such as Graf and Serena are very overrated (Serena even more so) because of their GS prowess. Martina and Chrissie managed to rack the slams up without even trying to win them at every opportunity. That's why I laugh at the notion of Graf being the GOAT because of her 22 majors. (the Parche issue aside)

Likewise, it is laughable to look down on modern players because they are inferior in TOTAL title count. Different standards.

Navratilova did try to win every GS she could. When she skipped the French it was because she was back then a bit of a mug on clay anyway. Even the Australians she skipped were while she was losing to 33 year old Court and Stove at Wimbledon, so if we presume everyone playing (including Evert as well) she still doesnt win any of them probably the years she didnt play them, or maybe 1 in the later 70s at most.

Yes I agree Evert is way underrated in a historical sense, and missed out on alot of extra slams at the French and Australian because of what you said, but I think she is automaticaly pulled down by people due to her dominance at the hands of Navratilova in the 80s when perceived (rightly or wrongly) to still be close to her best. Even winning many more slams wouldnt have helped her much in peoples eyes I suspect. Navratilova put the nail in Evert's would be GOAT coffin with her ownage of Evert for a 2-3 year period which was just too overwhelming and emphatic for people to ignore or ever think Evert could be better than Navratilova regardless of stats. Graf was lucky as heck with the stabbing, but as far as perception of being dominated in a head to head sense she never suffered dominance at the hands of Seles even approaching the same stratosphere as what Evert was dealt by Navratilova from 82-early 85, heck Federer suffered worse ownage at the hands of Nadal by a long ways than Graf at the hands of Seles, yet still far below what Evert suffered at the hands of Evert.

OK so the French wasnt the be all and end all back then, so what was for clay court tennis according to you. Every major venue that existed both then and now Nadal is ahead of Borg, Monte Carlo titles, Rome titles, French Open titles, Hamburg titles. Borg's edge is what exactly. It simply doesnt exist. Borg failed to win a single U.S Open in 3 years close to his prime it was held on clay, even if it was green clay, losing to Connors twice. That doesnt help him in comparision to Nadal either.

90's Clay
09-25-2012, 07:10 PM
Well his clay records speak for themselves. No one is breaking them.. At least any time soon. But there were guys comparable to Nadal on clay. Guys like Guga, Rosewall or Borg and perhaps a few others which could hold their own vs. Nadal.

And this era hasn't exactly produced NEAR the talent on clay that some past eras did.

Nole and Roger are probably the two other best clay courters of the 00's-present.

Taking nothing away from those guys.. They are good clay court players. But not GREAT

Talker
09-25-2012, 07:11 PM
I ranked Nadal as the best ever on clay after the 2008 clay season, he had 4 RG's then.

There wasn't anyone that ever lived that could beat him there.

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 07:14 PM
Well his clay records speak for themselves. No one is breaking them.. At least any time soon. But there were guys comparable to Nadal on clay. Guys like Guga, Rosewall or Borg and perhaps a few others which could hold their own vs. Nadal.

And this era hasn't exactly produced NEAR the talent on clay that some past eras did.

Nole and Roger are probably the two other best clay courters of the 00's-present.

Taking nothing away from those guys.. They are good clay court players. But not GREAT

I agree Nadal's clay court era wasnt one of the best, but neither was Borg's. Other than his pigeon and the Mickey Mouse event horder Vilas who was his big competition? Eddie Dibbs, Ramirez, Harold Solomon, please. Panatta, a serve and volleyer, was by far his toughest opponent on clay, along with Connors I guess who isnt even a clay courter either. Federer and Djokovic alone are already sufficient to make tougher competition than that whole group combined. The guys who faced tougher clay court competition are all guys who won alot less- Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten.

Mustard
09-25-2012, 07:31 PM
If Nadal isn't the clay GOAT in terms of achievements, who is? Nadal has won more times on clay at the French Open, Monte Carlo and Rome than anybody else in the history of the sport.

Nadal's career win-loss record on clay is 254-19 (a 93.04 winning percentage)
Nadal's win-loss record on clay since the start of 2005 is 228-9 (a 96.20 winning percentage)
Nadal's win-loss record on clay since the 11th April 2005 is 214-7 (a 96.83 winning percentage)

It's simply staggering that Nadal had a career win-loss record of 40-12 on the 11th April 2005, and now it's 254-19.

Mustard
09-25-2012, 07:41 PM
Borg skipped FO tournaments more than once.

You have to play them to win them.

The only times Borg skipped the French Open were in 1977, when he decided to play 1977 World Team Tennis and thus made himself ineligible for the 1977 French Open, and in 1982 when Borg declined to play due to his political disputes with the ITF and the tennis authorities, which eventually led to Borg's retirement from full-time tennis in January 1983.

dangalak
09-25-2012, 07:54 PM
I ranked Nadal as the best ever on clay after the 2008 clay season, he had 4 RG's then.

There wasn't anyone that ever lived that could beat him there.

Hyperbole my friend. :)

I reckon the Brazilian at his best would have good chances.

If Nadal isn't the clay GOAT in terms of achievements, who is? Nadal has won more times on clay at the French Open, Monte Carlo and Rome than anybody else in the history of the sport.

Nadal's career win-loss record on clay is 254-19 (a 93.04 winning percentage)
Nadal's win-loss record on clay since the start of 2005 is 228-9 (a 96.20 winning percentage)
Nadal's win-loss record on clay since the 11th April 2005 is 214-7 (a 96.83 winning percentage)

It's simply staggering that Nadal had a career win-loss record of 40-12 on the 11th April 2005, and now it's 254-19.

Nadal IS the clay GOAT. Borg was however too dominant and too good to not be mentioned in the same sentence. He was basically Nadal in the past, if not marginally inferior.

Mustard
09-25-2012, 07:58 PM
Nadal IS the clay GOAT. Borg was however too dominant and too good to not be mentioned in the same sentence. He was basically Nadal in the past, if not marginally inferior.

Players like Rosewall and Wilding are up there too.

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 07:59 PM
Well people say Borg is a strong number 2. Not sure what more you want. When people say Nadal is the undisputed #1 it doesnt mean Borg is way behind, just that he clearly is behind and it is without real debate at this point, doesnt mean by a huge margin.

I think Rosewall is underrated and should atleast be rated up with Borg on clay, if not up with Nadal. It is truly sad alot of this forum actually thinks Federer is a better clay courter than Rosewall (what an epic joke that is).

Sim
09-25-2012, 08:02 PM
Nadal IS the clay GOAT. Borg was however too dominant and too good to not be mentioned in the same sentence. He was basically Nadal in the past, if not marginally inferior.

Nadal is the undisputed #1 clay GOAT.
Borg is the undisputed #2 clay GOAT.

That's the way I see it. The only thing you could argue for Borg is harder? competition, but that's not clear cut proof for superior dominance on clay. Nadal way more titles outside the French Open, so that for me puts him above Borg no question (not to mention one more FO). I mean...how can you not be amazed at something like 8 straight Monte Carlo wins?

TMF
09-25-2012, 08:41 PM
I'm not a Nadal fan but he's a goat on clay. I don't care if you put any past great cc playing in his era, that player at best would be the 2nd best cc, much like Federer is the 2nd best himself.

dangalak
09-25-2012, 08:47 PM
I'm not a Nadal fan but he's a goat on clay. I don't care if you put any past great cc playing in his era, that player at best would be the 2nd best cc, much like Federer is the 2nd best himself.

Of course they would be, they played in the past. :rolleyes:

RF20Lennon
09-25-2012, 08:50 PM
Funny Thing is if it wasnt for Rafa Fed wouldve been the clay GOAT LOL but yes Rafa is the clay GOAT

TMF
09-25-2012, 08:57 PM
Funny Thing is if it wasnt for Rafa Fed wouldve been the clay GOAT LOL but yes Rafa is the clay GOAT

I know it sounds crazy but if there wasn't Nadal, Fed's prowess on clay would be comparing to Borg, who never had a player like Nadal's calibre.

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 08:57 PM
Funny Thing is if it wasnt for Rafa Fed wouldve been the clay GOAT LOL but yes Rafa is the clay GOAT

Unlikely. He would probably have 5 French Open titles (I am guessing 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011) but would not have anywhere near the dominance on clay in general that someone like Borg has. Even in his prime years Federer was losing on clay to old Costa, old Kuerten, Volandri, and others. He would not compile stats like 8 Monte Carlo titles or anything approaching that on clay even without Nadal. He would rank higher than he does currently on clay but not GOAT. Borg would be the undisputed clay GOAT to people without Nadal, even if Rosewall really should rank up with him but isnt perceived that way by people for whatever reason.

RF20Lennon
09-25-2012, 09:09 PM
Unlikely. He would probably have 5 French Open titles (I am guessing 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011) but would not have anywhere near the dominance on clay in general that someone like Borg has. Even in his prime years Federer was losing on clay to old Costa, old Kuerten, Volandri, and others. He would not compile stats like 8 Monte Carlo titles or anything approaching that on clay even without Nadal. He would rank higher than he does currently on clay but not GOAT. Borg would be the undisputed clay GOAT to people without Nadal, even if Rosewall really should rank up with him but isnt perceived that way by people for whatever reason.

add 2008 and 2009 (the year he won) so that makes 6 french opens a tie with borg. Add 3 monte carlo titles, Add multiple hamburg titles, Add 3 Madrid titles, Add a Rome title yes it would be still debateable but one could argue that he would be the clay goat. Plus without Rafa Fed wouldve won 11 slams in a row!! crazy stuff!

RF20Lennon
09-25-2012, 09:11 PM
I know it sounds crazy but if there wasn't Nadal, Fed's prowess on clay would be comparing to Borg, who never had a player like Nadal's calibre.

well I mean if nadal played in that era borg would still beat him cause you cant create even close to this much topspin with wooden rackets

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 09:16 PM
add 2008 and 2009 (the year he won) so that makes 6 french opens a tie with borg. Add 3 monte carlo titles, Add multiple hamburg titles, Add 3 Madrid titles, Add a Rome title yes it would be still debateable but one could argue that he would be the clay goat. Plus without Rafa Fed wouldve won 11 slams in a row!! crazy stuff!

I definitely think Djokovic would have beaten Federer in 2008. Djokovic played better tennis than Federer at every clay event that year both were in minus Monte Carlo. Federer wasnt even playing well at that years French either, he struggled to get past Monfils and of course was brutally raped by Nadal in the final, eating bakery products all day long. Djokovic managed 3 times as many games off Nadal in the semis as Federer in the final would. If we want to get objective and just go with the losing finalist each time though that would be Puerta in 2005 and Federer in 2008, but subjectively speaking most would say Federer in 2005 and Djokovic in 2008 are the winners those years instead. So either way it is 5. No the clay resume you posted would not eclipse Borg by a long ways. Someone who was dominant as Borg on clay it would take alot more than only 3 titles at the next biggest clay events, and less (or atleast definitely not more) French Opens than Borg.

RF20Lennon
09-25-2012, 09:19 PM
I definitely think Djokovic would have beaten Federer in 2008. Djokovic played better tennis than Federer at every clay event that year both were in minus Monte Carlo. Federer wasnt even playing well at that years French either, he struggled to get past Monfils and of course was brutally raped by Nadal in the final, eating bakery products all day long. If we want to get objective and just go with the losing finalist each time though that would be Puerta in 2005 and Federer in 2008, but subjectively speaking most would say Federer in 2005 and Djokovic in 2008 are the winners those years instead. So either way it is 5. No the clay resume you posted would not eclipse Borg by a long ways. Federer even without Nadal is still no Nadal on clay.

ofcourse not by no means!! But he would have results comparable to the great Borg! Also Highly doubt Djokovic wouldve beaten fed! Fed beat him in monte carlo the only time they met on clay that year and even though Djokovic retired in that match Pretty sure Fed wouldve won. But again it was just a statement its not like it ever happened anyway.

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 09:22 PM
ofcourse not by no means!! But he would have results comparable to the great Borg! Also Highly doubt Djokovic wouldve beaten fed! Fed beat him in monte carlo the only time they met on clay that year and even though Djokovic retired in that match Pretty sure Fed wouldve won. But again it was just a statement its not like it ever happened anyway.

Monte Carlo is the only clay event in 2008 that Federer outplayed Djokovic. At Rome Djokovic won the title while Federer lost to Stepanek (who IIRC was getting bageled by Djokovic and quit mid match). At Hamburg Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and on fire Nadal, then Federer could not even beat a fatigued (due to the Djokovic war) and much weaker Nadal the next day. At Roland Garros Federer was playing very poor tennis for his standards, but got to the final through a **** easy draw, while Djokovic was playing solidly and well and had set point to go to a 4th set vs Nadal in his best clay form ever. Federer winning over Djokovic at RG 2008 is unlikely, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay in an event he wasnt in top form, which he definitely was in Monte Carlo 2008 and Roland Garros 2011, and definitely was not at Roland Garros 2008. A subpar Federer is not good enough to beat Djokovic on clay period. Meanwhile their H2H in 2008-2009 on clay is 1-1 so it is not like Federer had an edge in that sense either.

RF20Lennon
09-25-2012, 09:24 PM
Monte Carlo is the only event in 2008 that Federer outplayed Djokovic. At Rome Djokovic won the title while Federer lost to Stepanek (who IIRC was getting bageled by Djokovic and quit mid match). At Hamburg Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and on fire Nadal, then Federer could not even beat a fatigued (due to the Djokovic war) and much weaker Nadal the next day. At Roland Garros Federer was playing very poor tennis for his standards, but got to the final through a **** easy draw, while Djokovic was playing solidly and well and had set point to go to a 4th set vs Nadal in his best clay form ever. Federer winning over Djokovic at RG 2008 is unlikely, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay in an event he wasnt in top form, which he definitely was in Monte Carlo 2008 and Roland Garros 2011, and definitely was not at Roland Garros 2008. A subpar Federer is not good enough to beat Djokovic on clay period. Meanwhile their H2H in 2008-2009 on clay is 1-1 so it is not like Federer had an edge in that sense either.

I agree with everything that you said except that I think Fed wouldve won because Djokovic was not as comfortable moving on clay back then in 2008 also that the reason nadal edged him in hamburg was because of experience same reason i think fed wouldve ousted him again just my opinion

dangalak
09-25-2012, 09:29 PM
Monte Carlo is the only clay event in 2008 that Federer outplayed Djokovic. At Rome Djokovic won the title while Federer lost to Stepanek (who IIRC was getting bageled by Djokovic and quit mid match). At Hamburg Djokovic nearly beat a fresh and on fire Nadal, then Federer could not even beat a fatigued (due to the Djokovic war) and much weaker Nadal the next day. At Roland Garros Federer was playing very poor tennis for his standards, but got to the final through a **** easy draw, while Djokovic was playing solidly and well and had set point to go to a 4th set vs Nadal in his best clay form ever. Federer winning over Djokovic at RG 2008 is unlikely, he has never beaten Djokovic on clay in an event he wasnt in top form, which he definitely was in Monte Carlo 2008 and Roland Garros 2011, and definitely was not at Roland Garros 2008. A subpar Federer is not good enough to beat Djokovic on clay period. Meanwhile their H2H in 2008-2009 on clay is 1-1 so it is not like Federer had an edge in that sense either.

Federer was like 5-0 up in the first set IIRC. One of his more impressive collapses.

You act like it was an unremarkable straight set affair.

And yes, Djokovic woulda probably wonin RG.

NadalAgassi
09-25-2012, 09:29 PM
I agree with everything that you said except that I think Fed wouldve won because Djokovic was not as comfortable moving on clay back then in 2008 also that the reason nadal edged him in hamburg was because of experience same reason i think fed wouldve ousted him again just my opinion

Fair enough. We will never know for sure. It is too bad they dont have a bronze match between the losing semifinalists, and a silver match between the winning bronze match winner and losing finalist IF they didnt already play in the semis, lol! Actually I wish the Olympic would have something like that for the winning bronze medal game winner and losing finalist if they didnt meet in the semis, as sometimes I think the former would end up winning.


Federer was like 5-0 up in the first set IIRC. One of his more impressive collapses.

You act like it was an unremarkable straight set affair.

And yes, Djokovic woulda probably wonin RG.

Actually it was a 3 setter so I am fully aware it was not an unremarkable straight set affair. What you said is exactly why it was not so impressive a performance IMO, choking one set away badly and ultimately losing to a very fatigued Nadal on Federer's own favorite clay. Certainly doesnt stack up to what Djokovic produced vs Nadal in the semis of that event.

Virginia
09-26-2012, 01:34 AM
Players like Rosewall and Wilding are up there too.
Mustatd, if you care to check, I think you'll find that Wilding won more clay court championships than anyone else, including Nadal. I agree about Rosewall being up there also.

underground
09-26-2012, 09:18 AM
First of all I hate Nadal. However he is the undisputed clay GOAT. His crazy streak on clay, 8 consecutive Monte Carlo Titles, 7 Roland Garros Titles in 8 years. In fact when Federer bagelled Rafa on clay in Hamburg that was probably the best thing he's ever done.

cknobman
09-26-2012, 09:22 AM
First of all I hate Nadal. However he is the undisputed clay GOAT. His crazy streak on clay, 8 consecutive Monte Carlo Titles, 7 Roland Garros Titles in 8 years. In fact when Federer bagelled Rafa on clay in Hamburg that was probably the best thing he's ever done.

That was German clay so it does not count. ;)

NDFM
09-26-2012, 09:27 AM
That was German clay so it does not count. ;)

Clay is Clay. It was a legitimate win, federer can beat nadal badly and on his best surface

sunof tennis
09-26-2012, 09:37 AM
You can say that he was better than Borg but the margin isn't ginormous.

I think that is the point of the thread. By anology, one could say that Fed is better than Pete becuase of his overall numbers, but it is not fair to say it is undebatable. Come on people-read. I have no problem with people saying that Nadal is better on clay than Borg, but to say that is undebatable given the difficulty of comparing accross eras with the different technologies in my opinion is just wrong.

RF20Lennon
09-26-2012, 09:51 AM
Clay is Clay. It was a legitimate win, federer can beat nadal badly and on his best surface

He was being sarcastic lol :) but hamburg clay is a bit faster and not as high bouncing as monte carlo

NDFM
09-26-2012, 09:57 AM
He was being sarcastic lol :) but hamburg clay is a bit faster and not as high bouncing as monte carlo

woops ;) sometimes sarcism just doesn't come off the right way when you are reading it off a computer screen lol :). Federer is the better player on faster surfaces (in this case faster clay if that's possible) so it doesn't surprise me that he won in that particular fashion

Mustard
09-26-2012, 11:37 AM
Unlikely. He would probably have 5 French Open titles (I am guessing 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2011) but would not have anywhere near the dominance on clay in general that someone like Borg has. Even in his prime years Federer was losing on clay to old Costa, old Kuerten, Volandri, and others. He would not compile stats like 8 Monte Carlo titles or anything approaching that on clay even without Nadal. He would rank higher than he does currently on clay but not GOAT. Borg would be the undisputed clay GOAT to people without Nadal, even if Rosewall really should rank up with him but isnt perceived that way by people for whatever reason.

Federer would have had 2008 as well. I don't think Djokovic would have beaten him there at that time.

The-Champ
09-26-2012, 03:45 PM
Appeal to authority/popularity. :)



He uses formal logic in his argument. Meaning, even though doctors are not perfect, I'll rather ask for their advice when I get cancer than seeking advice from a bunch of carpenters. :D



Your popularity argument is valid though, because there are other experts out there who might claim Borg is greater/better than Nadal on clay.

Vcore89
09-26-2012, 03:48 PM
Rafa is the GOAT of clay! What more is there to say? Roger is the second best clay court player in the era of the clay court king. 'nuff said.

LuckyR
09-26-2012, 04:08 PM
I think that is the point of the thread. By anology, one could say that Fed is better than Pete becuase of his overall numbers, but it is not fair to say it is undebatable. Come on people-read. I have no problem with people saying that Nadal is better on clay than Borg, but to say that is undebatable given the difficulty of comparing accross eras with the different technologies in my opinion is just wrong.


Anyone can argue anything but some things, though unprovable, can be stated with a high degree of certainty.

For example, we can all endlessly debate if Borg at his best with modern equipment and training techniques, could beat Nadal.

However, there is little to no debate that prime Nadal could beat prime Borg, given the equipment they actually used.

In addition, when comparing numbers across eras, until tennis becomes less popular worldwide over time (which hasn't happened yet), modern numbers are more meaningful since the pool of Pros comes from a wider pool of Juniors, hence the quality and depth improves over time. Many try to dispute this, but if this was the 100 Yard Dash Warehouse Forum instead of the Tennis Warehouse Forum, the obvious superiority of Modern athletes/tech would be less "controversial".

90's Clay
09-26-2012, 07:48 PM
I just wish Nadal would have played a truly GREAT player on clay who exceled the most on that surface as he did. Where that guy was also at his best on the dirt

Its a shame Guga had all those injuries because that would have been the dream match of the 00's IMO. Guga (outside of Nadal) was the last "great" clay court player.


The clay from early 00's-present.. We have had some solid guys like Soderling, Fed, Djoker, Del Potro , Ferrer etc.. But nothing even close to the level that we had with Guga just a few years prior. Truthfully, I dont even think of those guys are even as good as Courier or Bruguera, Muster were on clay at their peak much less on Kuerten's level.


Nadal is definitely the best Ive seen on clay.. But I would have liked to see him truly tested by a great dirtballer. Sampras was tested by some great grass court players.. Agassi tested by many great Hardcourt players.. Nadal not tested to that means because we haven't had anyone truly "great" on clay since Kuerten,

Guys in previous eras truly knew how to "master" the clay. A lot of guys today just bring their hard court ball whacking, and can't slide as well etc..

AnotherTennisProdigy
09-26-2012, 08:16 PM
You can look at it like this: He has only lost ONE match at Roland Garros since the day he entered the tournament for the first time. I'm not sure what else he can possibly do.

RF20Lennon
09-26-2012, 08:28 PM
woops ;) sometimes sarcism just doesn't come off the right way when you are reading it off a computer screen lol :). Federer is the better player on faster surfaces (in this case faster clay if that's possible) so it doesn't surprise me that he won in that particular fashion

Yeah I know but once your accustomed to the posters you kinda notice the trends haha

NadalAgassi
09-26-2012, 08:40 PM
I just wish Nadal would have played a truly GREAT player on clay who exceled the most on that surface as he did. Where that guy was also at his best on the dirt

Its a shame Guga had all those injuries because that would have been the dream match of the 00's IMO. Guga (outside of Nadal) was the last "great" clay court player.


The clay from early 00's-present.. We have had some solid guys like Soderling, Fed, Djoker, Del Potro , Ferrer etc.. But nothing even close to the level that we had with Guga just a few years prior. Truthfully, I dont even think of those guys are even as good as Courier or Bruguera, Muster were on clay at their peak much less on Kuerten's level.


Nadal is definitely the best Ive seen on clay.. But I would have liked to see him truly tested by a great dirtballer. Sampras was tested by some great grass court players.. Agassi tested by many great Hardcourt players.. Nadal not tested to that means because we haven't had anyone truly "great" on clay since Kuerten,

Guys in previous eras truly knew how to "master" the clay. A lot of guys today just bring their hard court ball whacking, and can't slide as well etc..

I agree with this but I feel the same way about Borg. Who was his main rival on clay? Mickey Mouse clay tournament horder Vilas who could only reach a couple French finals during the Borg era even with absolutely no other great clay courters besides Borg and himself, and who couldnt even beat a 17 year old Wilander at the French after Borg was gone. Borg was feeding him more bakery on clay in their matches than an French pastery shop. Then the rest- Eddie Dibbs, Harold Salomon, Manuela Orantes, Adrianna Panatta (the only one who pushed or had wins over Borg on clay amazingly), some competition for the clay GOAT prior to Nadal.

I would have liked to have seen Borg play a prime Lendl (who way before his prime and in his chokers galore phase took Borg to 5 sets at the 81 French) or some of the great clay courters of the 60s and 90s on the surface as well. Borg had even less worthy competition on clay than Nadal. Atleast Federer and Djokovic can push Nadal hard on clay at times.

NadalDramaQueen
09-26-2012, 08:48 PM
Nadal hasn't done enough to be considered the clear cut best ever on that surface.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/dancing/boratgroupdance5is.gif

Nadal is close to unbeatable on clay in a best of five set match. He is so good it hurts. :)

If Soderling doesn't return, he will likely be remembered for some time just because he was able to take down Nadal at RG.

Clarky21
09-26-2012, 08:53 PM
I just wish Nadal would have played a truly GREAT player on clay who exceled the most on that surface as he did. Where that guy was also at his best on the dirt

Its a shame Guga had all those injuries because that would have been the dream match of the 00's IMO. Guga (outside of Nadal) was the last "great" clay court player.


The clay from early 00's-present.. We have had some solid guys like Soderling, Fed, Djoker, Del Potro , Ferrer etc.. But nothing even close to the level that we had with Guga just a few years prior. Truthfully, I dont even think of those guys are even as good as Courier or Bruguera, Muster were on clay at their peak much less on Kuerten's level.


Nadal is definitely the best Ive seen on clay.. But I would have liked to see him truly tested by a great dirtballer. Sampras was tested by some great grass court players.. Agassi tested by many great Hardcourt players.. Nadal not tested to that means because we haven't had anyone truly "great" on clay since Kuerten,

Guys in previous eras truly knew how to "master" the clay. A lot of guys today just bring their hard court ball whacking, and can't slide as well etc..




Replace clay with grass and Nadal with Fed and you could say the same thing for Fed's dominance on grass. Even more so actually considering there are many more good clay courters than there are good grass courters.

NadalAgassi
09-26-2012, 09:18 PM
Replace clay with grass and Nadal with Fed and you could say the same thing for Fed's dominance on grass. Even more so actually considering there are many more good clay courters than there are good grass courters.

True, ****s dismiss Nadal on grass like he is some joke, yet he is by FAR Federer's toughest rival on grass in his career, and is by far the 2nd most successful and best grass courter of the Federer era, with nobody else even coming close. So in essence they are admiting what a joke Federer's grass era is more than anyone. :lol:

dangalak
09-26-2012, 10:15 PM
Roddick is good on grass. Nadal may have been a tougher rival for Federer, however, Roddick from 2003 to 2005 was not far behind Nadal in terms of ability on the surface. The difference was, one guy was a perfect match for the man in the finals. The other one wasn't and had to deal with his prime form.

roysid
09-26-2012, 11:56 PM
Why Nadal is clay GOAT because of his absolute dominance on this surface. It's the hardest thing in tennis, to beat Nadal on clay more so if it's best of 5 sets. 8 consecutive MC, 7 French Open, 7 Barcelona and 6 Rome titles are crazy statistics.

Borg was very very good on clay, but not that absolute dominant. And Borg lost US Open 1976 final to Connors on CLAY.

Borg won 3 MC and 2 Rome titles only. That means he lost in the years he didn't play. Those two were big titles then also.

How can Borg be claimed as close to clay GOAT then.

beast of mallorca
09-27-2012, 10:07 AM
He isn't. :?

I mean you can call him the clay GOAT but it's hilarious to me that being a mere ONE RG behind Nadal, completely disqualifies him from the discussion. That is even more laughable once you consider that RG and slams in general didn't have the weight that they hold now. Borg skipped several RG tournaments if I recall correctly. How fair is it to judge him on something that only gained the weight it has now, after he retired?

Not to mention, the "Nadal would beat Borg" nonsense is pathetic as well. Well, yes he would. With his Babolat racket. Good luck trying to hit heavy spin with a wooden racket though. :lol:

In my book they are both co GOATs on that surface. Nadal hasn't done enough to be considered the clear cut best ever on that surface.

You are an idiot. That's all there is to it.

sunof tennis
09-27-2012, 10:32 AM
Anyone can argue anything but some things, though unprovable, can be stated with a high degree of certainty.

For example, we can all endlessly debate if Borg at his best with modern equipment and training techniques, could beat Nadal.

However, there is little to no debate that prime Nadal could beat prime Borg, given the equipment they actually used.

In addition, when comparing numbers across eras, until tennis becomes less popular worldwide over time (which hasn't happened yet), modern numbers are more meaningful since the pool of Pros comes from a wider pool of Juniors, hence the quality and depth improves over time. Many try to dispute this, but if this was the 100 Yard Dash Warehouse Forum instead of the Tennis Warehouse Forum, the obvious superiority of Modern athletes/tech would be less "controversial".

If you are saying that Nadal using his modern racquet with poly strings would beat Borg with his 70 sq. in. wooden racquet, then of course I agree. Then again, at 50+ with modern equipment, I could probably myself at 18 if my 18 year old self was using my old Jack Kramer Autograph. Point is that is not a valid comparison. I would also generally agree that athletes have gotten bigger, stronger and faster over the years. However, in this case, I think Borg's athleticism is at least equal to Nadal's.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-27-2012, 01:59 PM
True, ****s dismiss Nadal on grass like he is some joke, yet he is by FAR Federer's toughest rival on grass in his career, and is by far the 2nd most successful and best grass courter of the Federer era, with nobody else even coming close. So in essence they are admiting what a joke Federer's grass era is more than anyone. :lol:

They will ignore this..and the fact a Wimbledon never-gonna-be, flat-footed, joke net game Roddick nearly beat Federer in the final of "his" (Federer's) event.

Prisoner of Birth
09-27-2012, 02:12 PM
They will ignore this..and the fact a Wimbledon never-gonna-be, flat-footed, joke net game Roddick nearly beat Federer in the final of "his" (Federer's) event.

You can NOT be serious.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-27-2012, 02:44 PM
You can NOT be serious.

Are you saying Roddick is some great Wimbledon player? Your counter suggests it...

Prisoner of Birth
09-27-2012, 03:38 PM
Are you saying Roddick is some great Wimbledon player? Your counter suggests it...

He is a great Grasscourter. He'd have won a good few Ws if it weren't for Federer. And don't comeback with the "weak-era" argument. It simply can not be substantiated. You could call every era a weak-era; whether a player dominates it or if all the dough is shared.

LuckyR
09-27-2012, 04:56 PM
If you are saying that Nadal using his modern racquet with poly strings would beat Borg with his 70 sq. in. wooden racquet, then of course I agree. Then again, at 50+ with modern equipment, I could probably myself at 18 if my 18 year old self was using my old Jack Kramer Autograph. Point is that is not a valid comparison. I would also generally agree that athletes have gotten bigger, stronger and faster over the years. However, in this case, I think Borg's athleticism is at least equal to Nadal's.

It seems so obvious to practically be a silly thing to say. However it bears remembering that this comparo is the only true comparison, that is real Nadal to real Borg. Any other comparo: Nadal with a wooden Donnay, Borg with poly strings and cross training, are all huge leaps into the vast unknown, even more unknown than 2010s Nadal vs 1970s Borg.

Ultimately it is in fact the ONLY valid comparo.

Your last bolded area is a large part of what I was refering to in the end of my post.

NadalAgassi
09-27-2012, 06:20 PM
He is a great Grasscourter. He'd have won a good few Ws if it weren't for Federer. And don't comeback with the "weak-era" argument. It simply can not be substantiated. You could call every era a weak-era; whether a player dominates it or if all the dough is shared.

If a weak era argument cant be substantiated Roddick winning a good few Wimbledons without Federer also cant be. Nearly every year there were people in the draw who would have had a realistic chance of beating him as well, Phillipousis in 2003, Hewitt in both 2004 and 2005. Even in 2009 he barely won a 5 setter over Hewitt in the quarters with Hewitt injuring himself near the end, with the draw rearranged and they play on a new day he could very well have lost. So saying he would have won a good few Ws if it werent for Federer is purely a guess, it cant be proven. He does not dominate Wimbledon minus Federer, in his prime or in the midst of his final and semifinal runs, he has also lost to Gasquet, baby Murray, and Tipsarevic at Wimbledon.

As for comparing Nadal to Roddick, Nadal reached the final of every Wimbledon he played from 2006-2011 (missing 1 through injury), Roddick has nothing close to approaching that and it has nothing to do with Federer.

The possability of winning a good few Wimbledons had a certain great never existed meanwhile could be used for alot of players:

Ivanisevic- Sampras
Martin- Sampras
Agassi- Sampras
Hewitt- Federer
Murray- Nadal (and Federer)
Cash- Becker
Lendl- Becker (and Edberg)
Henman- Sampras

So by that logic every single one of these players must be regarded as a "great" grass courter too.

Prisoner of Birth
09-27-2012, 06:39 PM
If a weak era argument cant be substantiated Roddick winning a good few Wimbledons without Federer also cant be. Nearly every year there were people in the draw who would have had a realistic chance of beating him as well, Phillipousis in 2003, Hewitt in both 2004 and 2005. Even in 2009 he barely won a 5 setter over Hewitt in the quarters with Hewitt injuring himself near the end, with the draw rearranged and they play on a new day he could very well have lost. So saying he would have won a good few Ws if it werent for Federer is purely a guess, it cant be proven. He does not dominate Wimbledon minus Federer, in his prime or in the midst of his final and semifinal runs, he has also lost to Gasquet, baby Murray, and Tipsarevic at Wimbledon.

As for comparing Nadal to Roddick, Nadal reached the final of every Wimbledon he played from 2006-2011 (missing 1 through injury), Roddick has nothing close to approaching that and it has nothing to do with Federer.

The possability of winning a good few Wimbledons had a certain great never existed meanwhile could be used for alot of players:

Ivanisevic- Sampras
Martin- Sampras
Agassi- Sampras
Hewitt- Federer
Murray- Nadal (and Federer)
Cash- Becker
Lendl- Becker (and Edberg)
Henman- Sampras

So by that logic every single one of these players must be regarded as a "great" grass courter too.

Nadal is a better Grasscourter than Roddick; doesn't mean Roddick isn't great on it. Considering the number of Wimbledon finals he's made, the logical guess would be that he'd win some of them if the always-winner wasn't there. Especially in 2009 when he beat prime-Murray. Even if he were to lose all those finals against some other hypothetical great, he'd still be a great Grasscourter. How many players have gotten to more Wimbledon finals than he has?

90's Clay
09-27-2012, 06:50 PM
Roddick was a solid, good grass court player without a doubt. But I would not ever say hes GREAT on grass. Great players don't end up with 0 slams on that particular surface.. I dont care who else is there he has to play. Guys like Tsonga, Berdych, Nadal etc. beat Fed at wimbledon. I wouldn't call Berdych or Tsonga "great" grass court players by any stretch of the imagination. If that could tear apart Fed at wimbledon, why couldn't a "great" grass court player like Roddick to do so or even win a wimbledon? What about the years Roddick didn't play Fed at wimbledon?

And when people say well Fed was old when he lost to those guys.. Thats selling Fed short a bit because he just won another wimbledon this year. ROFL


Roddick was a good grass court player.. But wasn't a great one. He was actually better on hard courts.

Truthfully, Roddick wasn't "great' at all on anything.. He was just a solid good player which is why he only won one slam his entire career.. If he was "great" he would have won more.. Plain and Simple

Prisoner of Birth
09-27-2012, 07:01 PM
Roddick was a solid, good grass court player without a doubt. But I would not ever say hes GREAT on grass. Great players don't end up with 0 slams on that particular surface.. I dont care who else is there he has to play. Guys like Tsonga, Berdych, Nadal etc. beat Fed at wimbledon. I wouldn't call Berdych or Tsonga "great" grass court players by any stretch of the imagination. If that could tear apart Fed at wimbledon, why couldn't a "great" grass court player like Roddick to do so or even win a wimbledon? What about the years Roddick didn't play Fed at wimbledon?

And when people say well Fed was old when he lost to those guys.. Thats selling Fed short a bit because he just won another wimbledon this year. ROFL


Roddick was a good grass court player.. But wasn't a great one. He was actually better on hard courts.

Truthfully, Roddick wasn't "great' at all on anything.. He was just a solid good player which is why he only won one slam his entire career.. If he was "great" he would have won more.. Plain and Simple

Federer never lost at Wimbledon in his prime. And the one time Roddick lost to past-prime Federer at Wimbledon, Roddick was past his prime as well. Just because you LOL about Federer winning another Wimbledon this year doesn't mean Federer wasn't old or past-his-prime when he lost to those guys.

TMF
09-27-2012, 07:01 PM
If Federer is a goat on grass, then everyone has to be behind him, even Roddick. YOu don't have to be the best to be considered great, because there's only 1 player can hold that position. Agassi is behind Sampras in the 90s, is he considered a great player? Is Chris a great player because she's behind Martina? Sure they are.

NadalAgassi
09-27-2012, 07:04 PM
Roddick was a solid, good grass court player without a doubt. But I would not ever say hes GREAT on grass. Great players don't end up with 0 slams on that particular surface.. I dont care who else is there he has to play. Guys like Tsonga, Berdych, Nadal etc. beat Fed at wimbledon. I wouldn't call Berdych or Tsonga "great" grass court players by any stretch of the imagination. If that could tear apart Fed at wimbledon, why couldn't a "great" grass court player like Roddick to do so or even win a wimbledon? What about the years Roddick didn't play Fed at wimbledon?

And when people say well Fed was old when he lost to those guys.. Thats selling Fed short a bit because he just won another wimbledon this year. ROFL


Roddick was a good grass court player.. But wasn't a great one. He was actually better on hard courts.

Truthfully, Roddick wasn't "great' at all on anything.. He was just a solid good player which is why he only won one slam his entire career.. If he was "great" he would have won more.. Plain and Simple


That is my feeling too. I do respect Roddick as he was an extremely hard worker and got alot out of himself. I never thought he was one of the greatest natural talents, but look at what he achieved compared to an IMO greater talent like Nalbandian.

On the other hand one way he did not get the most out of himself was firing Brad Gilbert. That was an incredibly stupid move. Had he stayed with him I think it possible he could have ended up with 3 or 4 slams at careers end. Looking at his tennis in late 2003 and 2004, even though he didnt win a slam
in 2004, that is by far the best he ever looked. He did look better when he first hooked up with Connors and Stefanki with a resurgent forehand and agression from the baseline but it wasnt sustained.

Either way I think a more accurate way to assess things is not say "take away Federer" since every era can have a substantial great taken away, but say "put Roddick in another era entirely". In every era he wins from 0-2 slams. He was basically a baseline grinder, with lots of fight and determination, without great foot speed and a huge serve, that was it, apart from about 2 years cummulative of his prime where he had a huge forehand, but the other 70% it was this loopy clay courters forehand. That overall doesnt win many majors in any era. There are players greater than him in every era, he is 1-5 lifetime vs an old Agassi, so needles to say he isnt winning alot of majors in the Sampras-Agassi era, he isnt going to win alot in the Wilander/Lendl/Becker/Edberg era, and so on.

NadalAgassi
09-27-2012, 07:07 PM
If Federer is a goat on grass, then everyone has to be behind him, even Roddick. YOu don't have to be the best to be considered great, because there's only 1 player can hold that position. Agassi is behind Sampras in the 90s, is he considered a great player? Is Chris a great player because she's behind Martina? Sure they are.

Chris won 18 majors in her career despite that was dominated by Martina for many years. That is what true greats like Chris though, they find a way.

Many players besides Federer have won Wimbledon besides Federer since Roddick turned pro, even with all the Wimbledons which Federer won. Roddick just couldnt manage to be one of them.

Almost every era is the same in what you are saying. Before Federer people had to deal with Sampras at Wimbledon. Before him Becker and McEnroe. Before him Borg. Before him Laver. A virtual free ride to the title where you dont have to beat a dominant all time great (which seems to be what people want for Roddick to have had) never existed other than 1 or 2 year blips.

90's Clay
09-27-2012, 07:11 PM
That is my feeling too. I do respect Roddick as he was an extremely hard worker and got alot out of himself. I never thought he was one of the greatest natural talents, but look at what he achieved compared to an IMO greater talent like Nalbandian.

On the other hand one way he did not get the most out of himself was firing Brad Gilbert. That was an incredibly stupid move. Had he stayed with him I think it possible he could have ended up with 3 or 4 slams at careers end. Looking at his tennis in late 2003 and 2004, even though he didnt win a slam
in 2004, that is by far the best he ever looked. He did look better when he first hooked up with Connors and Stefanki with a resurgent forehand and agression from the baseline but it wasnt sustained.

Either way I think a more accurate way to assess things is not say "take away Federer" since every era can have a substantial great taken away, but say "put Roddick in another era entirely". In every era he wins from 0-2 slams. He was basically a baseline grinder, with lots of fight and determination, without great foot speed and a huge serve, that was it, apart from about 2 years cummulative of his prime where he had a huge forehand, but the other 70% it was this loopy clay courters forehand. That overall doesnt win many majors in any era. There are players greater than him in every era, he is 1-5 lifetime vs an old Agassi, so needles to say he isnt winning alot of majors in the Sampras-Agassi era, he isnt going to win alot in the Wilander/Lendl/Becker/Edberg era, and so on.



I agree with that assessment as well. If you look all his limitations:

1. Not the fastest guy
2. Not a great mover
3. Not a great BH
4. Poor transitioning to the net
5. Pretty poor net game
6. Not exactly the best athlete
7. Not the greatest baseline game
8. Average footwork at best

etc.. I think he did alright for himself. He maximized the potential he had.. Which I think was limited outside of a big serve and FH. The other elements of his game were missing pretty big which were costly for him.

He was a fighter and worked hard.. Always commendable in that aspect. But to call him "great". I think thats bit of an overstatement.. He was never great,

Thats why it always struck me when people were calling him the heir apparent of his american predecessors.. The guy had gaping HUGE holes in his game. That a truly "great' player would seriously expose.. And they were exposed.. Sampras exposed him huge at the USO in 2002, Agassi exposed him every time, Fed exposed him for 20 plus matches.. Along with some others

Murrayfan31
09-27-2012, 07:17 PM
If Borg knew what the record was, he would've broken it. Unfortuntely, he didn't know a Rafa would beat his record through longevity. Tough luck for Borg who is the more gifted clay courter.

NadalAgassi
09-27-2012, 07:22 PM
If Borg knew what the record was, he would've broken it. Unfortuntely, he didn't know a Rafa would beat his record through longevity. Tough luck for Borg who is the more gifted clay courter.

Yes which is why Borg retired 1 short of the slam record of Emerson. Borg retired since he:

1. Couldnt stand McEnroe coming into his prime and dethroning him as top dog. His ego couldnt bear it, and he had never experienced being overtaken by a younger player. His pysche couldnt cope.

2. He got involved in drug problems and off court legal battles. The book his ex best friend and ex business partner wrote says it all.

3. Like Nadal he was a grinder for many years and burnt out.

In your little planet I am sure even Andy Murray is a more gifted clay courter than Nadal, so nobody really cares what you think, LOL!

NadalAgassi
09-27-2012, 07:26 PM
I agree with that assessment as well. If you look all his limitations:

1. Not the fastest guy
2. Not a great mover
3. Not a great BH
4. Poor transitioning to the net
5. Pretty poor net game
6. Not exactly the best athlete
7. Not the greatest baseline game
8. Average footwork at best

etc.. I think he did alright for himself. He maximized the potential he had.. Which I think was limited outside of a big serve and FH. The other elements of his game were missing pretty big which were costly for him.

He was a fighter and worked hard.. Always commendable in that aspect. But to call him "great". I think thats bit of an overstatement.. He was never great,

Thats why it always struck me when people were calling him the heir apparent of his american predecessors.. The guy had gaping HUGE holes in his game. That a truly "great' player would seriously expose.. And they were exposed.. Sampras exposed him huge at the USO in 2002, Agassi exposed him every time, Fed exposed him for 20 plus matches.. Along with some others

Agree with all that but as for the part about him being called the heir apparent of American tennis, they were in fact entirely right on that. Since the Sampras/Agassi/Courier/Chang generation won their final slam with Agassi's 2003 Australian Open title, Roddick has been by FAR the best American mens player since then. No other American man has come even close to what he has achieved, and looking at the current ones it might be a long time before someone does again. He truly was the heir apparent and by far the best hope for the future they had, and even if he didhnt go onto to win as many major titles as people once hoped he would, still proved he was the right and only one for them to have been focusing on of the crowd coming up a decade ago. He atleast gave them someone they could hope to win a major, something they certainly dont have now, and might not have for decades to come. That really speaks to how dire the state of American tennis is now though, when Serena retires (Venus is already finished basically regardless how long she chooses to play) it is going to be downright scary. The big U.S stars Ryan Harrison, Vania King, Jack Sock, and Melanie Oudin, LOL! Probably all years down the road still playing some satellites and challengers as part of their regular tour schedule to even keep the points to stay in the top 100 and on the main tour, as opposed to slam finals.

90's Clay
09-27-2012, 07:29 PM
Well.. I guess that is true Roddick was the best we had since Andre, Pete, Jim and Michael.. That has to account for something.. But then I consider how american men's tennis totally PLUMMETED since the heyday of the greats of the 80s and 90s.

Roddick was the least stinky turd in the barnyard. But it was still full of turds. I'm going to need some Zoloft if I continue thinking how pathetic american men's tennis has gotten.

NadalAgassi
09-27-2012, 07:32 PM
Well.. I guess that is true Roddick was the best we had since Andre, Pete, Jim and Michael.. That has to account for something.. But then I consider how american men's tennis totally PLUMMETED since the heyday of the great of the 80s and 90s.

Roddick was the least stinky turd in the barnyard. But it was still full of turds

The state of tennis moving forward is almost depressing. The U.S about to become an irrelevance in the sport once Serena retires. No up and comers for either men or women on the horizon. What will we see, Serena at 37 now in a full time actressing career showing up late to a slam final she was given a bye to play given the death or the WTA playing in high heels and a tight dress as she didnt have time to change, and beating a 31 year old Sharapova 6-0, 6-1 in 25 minutes for the titles, then taking off immediately after for another acting gig. 29 year old Agniewska Radwanska completing her 7th straight year as year end #1 in a row, but not getting past the 4th round of any of the slams that year, still slamless, her only slam final still being the 2012 Wimbledon final many years ago, but playing 35 tournaments that year to consolidate her ranking in true WTA style. 38 year old Nadal with huge straps on his knees and 37 year old Djokovic playing a 8 hour Australian and French Open final, complete with 60 stroke rallies and 70 mph serves. Nobody younger than 26 in the top 100 of either the ATP or WTA.

Prisoner of Birth
09-27-2012, 07:33 PM
Chris won 18 majors in her career despite that was dominated by Martina for many years. That is what true greats like Chris though, they find a way.

Many players besides Federer have won Wimbledon besides Federer since Roddick turned pro, even with all the Wimbledons which Federer won. Roddick just couldnt manage to be one of them.

Almost every era is the same in what you are saying. Before Federer people had to deal with Sampras at Wimbledon. Before him Becker and McEnroe. Before him Borg. Before him Laver. A virtual free ride to the title where you dont have to beat a dominant all time great (which seems to be what people want for Roddick to have had) never existed other than 1 or 2 year blips.

Except that I personally believe Roddick played better Tennis than Federer in the 2009 final. He totally deserved the win. One of the few times I've felt the loser deserved to win.

90's Clay
09-27-2012, 07:38 PM
Except that I personally believe Roddick played better Tennis than Federer in the 2009 final. He totally deserved the win. One of the few times I've felt the loser deserved to win.

Maybe someone should have taught him to put away a routine net point away in the TB in the 3rd set (which would have put him up 2 sets to 1) and maybe he would have.

You gotta put those big points away to win. If you dont, you shouldn't win. Roddick had a ton of chances to beat Fed at some majors over the years.. But he failed to capitalize when he needed to.

Roddick and Murray (though totally different games) remind a lot of one another.. Somehow they could find a way to lose even if they should win many times. (maybe even relatively easily get the win) I think both have major issues with nerves. Like they make the match harder on themselves then it has to be. . (Of course, Maybe Murray breaks through now that the " win a slam monkey" is off his back. We'll see

NadalAgassi
09-27-2012, 07:56 PM
Except that I personally believe Roddick played better Tennis than Federer in the 2009 final. He totally deserved the win. One of the few times I've felt the loser deserved to win.

I agree with you actually, but he goofed on the big points. That is how you either win majors or you dont. That awful volley in that tiebreak must still haunt him. That is another reason I dont feel his not winning more majors can be blamed just on Roger. Roddick had chances to beat Roger at Wimbledon 2009, real chances in the 2004 Wimbledon match, even some chances in the 2006 U.S Open (despite that the stats overwhelmingly favored Federer). So despite the fact Federer overall is the much greater and more talented player, Roddick still had his chances in some of those matches to win, and yet when he gets to the big points in those matches he found ways to blow it, so it wasnt like he was always facing an impossible task, he just often didnt deliver at crunch time to win those majors.

Prisoner of Birth
09-27-2012, 11:14 PM
I agree with you actually, but he goofed on the big points. That is how you either win majors or you dont. That awful volley in that tiebreak must still haunt him. That is another reason I dont feel his not winning more majors can be blamed just on Roger. Roddick had chances to beat Roger at Wimbledon 2009, real chances in the 2004 Wimbledon match, even some chances in the 2006 U.S Open (despite that the stats overwhelmingly favored Federer). So despite the fact Federer overall is the much greater and more talented player, Roddick still had his chances in some of those matches to win, and yet when he gets to the big points in those matches he found ways to blow it, so it wasnt like he was always facing an impossible task, he just often didnt deliver at crunch time to win those majors.

You're talking about instances, key points/shots, and what-ifs in the match. And, really, that doesn't matter at all. You can make Monfils a 10-time Grand Slam champion of you analyze all his matches like that. I'm just taking the match as a whole and giving my opinion on who was the better player in that one match. For instance, it's pretty much a no-brainer that the loser in a 7-6(10), 0-6, 7-6(22) played much better than the winner. It's just that these sorts of score-lines are very rare and it's not all about the score-lines either. A player who played better could still lose 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 (if he was holding serve on love in all his service holds, and losing 1 very tight service game each set, and if he was giving a lot of trouble on his return games, getting a lot of breakpoints, and just not getting there). That's the way I consider matches, anyway. And in the 2009 final, I think Roddick was slightly better.

Russeljones
09-28-2012, 01:49 AM
This is why I don't read "General Pro Player Discussion."

LoL can't blame you, OP's statement was hilarious but sad at the same time.

Down_the_line
09-28-2012, 02:12 AM
Haven't read through this thread to see if this was mentioned already and if it has I apologize.

I would say the three biggest clay court tournaments currently are the French Open, Monte Carlo Masters and Rome Masters. Since 2005, Nadal has won 7 of 8 French Open's, 8 straight Mone Carlo Masters titles, and 6 of 8 Rome Masters titles. He also holds 7 of 8 Barcelona Open titles since then.

Yeah, he's the greatest ever on clay. Just unparalleled domination on a specific surface, at least at the big events.

CMM
09-28-2012, 05:33 AM
I expect the haters to bring up this topic once Rafa will start losing more on this surface. This will obviously happen if he plays until the age of 30 and it's something that Borg managed to avoid by retiring early. Then they'll start saying that Borg is the clay goat because he was never dominated on this surface and has a better w-l record, etc.

zagor
09-28-2012, 06:03 AM
I expect the haters to bring up this topic once Rafa will start losing more on this surface. This will obviously happen if he plays until the age of 30 and it's something that Borg managed to avoid by retiring early. Then they'll start saying that Borg is the clay goat because he was never dominated on this surface and has a better w-l record, etc.

Are you saying that Nadal fans will get a taste of their own medicine? I hope that when Nadal turns 31, knowledgable Rafa fans of this forum will agree that he's playing the best tennis of his life and won his slams in a weak era.

Should be fun.

The Dark Knight
09-28-2012, 07:18 AM
Are you saying that Nadal fans will get a taste of their own medicine? I hope that when Nadal turns 31, knowledgable Rafa fans of this forum will agree that he's playing the best tennis of his life and won his slams in a weak era.

Should be fun.

The better question is how Fed can be considered the greatest if he keeps losing to Nadal in slam finals?

Irrational.

cknobman
09-28-2012, 07:30 AM
The better question is how Fed can be considered the greatest if he keeps losing to Nadal in slam finals?

Irrational.

I don't know how can Nadal be even mentioned with the GOATS of the game when he was the first and only person in history to loose 6 consecutive final meetings in a row to the same person (3 of them being slams) and that person was/is not good enough (yet) to be mentioned with the GOATS of the game?

You see its all relative. And BTW in tennis you compete against hundreds of guys not just 1 other player which is why Nadal spent so long at #2 and not #1.

The Dark Knight
09-28-2012, 07:32 AM
I don't know how can Nadal be even mentioned with the GOATS of the game when he was the first and only person in history to loose 6 consecutive final meetings in a row to the same person (3 of them being slams) and that person was/is not good enough (yet) to be mentioned with the GOATS of the game?

You see its all relative. And BTW in tennis you compete against hundreds of guys not just 1 other player which is why Nadal spent so long at #2 and not #1.

Why don't you ask Federer? Roger thinks Nadal is one of the GOATS.....do you disagree with Roger as well?

cknobman
09-28-2012, 07:35 AM
Why don't you ask Federer? Roger thinks Nadal is one of the GOATS.....do you disagree with Roger as well?

I was merely responding to your stupid question about Federer, I never said I dont think Nadal is one of the GOATS.

Dont ask stupid questions and you wont get stupid responses. Why don't you ask many of the greatest players to ever play the game as many of them have stated that they believe Roger could be the GOAT?

sunof tennis
09-28-2012, 08:00 AM
It seems so obvious to practically be a silly thing to say. However it bears remembering that this comparo is the only true comparison, that is real Nadal to real Borg. Any other comparo: Nadal with a wooden Donnay, Borg with poly strings and cross training, are all huge leaps into the vast unknown, even more unknown than 2010s Nadal vs 1970s Borg.

Ultimately it is in fact the ONLY valid comparo.

Your last bolded area is a large part of what I was refering to in the end of my post.

Well, since Borg and Nadal obviously never played each other, saying one would beat the other, is still speculation.. I guess stacking the deck against Borg artifically probably renders the outcome you prefer to be more likely

LuckyR
09-28-2012, 08:21 AM
Well, since Borg and Nadal obviously never played each other, saying one would beat the other, is still speculation.. I guess stacking the deck against Borg artifically probably renders the outcome you prefer to be more likely

True but way less speculation than imagining Borg with poly strings and Nadal with a wooden racquet.


Face it, if you can't handle speculation, then there is nothing for you on this thread, it's all about speculation.

As far as prime Borg playing prime Nadal, the only type of person who would give the earlier era player a chance would be someone unfamiliar with training & tech progress. Would any rational person speculate that Roger Bannister could beat Sebatian Coe in the mile? Of course not since it is a timed event. 3:49 is always less than 3:59 no matter what. No debate. It doesn't take a lot of life experience to realize that all fields progress over time and that the clay court champ of the 70s would lose to the clay court champ of the 2010s.

RF20Lennon
09-28-2012, 09:19 AM
LOL I seriously cant understand how people can include nadal in the GOAT criteria.

NadalAgassi
09-28-2012, 10:12 AM
I don't know how can Nadal be even mentioned with the GOATS of the game when he was the first and only person in history to loose 6 consecutive final meetings in a row to the same person (3 of them being slams) and that person was/is not good enough (yet) to be mentioned with the GOATS of the game?


I dont believe Nadal is the GOAT at this point but this is stupid reasoning. Nadal still has a winning career record vs said player. By your logic no way could Federer be considered the GOAT when he is owned lifetime, espeicaly in slams, by by far his biggest rival, who is also a top 5 player all time. Who else was owned by even one of their main rivals, and had something anywhere near as bad a 2-8 record in slams, not Sampras, not Laver, not Gonzales, not Borg, not Nadal himself. Nadal was owned by Djokovic for 1 year, Federer has been owned by Nadal for almost a decade now.

You seem to forgotten the rule of thumb that they are the last people who ever want to try building up the importance of head to head are Federer fans. Atleast other Federer fans on this site are good at reminding themselves of that and downplaying all its importance constantly, as nobody is hurt as much by it becoming a topic of conversation as Federer.

Prisoner of Birth
09-28-2012, 11:01 AM
I dont believe Nadal is the GOAT at this point but this is stupid reasoning. Nadal still has a winning career record vs said player. By your logic no way could Federer be considered the GOAT when he is owned lifetime, espeicaly in slams, by by far his biggest rival, who is also a top 5 player all time. Who else was owned by even one of their main rivals, and had something anywhere near as bad a 2-8 record in slams, not Sampras, not Laver, not Gonzales, not Borg, not Nadal himself. Nadal was owned by Djokovic for 1 year, Federer has been owned by Nadal for almost a decade now.

You seem to forgotten the rule of thumb that they are the last people who ever want to try building up the importance of head to head are Federer fans. Atleast other Federer fans on this site are good at reminding themselves of that and downplaying all its importance constantly, as nobody is hurt as much by it becoming a topic of conversation as Federer.

How is it possibly shameful for a player to only start losing Grand Slam matches off-clay to Nadal (who is indisputably one of the 5 greatest players of all time and the Clay-God) when he was past-his-prime and Nadal entered his, even if he's the GOAT? Especially considering how well Nadal matches up against him? Even then, Federer has bageled Nadal across all surfaces (including clay). That's insanely impressive. And let's not forget, 5 of Federer's 8 Grand Slam losses were on Clay, where Nadal is the God-Of-All-Time. Put things in perspective. All things considered, Federer's record is pretty good against Nadal. Especially because it's 4-0 in Federer's favor on Federer's best surface (indoor hard, which also happens to be Nadal's worst) while it's 12-2 in Nadal's favor on Nadal's best surface (Clay, which also happens to be Federer's worst). Federer, atleast so far, is the guy with the unbeaten record on their respective best surfaces. How would the head-to-head look if 14 matches were played on Indoor Hard and just 4 on Clay? 13-1 and 4-0, maybe? So when you combine the two, it goes from 12-6 in Nadal's favor to 13-5 in Federer's favor. That should show you how skewed the head-to-head is. Just because pre-prime-Nadal wasn't good enough to make it to the later rounds off-clay in Federer's prime while past-prime-Federer is good enough to make it to the later rounds in Nadal's prime.

NadalAgassi
09-28-2012, 11:13 AM
Baby Nadal aged 17-19 won 6 of his first 7 matches with peak of peaks Federer, including 2 of their first 3 non clay matches, and the only one he lost he choked away a HUGE lead 2 sets to 0, 5-3, 5-3 in the tiebreak. Nadal has always owned Federer period since day 1 and has never looked back since. The various excuses, too many matches on clay, not in prime, mono, are becomes rudanant after awhile. Even the various Fed backers who proclaim him GOAT like McEnroe never deny for a moment that Nadal has always owned Federer when it comes to H2H.

This of course does not make Nadal the GOAT. What it does do however is bring a very strong case that Federer is not, if you choose to make H2H vs opponents a priority (which is why I laugh seeing that it was a Federer fan who chose to do so, bring up the H2H argument). No other potential GOATs were owned by their main rival in such a way.

PS- was Nadal in his prime during most of Federer's dominance either, NO. Was so called hard court GOAT Federer even reaching quarterfinals of hard court slams at the same ages so called (according to ****s) hard court mug Nadal is blamed for not reaching hard court slam finals. You get the picture.

cknobman
09-28-2012, 11:20 AM
I dont believe Nadal is the GOAT at this point but this is stupid reasoning. Nadal still has a winning career record vs said player. By your logic no way could Federer be considered the GOAT when he is owned lifetime, espeicaly in slams, by by far his biggest rival, who is also a top 5 player all time. Who else was owned by even one of their main rivals, and had something anywhere near as bad a 2-8 record in slams, not Sampras, not Laver, not Gonzales, not Borg, not Nadal himself. Nadal was owned by Djokovic for 1 year, Federer has been owned by Nadal for almost a decade now.

You seem to forgotten the rule of thumb that they are the last people who ever want to try building up the importance of head to head are Federer fans. Atleast other Federer fans on this site are good at reminding themselves of that and downplaying all its importance constantly, as nobody is hurt as much by it becoming a topic of conversation as Federer.

Please read the thread. My post was a sarcastic response to The Dark Knight and his ******** post. You either did not get my point or are taking my post out of context.

Prisoner of Birth
09-28-2012, 11:28 AM
Baby Nadal aged 17-19 won 6 of his first 7 matches with peak of peaks Federer, including 2 of their first 3 non clay matches, and the only one he lost he choked away a HUGE lead 2 sets to 0, 5-3, 5-3 in the tiebreak. Nadal has always owned Federer period since day 1 and has never looked back since. The various excuses, too many matches on clay, not in prime, mono, are becomes rudanant after awhile. Even the various Fed backers who proclaim him GOAT like McEnroe never deny for a moment that Nadal has always owned Federer when it comes to H2H.

This of course does not make Nadal the GOAT. What it does do however is bring a very strong case that Federer is not, if you choose to make H2H vs opponents a priority (which is why I laugh seeing that it was a Federer fan who chose to do so, bring up the H2H argument).

It took a while for Federer to learn to deal with Nadal. If, today, both were to re-enter their primes, Federer would probably do better. But hey, that's my opinion and I can't back it up. Anyway, I believe that if peak-Federer played peak-Nadal evenly across all surfaces, Nadal would lead the head-to-head. That's because he's the ultimate kryptonite. Just because Superman has a weakness doesn't mean he's not the strongest man on the universe. Tennis is about beating the field, not about beating an individual player. And saying Federer isn't the GOAT begs the question : Who is? Rod Laver? 36 year-old Gonzales beat 26 year-old Laver 8 times to 5 in a Calander year. And Gonzales doesn't even have the career Grand Slam (never won the French Pro among the Pro tournaments). Bjorn Borg? He was made to quit by McEnroe. And it's not like he's got the career Grand Slam either (he only got halfway through). Pete Sampras? Simply not good enough (or atleast not successful enough) on Clay to be the GOAT. Nadal? His claim to be the GOAT doesn't look too bad at the moment but what if he kept playing till 30 and what if he ended up with a losing head-to-head against Djokovic? He'd be defeating his own claim, right? And it's not like he's ever utterly dominated the field. 31 year-old Federer got to #1 with prime Djokovic and 26 year-old Nadal around. That should be embarrassing for the GOAT. Even more so than having a losing head-to-head against a guy 5 years younger who's basically made to beat you.

Mustard
09-28-2012, 11:29 AM
And Gonzales doesn't even have the career Grand Slam.

Rather difficult when you're banned from the mainstream majors from age 21 to age 40.

Prisoner of Birth
09-28-2012, 11:32 AM
Rather difficult when you're banned from the mainstream majors from age 21 to age 40.

He hasn't won the French pro, either.

PrinceMoron
09-28-2012, 02:04 PM
King of clay would have to include blue clay, and Nadal said he can't play on it, so he is well down the list, not even top ten.

The Dark Knight
09-28-2012, 02:06 PM
King of clay would have to include blue clay, and Nadal said he can't play on it, so he is well down the list, not even top ten.

They don't call you prince moron for nothing! :-)

NadalAgassi
09-28-2012, 09:22 PM
Please read the thread. My post was a sarcastic response to The Dark Knight and his ******** post. You either did not get my point or are taking my post out of context.

Sorry, my apologies. I didnt notice who you were replying to.

NadalAgassi
09-28-2012, 09:27 PM
It took a while for Federer to learn to deal with Nadal. If, today, both were to re-enter their primes, Federer would probably do better. But hey, that's my opinion and I can't back it up. Anyway, I believe that if peak-Federer played peak-Nadal evenly across all surfaces, Nadal would lead the head-to-head. That's because he's the ultimate kryptonite. Just because Superman has a weakness doesn't mean he's not the strongest man on the universe. Tennis is about beating the field, not about beating an individual player. And saying Federer isn't the GOAT begs the question : Who is? Rod Laver? 36 year-old Gonzales beat 26 year-old Laver 8 times to 5 in a Calander year. And Gonzales doesn't even have the career Grand Slam (never won the French Pro among the Pro tournaments). Bjorn Borg? He was made to quit by McEnroe. And it's not like he's got the career Grand Slam either (he only got halfway through). Pete Sampras? Simply not good enough (or atleast not successful enough) on Clay to be the GOAT. Nadal? His claim to be the GOAT doesn't look too bad at the moment but what if he kept playing till 30 and what if he ended up with a losing head-to-head against Djokovic? He'd be defeating his own claim, right? And it's not like he's ever utterly dominated the field. 31 year-old Federer got to #1 with prime Djokovic and 26 year-old Nadal around. That should be embarrassing for the GOAT. Even more so than having a losing head-to-head against a guy 5 years younger who's basically made to beat you.

For me Rod Laver is the GOAT. You mention him losing sometimes to an old Gonzales, but he still has a winning record vs him, and a winning record vs all his main rivals who include some of the all time greats of the sport- Gonzales, Rosewall, Newcombe, Emerson, and some other great players on a lower scale, all muti slam winners as well- Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Santana, Kodes. Most of all though he won the Grand Slam twice, and while the first one was kind of a joke practically speaking (the best players were pro at the time, and Laver would not be the best pro in 1963 the next year, not until 1964), officialy he did achieve it, and practically speaking he swept the 3 1967 pro slams when all the best guys were pro (apart from Emerson whow as prime Laver's beetch) so would have mostly likely have won it in 1967 just as likely as he probably wouldnt have in 1962 anyway, and still had 2. Nobody else has even been good enough to manage 1 since the post World War 1 years. Federer couldnt even manage it in the year Nadal didnt win the French, losing in hard court slams to so called hard court mug Nadal, and Del Potro who managed his only title above 500 level thus far that day. Federer won 4 of 6 slams during this stretch so the way past his prime excuse doesnt fly easily either, not to mention Laver managed a Grand Slam at 31 (the game was far less physical then making players last longer, but then again that negates Gonzales's age and its meaning too). Laver managed his 2nd Grand Slam by crushing Ken Rosewall, the 2nd or 3rd best clay courter of all time behind only Nadal, in the 69 French Open final, amongst his other strong wins, and the 69 field is one of the deepest fields of all time, far stronger than anything Federer ever faced, and still failed to win a Grand Slam over.

Prisoner of Birth
09-28-2012, 09:36 PM
For me Rod Laver is the GOAT. You mention him losing sometimes to an old Gonzales, but he still has a winning record vs him, and a winning record vs all his main rivals. Most of all though he won the Grand Slam twice, and while the first one was kind of a joke practically speaking (the best players were pro at the time, and Laver would not be the best pro in 1963 the next year, not until 1964), officialy he did achieve it, and practically speaking he swept the 3 1967 pro slams when all the best guys were pro (apart from Emerson whow as prime Laver's beetch) so would have mostly likely have won it in 1967 just as likely as he probably wouldnt have in 1962 anyway, and still had 2. Nobody else has even been good enough to manage 1 since the post World War 1 years. Federer couldnt even manage it in the year Nadal didnt win the French, losing in hard court slams to so called hard court mug Nadal, and Del Potro who managed his only title above 500 level thus far that day. Federer won 4 of 6 slams during this stretch so the way past his prime excuse doesnt fly easily either, not to mention Laver managed a Grand Slam at 31 (the game was far less physical then making players last longer, but then again that negates Gonzales's age and its meaning too). Laver managed his 2nd Grand Slam by crushing Ken Rosewall, the 2nd or 3rd best clay courter of all time behind only Nadal, in the 69 French Open final, amongst his other strong wins, and the 69 field is one of the deepest fields of all time, far stronger than anything Federer ever faced.

I'm not necessarily deriding Rod Laver. He has possibly got the best claim to being the GOAT, when you only look at the story on-paper. But I am of firm belief that players today are significantly better than they were back then. Again, I can't prove it. Nobody can. It's just how I see it and for me it looks obvious. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, though. That's the reason I believe Federer is definitely better than Rod Laver. It's only since the 70s and 80s that players have become more athletic and more professional than they were back in Laver's time (again, in my opinion, I can't prove it). The reason I brought up Gonzales is just to show that no player has a perfect record. Not so far, never in the future. Federer's ONLY real blemish is a bad head-to-head against Nadal. Rod Laver has his own. Nadal has many (none as major as Federer's but they add up to make his claim less strong than Federer's). So does Borg, so does Sampras. Federer just seems to have the best claim so far.

On a related topic, didn't Laver say he believed Gonzales to be a better player than he was? Or maybe I misunderstood it.

ETA : And you're really selling Del Potro short, there. He was on fire that tournament, crushing Nadal in the semifinal. And it's not like Federer was in his prime or anything. Everything needs to come together for that to happen. And Federer was just a few points away from the Federer-Slam, which to me is just as impressive as the Calander year Grand Slam.

NadalAgassi
09-28-2012, 10:41 PM
Other than bias against players of the past I dont see what Laver's blemish is. People say majors only being on grass and clay, but that isnt his fault, it would be like blaming the players today for the slow grass. Laver's best surface was actually hard courts, it isnt his fault there wasnt a major on it.

Laver probably said Gonzales was better than him. He pretty much says any player with 4 or more slams was better than himself. The most humble champion ever by far.

TMF
09-28-2012, 10:44 PM
Basically, every ex-pro players have conceded that the depth and strength of field is stronger than in the past, and certainly far more stronger than in the 60s when tennis was less international. Laver's accomplishment over 40 yrs ago was great if it's comparing to his peers, however, it just doesn't have the same weight as to today because the standard is a lot higher. Besides having a smaller pool, the pre-era was splitted into two circuits(pro & amateur), which makes it even more depleted.

About Pancho beating prime Laver, he was almost 42 years old at that time. I can't imagine a player today that old can beat a prime Federer or Nadal because it's virtually impossible. 42 years old player can only qualify for a senior tour, and that's not even a given that he can win a tournament.

Prisoner of Birth
09-28-2012, 10:48 PM
Other than bias against players of the past I dont see what Laver's blemish is. People say majors only being on grass and clay, but that isnt his fault, it would be like blaming the players today for the slow grass. Laver's best surface was actually hard courts, it isnt his fault there wasnt a major on it.

Laver probably said Gonzales was better than him. He pretty much says any player with 4 or more slams was better than himself. The most humble champion ever by far.

It's not bias. Like I said, on paper, he probably looks the best (but again he needs the "he'd have won everything if he had been allowed to play Slams" argument, though it's not his fault). But really, do you really think the general level of play was higher then than it is now? If you do, there's no point having this argument anymore, because neither of us will concede.

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-29-2012, 07:04 AM
The most humble champion ever by far.

The essential point some--namely Federer fans--miss: Laver once said he thought McEnroe could be the greatest--depsite John not coming close to winning the Grand Slam, then he said the same of Sampras--again, he too not winning the GS, and he's flip flopped on Federer. He thinks he's supporting the sport by promoting the the current "face" of tennis, but in the objectivity of history, none have accomplished what Laver has, and never will, thus others are great players, but not the greatest of all time.

Talker
09-29-2012, 08:29 AM
Other than bias against players of the past I dont see what Laver's blemish is. People say majors only being on grass and clay, but that isnt his fault, it would be like blaming the players today for the slow grass. Laver's best surface was actually hard courts, it isnt his fault there wasnt a major on it.

Laver probably said Gonzales was better than him. He pretty much says any player with 4 or more slams was better than himself. The most humble champion ever by far.

Laver's a great guy, who could not like him?

You're right that it wasn't Laver's fault about the surfaces or that there was problems with the field being split. Different equipment and so on.

But because of those problems the records he has are suspect and don't have the meaning of records in the open ERA.

Again, it is not his fault, but credit can't be given either.

Nothing wrong with looking at Laver and his ERA in this way and it doesn't degrade what he has done in the least.

PrinceMoron
09-29-2012, 08:57 AM
They don't call you prince moron for nothing! :-)

What other kind of night is there?