Most overrated player in the Open Era

Most overrated player in the Open Era

  • Nadal

    Votes: 19 15.4%

  • Safin

    Votes: 19 15.4%

  • Nalbandian

    Votes: 22 17.9%

  • Sabatini

    Votes: 4 3.3%

  • Kuznetsova

    Votes: 6 4.9%

  • Seles

    Votes: 8 6.5%

  • Agassi

    Votes: 7 5.7%

  • Zverev

    Votes: 22 17.9%

  • Capriati

    Votes: 3 2.4%

  • Sharapova

    Votes: 13 10.6%
  • Total voters
    123
davced1

davced1

Hall of Fame
Most of the poll options doesn't make sense. Nadal overrated, how? But I will give you an answer. David Ferrer, hard worker very consistent against those lower ranked but he simply doesn't have enough talent to beat the best, especially not at Grand Slams, h2h 0-17 vs Federer says it all.
 
D

DMP

Professional
thrust said:
Either you are joking or extremely biased. No doubt the great players of the recent and distant past were probably as great as today's top three, but today's top 3 certainly are not overrated.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I think they are. By that I mean across the whole body of comments you read about tennis, either on the main board or in the general press, or commentators on TV. For example - does McEnroe do some serious overrating? Do writers on tennis in the press give enough credit to players from the past? Do commenters on the main board overemphasise Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams as compared with players from the past? Of course they do.

I could go on. It is just the way it is, for the reasons I laid out.

Obviously that is less the case on this forum where you do get more detailed discussion, but the OP did not distinguish where the discussion was being held.

And even on this forum you get some seriously biassed over/underrating at times (dare I mention Seles/Graf.....?)

Having said all that, I will join in the fun. Three players of the top of my head I think are generally underrated are

Emerson
Okker - for his doubles achievements
Rosie Casals - played in a tough competitive era
 
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Well Nadal is maybe overrated by those who think he is the absolute best ever (although at least there is a case for it) but given his achievements it's hard to overrate him I think.

Whereas Safin and Nalbandian have shown moment of brilliance, but not enough to warrant their adulation. Same actually with many one slam winners like Krajicek, Stich, probably Del Potro, etc. They did show they had a wonderful peak level, but tennis is all about reproducing level and results, and they were bad at it.
 
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
DMP said:
Seriously, I think they are. By that I mean across the whole body of comments you read about tennis, either on the main board or in the general press, or commentators on TV. For example - does McEnroe do some serious overrating? Do writers on tennis in the press give enough credit to players from the past? Do commenters on the main board overemphasise Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams as compared with players from the past? Of course they do.

I could go on. It is just the way it is, for the reasons I laid out.

Obviously that is less the case on this forum where you do get more detailed discussion, but the OP did not distinguish where the discussion was being held.

And even on this forum you get some seriously biassed over/underrating at times (dare I mention Seles/Graf.....?)

Having said all that, I will join in the fun. Three players of the top of my head I think are generally underrated are

Emerson
Okker - for his doubles achievements
Rosie Casals - played in a tough competitive era
Click to expand...

For sure you hardly ever read something that put achievements in context, especially from former players like McEnroe or Wilander. Marc Rosset does it sometimes on Swiss television but the journalist he comments with generally don't know the players Rosset is speaking about so.

On TTW though there are quite a few fans who compensate. What happened to Bobbyone? Or the Kodes crazy guy?

Finally hard to see Emerson as underrated in my opinion. Simply never achieved in full field. Okker goes the way of the second tier. There are too many interesting second tier players to remember and pay tribute too. Also double is not recognized at all I think.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
DMP said:
Seriously, I think they are. By that I mean across the whole body of comments you read about tennis, either on the main board or in the general press, or commentators on TV. For example - does McEnroe do some serious overrating? Do writers on tennis in the press give enough credit to players from the past? Do commenters on the main board overemphasise Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams as compared with players from the past? Of course they do.

I could go on. It is just the way it is, for the reasons I laid out.

Obviously that is less the case on this forum where you do get more detailed discussion, but the OP did not distinguish where the discussion was being held.

And even on this forum you get some seriously biassed over/underrating at times (dare I mention Seles/Graf.....?)

Having said all that, I will join in the fun. Three players of the top of my head I think are generally underrated are

Emerson
Okker - for his doubles achievements
Rosie Casals - played in a tough competitive era
Click to expand...

Emerson is a strange one. As I've written before, he is simultaneously overrated (by those who focus only on major count, and would place him very high up in the list of greats because he won 12 majors), and underrated (by tennis historians - many of them on this sub-forum - who think he'd have won absolutely nothing of note had tennis been Open throughout the 1960s).

The truth of his status is probably somewhere in between.
 
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Phoenix1983 said:
Emerson is a strange one. As I've written before, he is simultaneously overrated (by those who focus only on major count, and would place him very high up in the list of greats because he won 12 majors), and underrated (by tennis historians - many of them on this sub-forum - who think he'd have won absolutely nothing of note had tennis been Open throughout the 1960s).

The truth of his status is probably somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

The problem with him is that it is hard to gauge his level as he faded on the eve of the open era. He did beat Laver before he turned pro, but he also 3 times during his first grand slam. He also beat Arthur Ashe but was Ashe already that good? People who saw these matche can better tell.

At the end winning in a field devoid of the clearly best players of his time make it hard to recognize his achievements. A player like Ferrer could dominate the field but was powerless against the very best, so could Emerson have been a similar case? Of course, the difference is Emerson didn't try so we will never know if he could have adapted and improved against better competition.
 
D

DMP

Professional
Phoenix1983 said:
underrated (by tennis historians - many of them on this sub-forum
Click to expand...

I would say there are very few tennis historians on this forum. Krosero, NoMercy, KG1965 (though he also strays into judgement, which I do not call being a historian) and a few others. By historian I mean going back and looking for raw historical facts and original documents. There are a lot of tennis history commentators, among which I include myself and yourself, who like to read about tennis history, and maybe comment on the basis of facts they have experienced or read about. But that is not true history IMO, just historical comment. True history is the hard work of going back to original sources.
 
S

Sosuke Aizen

Rookie
DMP said:
Actually the most overrated players are

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Williams

in fact every current player.

The most underrated are players from the past, from Sampras backwards.

There are a few reasons for that.
- every generation thinks that what it is watching is the best there has ever been
- tennis has become a niche sport and everyone associated with it has a vested interest in hyping what you see now as the best ever
- there is no-one writing in the general press who has a good historical perspective
- it was hard in the past to idolise players because there was none of the ubiquitous coverage we get nowadays. It is hard to idolise someone you see maybe once or twice a year.
- people who saw players in the past are obviously older and have the responsibilities that come with being older. They can't be bothered correcting every misconception about the past
- people rely on youtube video far,far, too much to judge players from the past
- understanding the history of tennis, especially the nuances of what was important, is hard work. Most people don't bother or can't be bothered. It is easier to say now is obviously better.

The players most underrated are those from the most distant past.

So there you have it - the most overrated players are Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously claiming that more athletes were playing tennis in the 50's and 60s? You seriously think that this means players today are worse in an era of sport specialization from a younger age, a world population that has more than doubled, and countries that never had an impact in tennis now having more top players? I find this premise to be absurd.

Especially when you mention Serena Williams considering that the fact that women's athletics have only started to be taken seriously in the last 40 years and in many places in the world female athletics is still undervalued and marginalised.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
DMP said:
I would say there are very few tennis historians on this forum. Krosero, NoMercy, KG1965 (though he also strays into judgement, which I do not call being a historian) and a few others. By historian I mean going back and looking for raw historical facts and original documents. There are a lot of tennis history commentators, among which I include myself and yourself, who like to read about tennis history, and maybe comment on the basis of facts they have experienced or read about. But that is not true history IMO, just historical comment. True history is the hard work of going back to original sources.
Click to expand...

Ok - pedantry about what constitutes a historian aside, there are people who underrate Emerson, and people who overrate him. That was my point.
 
K

KG1965

Legend
DMP said:
Seriously, I think they are. By that I mean across the whole body of comments you read about tennis, either on the main board or in the general press, or commentators on TV. For example - does McEnroe do some serious overrating? Do writers on tennis in the press give enough credit to players from the past? Do commenters on the main board overemphasise Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Williams as compared with players from the past? Of course they do.

I could go on. It is just the way it is, for the reasons I laid out.

Obviously that is less the case on this forum where you do get more detailed discussion, but the OP did not distinguish where the discussion was being held.

And even on this forum you get some seriously biassed over/underrating at times (dare I mention Seles/Graf.....?)

Having said all that, I will join in the fun. Three players of the top of my head I think are generally underrated are

Emerson
Okker - for his doubles achievements
Rosie Casals - played in a tough competitive era
Click to expand...
Surely the media tend to push the new stars (maybe they did it with Sampras & Agassi or Graf?).
The mechanism is very simple and goes in three directions:

1) new stars pushed up through exclusive focus on slam

2) old post-1968 stars (including Laver and Court) pushed down by delegitimizing their titles (24 slams? Weaks ... GS? Weaks ... TCC, WCT, Virginia Slims ....? What's? .. and skills ... their shots are old and weak ... the number 300 ATP >> Laver & McEnroe)

3) hiding of the old pre-1968 "ruins" (World Series? Pro tournaments? What a bore old stuff ..)

But I seem to understand this type of discussion is not the goal of the thread.
 
Towny

Towny

Hall of Fame
jrepac said:
This is all true, but one is hard pressed to paint Borg as over-rated. His best shot at the USO was during Connor's peak years when it was on clay... 75/76 and JC took him out both times. He was certainly unlucky. Much like Ivan Lendl at Wimbledon. But neither Borg or Lendl are over-rated...missing a GS trophy doesn't automatically earn that classification, IMHO
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I never said Borg was overrated. He's actually quite underrated in my opinion. All I was arguing was that Nadal isn't overrated and the argument of the OP, that Borg was better than Nadal on every surface bar clay, was incorrect
 
D

DMP

Professional
Sosuke Aizen said:
Are you seriously claiming that more athletes were playing tennis in the 50's and 60s? You seriously think that this means players today are worse in an era of sport specialization from a younger age, a world population that has more than doubled, and countries that never had an impact in tennis now having more top players? I find this premise to be absurd.

Especially when you mention Serena Williams considering that the fact that women's athletics have only started to be taken seriously in the last 40 years and in many places in the world female athletics is still undervalued and marginalised.
Click to expand...

No, I am not claiming there were more athletes playing tennis in the 50s and 60s. I would claim, though, that there are many more sporting options available for a good athlete who wants to make a living in sport, and that, relatively, tennis has fallen away as a sport for a good athlete.

So although the world population has increased it is not a done deal that there as many more tennis players as you would expect just by extrapolating the world population. I would love to see actual data for the number, and quality, of people playing tennis worldwide in different decades, but I don't think that data exists, so everyone is guessing.

I think everyone misunderstands what I am saying when I say that Federer et.al. are overrated. I think they think I mean they aren't as good as players from the past. I certainly don't mean that. I think they are just as good as the best players from the past. I just don't think it is self-evident they are better, and a lot of the arguments to justify why they are better are quite flimsy and are poorly thought through by people who don't have a really good knowledge of tennis history.
 
T

TheRed

Hall of Fame
yeah, it's Rios and it's not even close. Rios gets into the highlights in every single match because he tends to go for cute and difficult shots often in a match. On more than one occasion I'd watch the highlights, think Rios won and then see that the score was 6-4 6-3 for his opponent. Lost in all the analysis of his amazing shots is how weak his forehand was. yeah, he could hit amazing angles with it but too often his forehand was just average pace, average spin and landing on the service line. He often needed 3-4 shots on his forehand to start dictating the point. Against top pros, the point is over by then. And his serve was never that good. It kept getting backhanded praise like "it's better than you think" and "it's quite good" simply because people didn't think a 5' 9" guy who just walks up and casually serves like a weekend warrior should be able to hit a decent serve. But his serve was never really that consistently good.
 
D

DMP

Professional
Phoenix1983 said:
Ok - pedantry about what constitutes a historian aside, there are people who underrate Emerson, and people who overrate him. That was my point.
Click to expand...

No argument there. I think the pendulum with Emerson has swung from overrating when Sampras was chasing down his slam record, because it suited the narrative then, to underrating him now that the record has been passed - because that makes it easier to ignore that period of tennis.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
DMP said:
That is another 'underrated' issue. Doubles is not really rated now, for a variety of reasons, but probably mainly because the top players generally do not play. But in the past it was more highly rated, because the top players did play. So once again players from the past are underrated now.
Click to expand...
Today's players pay a heavy price for not doing doubles.

In the classic era, doubles play sharpened the volleying skills of the top singles players, and helped them with their net game.

Today, the top singles players avoid doubles play, volleying has become a diminished skill, and players often bungle their net game in singles play.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Sosuke Aizen said:
Are you seriously claiming that more athletes were playing tennis in the 50's and 60s? You seriously think that this means players today are worse in an era of sport specialization from a younger age, a world population that has more than doubled, and countries that never had an impact in tennis now having more top players? I find this premise to be absurd.

Especially when you mention Serena Williams considering that the fact that women's athletics have only started to be taken seriously in the last 40 years and in many places in the world female athletics is still undervalued and marginalised.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that in Australia, beginning in the 1970's, tennis became unpopular as a major sport, with motor racing and football becoming much more popular.

So, yes, there were fewer Australians playing the sport than in the immediate post-WWII era, when that group of major Aussie stars emerged.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
DMP said:
I would say there are very few tennis historians on this forum. Krosero, NoMercy, KG1965 (though he also strays into judgement, which I do not call being a historian) and a few others. By historian I mean going back and looking for raw historical facts and original documents. There are a lot of tennis history commentators, among which I include myself and yourself, who like to read about tennis history, and maybe comment on the basis of facts they have experienced or read about. But that is not true history IMO, just historical comment. True history is the hard work of going back to original sources.
Click to expand...
It's more than just raw facts, you have to know how to interpret the facts.

Some great historians get assistants to dig up the facts, then the historian writes about the facts.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Today's players pay a heavy price for not doing doubles.

In the classic era, doubles play sharpened the volleying skills of the top singles players, and helped them with their net game.

Today, the top singles players avoid doubles play, volleying has become a diminished skill, and players often bungle their net game in singles play.
Click to expand...
What?
Haven't you heard that the net and volleying in its vicinity is irrelevant and outmoded.
 
T

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
Flash O'Groove said:
The problem with him is that it is hard to gauge his level as he faded on the eve of the open era. He did beat Laver before he turned pro, but he also 3 times during his first grand slam. He also beat Arthur Ashe but was Ashe already that good? People who saw these matche can better tell.

At the end winning in a field devoid of the clearly best players of his time make it hard to recognize his achievements. A player like Ferrer could dominate the field but was powerless against the very best, so could Emerson have been a similar case? Of course, the difference is Emerson didn't try so we will never know if he could have adapted and improved against better competition.
Click to expand...
It's interesting to think about. Let's say everyone who wins a major or two turns pro and leaves the current tour behind. Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, and Del Potro are all gone. Would Ferrer win 12 majors? I highly doubt it. That's a big haul, even in a depleted field.

But yes, it's quite hard to gauge what Emerson would have done had he turned pro and competed against the world's very best. But I think he had to be better than someone like Ferrer.
 
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
tudwell said:
It's interesting to think about. Let's say everyone who wins a major or two turns pro and leaves the current tour behind. Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, and Del Potro are all gone. Would Ferrer win 12 majors? I highly doubt it. That's a big haul, even in a depleted field.

But yes, it's quite hard to gauge what Emerson would have done had he turned pro and competed against the world's very best. But I think he had to be better than someone like Ferrer.
Click to expand...

Better than Ferrer there is Murray, who certainly could have won double digits slams without his main rivals. Now Murray is a good player but he is also limited, hence only 3 slams. Probably like Emerson, the way I see it.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Flash O'Groove said:
Better than Ferrer there is Murray, who certainly could have won double digits slams without his main rivals. Now Murray is a good player but he is also limited, hence only 3 slams. Probably like Emerson, the way I see it.
Click to expand...

Yup, I've long thought that Emerson is Courier/Murray level.
 
Shaolin

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Honestly I feel sorry for you guys can't appreciate the Rios game....making smug remarks and probably never saw him play. Sad.
 
T

TheRed

Hall of Fame
Shaolin said:
Laver predicted he would become world #1 before he did.

Fed named him as one of his favorite players growing up.

Stich called him the only player he would pay money to watch.

Numerous other great players that you would never hope to win a point against have talked about how good he is, which he backed up by becoming world #1.

But yeah keep talking sh*t because you know so much about tennis. Go back to your 3.0 league and act smart.
Click to expand...

I'm a former (aging with children) 5.0 player and I don't play leagues but no need to take it so personally. If I may, let me respond to your "evidence."

Fed named him as one of his favorite players growing up. - Rios was one of my favorite too but that doesn't mean I don't think he's overrated. I think I concede that. He was very entertaining but that didn't help him win matches against top players especially ones that consistently brought power. Rios reminds me of that favorite scene in Indiana Jones when Harrison Ford stares at the guy whipping his sword around, which looks all impressive until Ford decides to just shoot him. Rios is the guy with the sword. He looks great with his artistry but too often just gets overpowered.

Stich called him the only player he would pay money to watch. - See above. Yes, Rios was very entertaining.

Numerous other great players that you would never hope to win a point against have talked about how good he is, which he backed up by becoming world #1 - Yes, he got to number 1. Danira Safina got to number 1 too and no one thought she was uber talented. Rios wasn't exactly a mainstay at number 1 either. But I don't think he's Safina. He's much better and very talented but people underestimate how easily he got overpowered by top players and how incredibly average his results were in the slams.
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
Rios is extremely talented. I agree someone who denies that might not be particularly knowledgable on tennis. That certainly does not mean he can not be considered overrated though. He was a big underachiever, had a horrible attitude and mental game, and wasted a lot of his gifts. So for those who even believe he was that hyped or heavily praised at all (which I didnt sense, which is the only reason I excluded him from this poll) he certainly could be labeled overrated.

In fact in general a lot of the talented underachiever who were either lazy, mentally weak, or inconsistent seem to usually be the players who are most prone to being overrated. People love the enigmas or the underachievers and undeservedly praise them to high heavens.
 
Shaolin

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
TheRed said:
I'm a former (aging with children) 5.0 player and I don't play leagues but no need to take it so personally. If I may, let me respond to your "evidence."

Fed named him as one of his favorite players growing up. - Rios was one of my favorite too but that doesn't mean I don't think he's overrated. I think I concede that. He was very entertaining but that didn't help him win matches against top players especially ones that consistently brought power. Rios reminds me of that favorite scene in Indiana Jones when Harrison Ford stares at the guy whipping his sword around, which looks all impressive until Ford decides to just shoot him. Rios is the guy with the sword. He looks great with his artistry but too often just gets overpowered.

Stich called him the only player he would pay money to watch. - See above. Yes, Rios was very entertaining.

Numerous other great players that you would never hope to win a point against have talked about how good he is, which he backed up by becoming world #1 - Yes, he got to number 1. Danira Safina got to number 1 too and no one thought she was uber talented. Rios wasn't exactly a mainstay at number 1 either. But I don't think he's Safina. He's much better and very talented but people underestimate how easily he got overpowered by top players and how incredibly average his results were in the slams.
Click to expand...

You act like his game was a bunch of Mansour Bahrami trick shots and no substance. The guy won I believe 6 Masters titles, both on clay and hard and reached a slam final, losing to a juiced Petr Korda who wouldn't have been in the final to begin with without his roids.

Yes he could get overpowered but his main problem was his **** poor attitude and injuries.

The guy was incredible to watch, like a lefty Agassi with the hands McEnroe and prime Fed footwork.

Not sure how anyone can say he's overrated on here since all people do is talk about him negatively....most of those people probably never saw him actually play.
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
Rios played awful in the Australian Open final. He wouldnt have beaten anyone. If anyone was robbed at that Australian Open by a juiced up Korda it is either Johansson or Kucera, as one of those would have won the title over a crappy non playing Rios in the final.
 
Shaolin

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
frodobaggins said:
Rios played awful in the Australian Open final. He wouldnt have beaten anyone. If anyone was robbed at that Australian Open by a juiced up Korda it is either Johansson or Kucera, as one of those would have won the title over a crappy non playing Rios in the final.
Click to expand...

That's your speculation. The reality is that he lost to a juiced Korda which is what really matters.
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
Shaolin said:
That's your speculation. The reality is that he lost to a juiced Korda which is what really matters.
Click to expand...

Threads like this are nothing but speculation anyway so saying it is just speculation is a pointless blanket statement anyhow. Rios was godawful in the final, he has nobody to blame but himself for not winning, and if you deny that you are really a blind fan to the point of irrationality (which you have already made pretty obvious you are anyhow). And juicing (which atleast 60% of ATP and WTA pros do anyway) or not there are way tougher opponents you could play in a slam final than Korda, would Rios have rather played Sampras in the finals, LOL! If he played a reasonably good match and lost in 4 or 5 sets you might have a point about "juiced up Korda" who btw looks just like a skinny spider anyway.
 
Shaolin

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
frodobaggins said:
Threads like this are nothing but speculation anyway so saying it is just speculation is a pointless blanket statement anyhow. Rios was godawful in the final, he has nobody to blame but himself for not winning, and if you deny that you are really a blind fan to the point of irrationality (which you have already made pretty obvious you are anyhow). And juicing (which atleast 60% of ATP and WTA pros do anyway) or not there are way tougher opponents you could play in a slam final than Korda, would Rios have rather played Sampras in the finals, LOL! If he played a reasonably good match and lost in 4 or 5 sets you might have a point about "juiced up Korda" who btw looks just like a skinny spider anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes it was a bad final but if Korda wasn't juiced the result could have been much different. Rios beat him easily at IW just a few months later.

Your comment about "60% of ATP and WTA pros" juicing is just stupid and you have no evidence to back it up.

The other comment you made about Korda looking like a skinny spider in reference to juicing shows how clueless you really are. The pros and certainly not Korda dont juice to bulk up they juice for the recovery benefits when having to play match after match like at a slam. You claim to know that 60% of pros juice yet you don't even know WHY they juice. Its laughable. If you read my original post I said Korda wouldn't have been in the final without his juice meaning that that scrawny little man-chicken wouldn't have lasted that long without tiring out and I stand by that.

Regarding your statement about me being an irrational and blind fan is dumb as well. I never claimed Rios was a goat, ATG, even HOF player. I simply said hes not overrated especially since there's almost never a kind word about him said here.

Instead of spamming the forum with nonsense maybe check out some of his matches and appreciate some great tennis from a unique and gifted player.
 
F

frodobaggins

Rookie
I love how imbeciles like Shaolin think spewing insults and talking in a self righteous superior mode makes them seem smarter. Truly effing hilarious. Lastly foul mouthed clown Shaolin just before you go on my ignore list, a) I have watched your beloved crush Rio play a TON of times, so quit your ridiculous patronizing like I and other shave somehow never seen the guy play, b)I did not even include your beloved Rios on my poll to begin with making your baseless whining directed at me, all the more absurd. c)I know full well there are many different types of doping, many of them based on endurance and recovery as much as strength and muscle. Even considering that it is practically unheard of for any substantial doper to be nearly that wirey. Even Sharapova never was. So if Korda was really this big juicer he was a pretty ineffective and dumb one.
 
Shaolin

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
frodobaggins said:
I love how imbeciles like Shaolin think spewing insults and talking in a self righteous superior mode makes them seem smarter. Truly effing hilarious. Lastly foul mouthed clown Shaolin just before you go on my ignore list, a) I have watched your beloved crush Rio play a TON of times, so quit your ridiculous patronizing like I and other shave somehow never seen the guy play, b)I did not even include your beloved Rios on my poll to begin with making your baseless whining directed at me, all the more absurd. c)I know full well there are many different types of doping, many of them based on endurance and recovery as much as strength and muscle. Even considering that it is practically unheard of for any substantial doper to be nearly that wirey. Even Sharapova never was. So if Korda was really this big juicer he was a pretty ineffective and dumb one.
Click to expand...

Love how you go directly to ad-hominem and then complain about personal insults. Classic.

Please put me on ignore...I'd love to never hear from you again.

Ps, where is your evidence for 60% of the tour juicing...we are waiting!:laughing:
 
W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
frodobaggins said:
Yeah Nadal is a great player even outside of clay but having 2/3rds of your slams on one surface (except the days 3 of 4 majors were on grass which is a different thing) is pretty much unheard of. It isn't versatile enough compared to the other greats.
Click to expand...

In my view, Nadal is if anything underrated - and there's a strong bias against him on this forum from the predominantly pro-Federer fanbase

Shall we examine his versatility (or lack of) in a bit more depth to put in perspective?

Off clay, Nadal has won 6 majors - 4 on hard courts, 2 on grass. How does that stack up against other all time greats?

Connors off of his favourite hard courts has 5
Borg off of his favourite clay has 5
McEnroe has the same number of hard court majors - and he's a GOAT candidate on the surface
Lendl, sans clay, has 5
Edberg has the same number of Wimbledons - and 2 fewer finals
Becker and Edberg put together have just 1 more hard Slam (and 1 less final)
Agassi outside his favourite hard courts has 2

Where's the problem here? Nadal compares favourably with most ATGs, subtracting players' favourite surface or Slam... and a lot of those guys have gaping holes in their resume - that Nadal doesn't

It seems to me Nadal is held to the standard of his clay court prowess. That's an impossible standard for anyone on any surface to match. He's also held to the standard set by Federer and Djokovic on grass and hard courts - and obviously falls short.... but so do they on clay to him (and by a much wider margin)

I don't think anyone sane argues Nadal is the best grass or hard courter of his time - clearly he trails his two top rivals.... but I do think he's done enough on those surfaces to justify being top notch player on them (and he's done so having to go through those two rivals - GOAT candidates on the surfaces in question)

frodobaggins said:
Nadal- a controversial pick maybe, but people forget how ridiculously clay heavy his record is when evaluating his greatness
Click to expand...

Now lets look at his dominance on clay

Clay has historically been the hardest surface to master - or maintain mastery over. Lots and lots of one shot wonders at the French Open... far more than at Wimbledon or on the hard courts

Borg's record of 6 titles at the French was considered safe as a bank, virtually impossible to match. The closest anyone got to it was half way... I believe only 1 player so little as reached 6 semi-finals, let alone finals - and sure as hell forget about titles

Nadal has all but doubled it. He has doubled what was considered an impossible mark!

What was the previous record for Masters level equivalent titles on clay? 7 or 8, I think. Nadal has quadrupled it!

Nadal's quality on clay is so mindboggling that I think we struggle to take it in. To paraphrase an attributed quote, "1 French Open is a great achievement, 11 is a statistic"

If he's that good on clay... great for him, say I

He has won more majors on clay than All time greats Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer and Djokovic put together

Why hold it against him, since he's doing just fine on the other surfaces (dual domination of which is fairly common)?
 
Last edited:
K

KG1965

Legend
Waspsting said:
In my view, Nadal is if anything underrated - and there's a strong bias against him on this forum from the predominantly pro-Federer fanbase

Shall we examine his versatility (or lack of) in a bit more depth to put in perspective?

Off clay, Nadal has won 6 majors - 4 on hard courts, 2 on grass. How does that stack up against other all time greats?

Connors off of his favourite hard courts has 5
Borg off of his favourite clay has 5
McEnroe has the same number of hard court majors - and he's a GOAT candidate on the surface
Lendl, sans clay, has 5
Edberg has the same number of Wimbledons - and 2 fewer finals
Becker and Edberg put together have just 1 more non-clay Slam (and 1 less final)
Agassi outside his favourite hard courts has 2

Where's the problem here? Nadal compares favourably with most ATGs, subtracting players' favourite surface or Slam... and a lot of those guys have gaping holes in their resume that Nadal

It seems to me Nadal is held to the standard of his clay court prowess. That's an impossible standard for anyone on any surface to match. He's also held to the standard set by Federer and Djokovic on grass and hard courts - and obviously falls short.... but so do they on clay to him (and by a much wider margin)

I don't think anyone sane argues Nadal is the best grass or hard courter of his time - clearly he trails his two top rivals.... but I do think he's done enough on those surfaces to justify being top notch player on them (and he's done so having to go through those two rivals - GOAT candidates on the surfaces in question)



Now lets look at his dominance on clay

Clay has historically been the hardest surface to master - or maintain mastery over. Lots and lots of one shot wonders at the French Open... far more than at Wimbledon or on the hard courts

Borg's record of 6 titles at the French was considered safe as a bank, virtually impossible to match. The closest anyone got to it was half way... I don't think anyone even reached 6 semi-finals, let alone finals - and sure as hell for forget about titles

Nadal has all but doubled it. He has doubled what was considered an impossible mark!

What was the previous record for Masters level equivalent titles on clay? 7 or 8, I think. Nadal has quadrupled it!

Nadal's quality on clay is so mindboggling that I think we struggle to take it in. To paraphrase an attributed quote, "1 French Open is a great achievement, 11 is a statistic"

If he's that good on clay... great for him, say I

He has won more majors on clay than All time greats Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer and Djokovic put together

Why hold it against him, since he's doing just fine on the other surfaces (dual domination of which is fairly common)?
Click to expand...
As I have already written.... in my list, Nadal closely follows Federer, Gonzalez, Laver (and Tilden if we go to War2 before) but without injuries he would have been the GOAT without hesitation.
 
W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
KG1965 said:
….but without injury he would have been the GOAT without hesitation.
Click to expand...

Its good to see you KG. How have you been?

I see the commonly used "injury excuse" differently than most people

Since tennis is such physical game - and I know of no player that has never been 100% injury free - I see staying healthy as a skill of tennis

A skill that Nadal is exceptionally bad at!

so when if I say "Nadal would have been GOAT but for injury", I'm saying it like, "If Rafa had a better serve, he'd have been better".... which is so obvious it doesn't need to be said

I suppose that's the price he's paid for his domination of clay - the most gruelling and testing surface. Clay dominant players usually burn out faster because they take so much out of their bodies to do well on the slow stuff

Saw an old match recently where Mary Carillo quoted Roger Federer as attributing one of the reasons for his success as "... not playing stupid 5 setters"

Nadal has not only played too many "stupid 5 setters", but stupid 3 setters even.... injuries are bound to follow.

That's on him I feel, not bad luck or chance - as it is usually explained as

The other is unwillingness to adapt his game - which in this modern homogenized era all the players can get away with more than before

His mid career Wimbledon crisis came about because he was unwilling to be aggressive, as befits grass. If he'd beefed up his serve (as also befits grass) like he did in Australia earlier this year, he'd probably have won the last Wimbledon.... giving him 3 Slams on each surface, which would have been an incredible feat
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
K

KG1965

Legend
Waspsting said:
Its good to see you KG. How have you been?

I see the commonly used "injury excuse" differently than most people

Since tennis is such physical game - and I know of no player that has never been 100% injury free - I see staying healthy as a skill of tennis

A skill that Nadal is exceptionally bad at!

so when if I say "Nadal would have been GOAT but for injury", I'm saying it like, "If Rafa had a better serve, he'd have been better".... which is so obvious it doesn't need to be said

I suppose that's the price he's paid for his domination of clay - the most gruelling and testing surface. Clay dominant players usually burn out faster because they take so much out of their bodies to do well on the slow stuff

Saw an old match recently where Mary Carillo quoted Roger Federer as attributing one of the reasons for his success as "... not playing stupid 5 setters"

Nadal has not only played too many "stupid 5 setters", but stupid 3 setters even.... injuries are bound to follow.

That's on him I feel, not bad luck or chance - as it is usually explained as

The other is unwillingness to adapt his game - which in this modern homogenized era all the players can get away with more than before

His mid career Wimbledon crisis came about because he was unwilling to be aggressive, as befits grass. If he'd beefed up his serve (as also befits grass) like he did in Australia earlier this year, he'd probably have won the last Wimbledon.... giving him 3 Slams on each surface, which would have been an incredible feat
Click to expand...
I was better 20 years ago, ...but I'm fine. And you ?

The "injuries excuse" argument is commonly used as a negative factor such as "Hewitt, Haas, Nishikori, Delpo have been unable to win, end." or "Connolly and Seles won x slam, end of discussion".
I think it comes from the "super winning american mentality" that leaves no room for the unfortunate. But maybe it's not just the american version's fault, but man is like that. "Who has a handicap must make do".

I think so radically differently.

I think for example that Connolly and Seles have reached a level as high as Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf and Serena. Even if they won less.

And Nadal without the constant stop and go would have reached my 4 of Mt. Rushmore and probably even passed.

It's simply an "as if" reasoning, it is not my intention to compile "Greatest" lists by inserting the "as if ... injuries" aspect.

In a possible list instead of "best player" I generally insert this aspect but favoring the "big injuries" (Connolly, Seles, or .. Del Potro). Not Rafa's stop and go.

Perhaps it is in seeing the remaining healthy as a tennis skill: I don't see it, frankly.

All sports have athletes who not considered monsters for injuries.

I remember that in the 90s Grant Hills and Drazen Petrovic played basketball at almost Jordan's level, they were young: one was injured and walked throughout his career, the Yugoslav died in an accident.

In my mind the two were monsters the highest levels ever seen.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Waspsting said:
In my view, Nadal is if anything underrated - and there's a strong bias against him on this forum from the predominantly pro-Federer fanbase

Shall we examine his versatility (or lack of) in a bit more depth to put in perspective?

Off clay, Nadal has won 6 majors - 4 on hard courts, 2 on grass. How does that stack up against other all time greats?

Connors off of his favourite hard courts has 5
Borg off of his favourite clay has 5
McEnroe has the same number of hard court majors - and he's a GOAT candidate on the surface
Lendl, sans clay, has 5
Edberg has the same number of Wimbledons - and 2 fewer finals
Becker and Edberg put together have just 1 more hard Slam (and 1 less final)
Agassi outside his favourite hard courts has 2

Where's the problem here? Nadal compares favourably with most ATGs, subtracting players' favourite surface or Slam... and a lot of those guys have gaping holes in their resume - that Nadal doesn't

It seems to me Nadal is held to the standard of his clay court prowess. That's an impossible standard for anyone on any surface to match. He's also held to the standard set by Federer and Djokovic on grass and hard courts - and obviously falls short.... but so do they on clay to him (and by a much wider margin)

I don't think anyone sane argues Nadal is the best grass or hard courter of his time - clearly he trails his two top rivals.... but I do think he's done enough on those surfaces to justify being top notch player on them (and he's done so having to go through those two rivals - GOAT candidates on the surfaces in question)



Now lets look at his dominance on clay

Clay has historically been the hardest surface to master - or maintain mastery over. Lots and lots of one shot wonders at the French Open... far more than at Wimbledon or on the hard courts

Borg's record of 6 titles at the French was considered safe as a bank, virtually impossible to match. The closest anyone got to it was half way... I believe only 1 player so little as reached 6 semi-finals, let alone finals - and sure as hell forget about titles

Nadal has all but doubled it. He has doubled what was considered an impossible mark!

What was the previous record for Masters level equivalent titles on clay? 7 or 8, I think. Nadal has quadrupled it!

Nadal's quality on clay is so mindboggling that I think we struggle to take it in. To paraphrase an attributed quote, "1 French Open is a great achievement, 11 is a statistic"

If he's that good on clay... great for him, say I

He has won more majors on clay than All time greats Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer and Djokovic put together

Why hold it against him, since he's doing just fine on the other surfaces (dual domination of which is fairly common)?
Click to expand...
You mean, tennis only began in the open era?
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
BorgTheGOAT said:
Very good choice. Out of those I would place Rios first. Safin at least won two slams and Nalbandian and Kyrgios at least have some wins against ATGs/GOAT candidates. Rios has literally nothing unless you count Agassi in 98 as a big scalp. Another fellow who gets constantly overrated here is Muster. Who ever came up with the idea to call him Nadal if the 90s must be completely deluded.
Click to expand...
Nalbandian at least has won big titles over all those great players. Kyrgios generally can only cause one upset and never go all the way. Acapulco this year was the only exception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kiki
top women´s in open era
Replies
15
Views
2K
halalula1234
halalula1234
B
Women: Open Era Career Win/ Loss Percentage
Replies
11
Views
2K
BTURNER
B
T
Top 10 forehands of Open Era
Replies
17
Views
2K
dannykl
D
T
  • Poll
Best female rebound ace player of Open Era
Replies
15
Views
2K
fedhingis515
fedhingis515
thalivest
Top 40 women players of the Open Era
Replies
30
Views
2K
thalivest
thalivest
Top