Applying TW Federer logic Nadal and Emerson are greater than Laver

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Dark Knight, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Fed is claimed to be the goat because he has more slams than anyone in history.

    Therefore following that line of logic Nadal is greater than Laver because Nadal has 12 slams on three surfaces while Laver has 11 slams on 2 surfaces .

    Furthermore Emerson should also be considered greater than Laver as Emerson has more slams .....according to TW Federer logic .
     
  2. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,097
    Fed is at a distant first place. There are number of people who have good credentials for the second place including Nadal.
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    The Federer fanatics just "forget" (or really don't know) that some greats of the past, i.e. Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver would have passed the 17 major mark if they had the opportunity to play all GS tournaments, as Federer had.
     
  4. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,097
    Woulda, coulda , shoulda...
     
  5. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    None of that matters to them . Come on.
     
  6. MonkeyBoy

    MonkeyBoy Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,431
    Rosewall won 19 pro majors. (And that was when there were only 3 majors a year).

    Rosewall = goat
    Federer = second best
     
  7. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Simple isn't it . :)
     
  8. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    And your point is...
     
  9. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,357
    Don't sweat about it. TW logic will be completely different, a few years later.

    Historically, GOAT debate in tennis community always came down to: 1. # of
    slams 2. years at domination.

    My prediction is that the discussion will lean more toward the domination period
    in the future.


    People realizes slam counts depends on many conditions of the
    given era. Sampras' 14 slam was a never a true record and Federer's 17 is not
    truely yet. In addition, new #1 in next era will get 20+ slams, considering current
    slam conditions and the fact that pre-Open era greats like Rosewell, Laver, Gonzalez
    won about 20+ slams counting both pro and amatuer.

    My prediction on GOAT debate 10-20 years later, following will be more popular factor:

    # of slams : greatest in one era.
    years of domination : compare greats of different era
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2013
  10. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,442
    Majors not Slams

    Every Slam is a Major, but not all Majors are Slams.

    I think the most (though not all) of the community when incorporating pre-1968 players has included Pro Majors in their totals. So totals of Majors (ie pre-mid 1920's majors eg World Hard Court Championships plus current 4 majors plus Pro Slams). Added to majors is season end championships since 1970 if applicable - in the greats achievement list

    So by that above Rating Laver has 19, Rosewall 23 Majors approx etc etc - so both well over Emerson.

    But they don't simply total Majors, they look at other things like dominance ie time spend being number 1 etc.So in the laver rosewall example - Rosewall had arguably 6 years as number 1 or co-number 1 and laver had arguably 7 years as number 1 or co-number 1.

    It simply must be like this otherwise Hbarty is a superior player to Nadal, if H2H is the primary criteria. H2H could be used as a tie-breaker if the other criteria seem to come out level.

    There is an understanding though that Open era majors are more prestigious that pre-1968 Pro Majors, or Amateur Majors. So that is factored in.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2013
  11. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    Surfaces are irrelevant in the career/calendar slam factoring. They are what they are at the time of playing. If you go down the path of saying Laver had it easier because more of his majors were on grass then you have to also consider that the Aussie Open and Wimbledon have been much easier for slow court specialists to win in the last decade moreso than any time in tennis history.

    Winning all four in a calendar year is the holy grail of tennis. It is probably worthy of doubling that year's slam total when considering a player's overall greatness - in which case Laver should be viewed as having 15 majors (if we only include the open era grand slam).

    (Similarly, I think achieving the career slam also warrants some sort of numbers boost when comparing players since it was historically such a rare feat - only 3 people have managed it since 1970. Other rare achievements like winning a major multiple times in a row could also have some extra weighting added, maybe an extra 10% each extra consecutive year a major is won)
     
  12. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I don't think surfaces are irrelevant .
     
  13. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    When counting up majors they are to everyone who can think through the changes that have gone on in playing conditions across the years.

    Perhaps you just can't consider any reasons or lines of debate beyond those you have already decided.
     
  14. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    If surfaces are irrelevant why do all the federinas whinge about skewed h2h and Nadal's domination on clay?
     
  15. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Ouch !!!!!!!!

    Knockout !!!!!

    You don't get it though ..... There are more twists and turns than a mouse running in a maze trying to find the cheese .

    Just watch
     
  16. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    14,097
    Surfaces are ofcourse relevant, Everyone and their child know that comparing pre-open era with open era does not amount to any sense.
     
  17. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    Because they are two different topics.

    One is comparing all players across the entire open era on a level playing field which is says all majors are regarded as equal in a straight count regardless of surface/year. Explanation of this is usually not necessary for functioning adults who have watched tennis for more than two weeks (even though we all know Wimbledon is really worth more :p).

    The other is a direct head to head comparison where the surface argument is used to explain or excuse one or the other's performance, but only relative to each other. The h2h is a facetious line of debate for any situation other than peers who have very similar accomplishments or to make a surface comparison. Since Nadal is not yet Federer's peer it is pointless.

    Even if it were the head to head can also be conveniently warped another way thus: Federer's clay h2h versus the field (minus Nadal) is far better than Nadal's hard court h2h versus the field (minus Federer). That would be a far more apt way to determine a player's surface ability than simply showing a straight person to person h2h.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2013
  18. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,261
    Fed is by definition the greatest grand slam tennis player in history.
     
  19. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,038
    No it isn't FAR better at all lol.

    Nadal's HC record is 282 - 85

    Federer's clay record is 187 - 55

    I don't get why you'd want to subtract Fed and Nadal from the conversation because they are part of the field. The difference is 2% in favor of Federer, but Nadal has had to play 367 matches on HC as opposed to Fed's 242 on clay. For some reason, I doubt Federer would be higher than 77% W/L after another 125 matches on clay...
     
  20. DolgoSantoro

    DolgoSantoro Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    832
    Location:
    Far away
    TTW is hilarious most of the time, it's so much better now that I've learned not to take it seriously. Fed's still GOAT though, for many more reasons than his seventeen slams.
     
  21. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    The greatest but not the best because he can't beat Nadal.
     
  22. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,442
    I'd really like to know

    He can beat Nadal. He has beaten him 10 times.

    In all seriousness. I'd really like to know this from you. If, in the 30 times that Nadal has played Federer - they had played them all on indoor hard or indoor carpet - do you think that the H2H score would still be 20 to 10 in favour of Nadal? If you think it would change....then you would agree that you can't talk about H2H outside of a discussion of surface/conditions.
     
  23. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    In the slams it's really 8-0. Feds only wins came when Nadal was a boy. The slams are all that matters.

    Certainly even you would have to agree that all matches are not equal so even if you look at the 20-10 record....8 of those 20 were slams .

    It doesn't matter what would happen on carpet or whatever . The conditions are what they are.

    Laver won the calendar slam on three surfaces being grass . Connors won the US open on grass , hard and clay .

    The AO has changed from grass to rebound ace to hard

    The FO from real clay to crushed brick.

    Wimbledon from fast grass to slow grass to indoor

    USO from grass to Har Tru to hard to slow hard


    In the end you must roll with the punches because the conditions will constantly change .
     
  24. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    It is.

    The reasoning behind subtraction is this. Nadal fanatics, or nutjobs to give them a more accurate group title, point to the head to head between Federer and Nadal to demonstrate, despite the plethora of more recognised metrics showing otherwise, that he is better than Federer.

    The error of basic logic in that line of debate lies in Nadal's inability to meet Federer nearly as many times across the season as on clay and Federer's ability to make it deep enough in clay tournaments very often to face Nadal. The real head to head is how many times each player won a tournament that the other player failed in - i.e. lost to anyone in the draw. Across a much longer period than has been reversed recently Federer was in finals and winning tournaments that Nadal lost to much, much lesser players earlier on at. Flipped around the same is not true for Federer on clay. He was beating more lesser players and making it to more finals to meet Nadal.

    While Nadal was losing to all those nobodies across the broader season, Federer was doing so at a much lower rate. You have to engage some serious sort of drunk teenager logic to argue that would make Nadal better than Federer.

    Nadal, only matches or beats Federer in greatness when you are conveniently selective with the available data/metrics. Shown overall - as all-time player comparisons have generally always been done - the metrics basically all swing in Federer's favour.

    Claiming Nadal is a greater player than Federer is the same as claiming Fernando Alonso is a greater driver than Michael Schumacher because, when they competed against each other Alonso amassed better results. Only an utter fool would argue say Alonso is the greater F1 driver. He may be technically a better driver but he is simply not greater by virtue of Schumacher's achievements which make Alonso look like an amateur overall (91 wins vs 32, 68 pole positions vs 22, 7 driver's titles vs 2).

    To make a similar point elsewhere you only need to look to golf and at Tiger Woods vs Jack Nicklaus. Who is the better golfer? Tiger by most expert's opinion. Who is the greater golfing legend? Nicklaus by far (and he's got a smaller lead in majors won as if to make the point of Nadal being greater than Federer even more laughable).

    Nadal is simply a lesser player overall than Federer by every definition other than that of partisan hacks.

    The board should have a permanent thread somewhere where all these type of h2h debate threads get redirected so the kids who are into it can have their circle-jerk without ruining the experience of the board for everyone else.
     
  25. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    And applying TW Nadal logic Hrbaty is the GOAT closely followed by Nicolas Massu.
     
  26. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    True, and Gilbert Schaller, George Bastl, Max Mirnyi and Derrick Rostagno were all greater players than Sampras also...



    ... they were just misunderstood by the majors won chart everyone else was relying on. :lol:
     
  27. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,691
    You used to take it seriously?
     
  28. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    The thing is it's not "robotic TW fed fan logic." It's the commonly held criteria by which the comparative greatness of tennis players have been measured for 40 years. All through the 80s, 90s the talking point about players like Sampras, Agassi, Becker etc as their careers unfolded was "will they ever win as many majors as Borg?", "will anyone ever match Lendl for consecutive weeks at #1?" Sometimes discussions were even "no way will Pete ever win as many Wimbledons as Becker or Borg... It's just not possible."

    But now partisan hacks talk about it like it was some underhanded measure which came about in the internet era to make Federer look better than he really was. The only underhanded, driven by complete morons, measure that exists to measure apparent greatness is the Federer vs Nadal h2h.

    There are simple reasons that most of the time competition and h2hs are completely ignored. The primary one is they obfuscate, not clarify, the debate. They are too often chosen or argued in partisan fashion with whole disregard for impartiality or applying the same logic in all areas. People who go down these paths heavily for the most part have an agenda - like yourself - which is obvious to anyone who has a good grasp of the overall body of information.

    Similarly, as if it wasn't really obvious already, the h2h ignores everything but players in the same era who, even then, might not have comparable career timelines. Previously, the only time a h2h was mentioned was when TV commentators talked about players pre-match. That is where has some use and about all it's useful for really.

    That's the thing about the truth - it is still true even if nobody at all believes it. Sadly for people like you you can't even say it's a case of misguided opinion or an informed minority - the majority of people believe the truth to be that Federer is the GOAT. That's because at this stage he has more claim to it than Nadal. In fact Nadal can't even be compared to Sampras yet using any broad overview of their relative accomplishments.

    I'm not frustrated. I consider this helping teach you some basic skills. Call it my contribution to helping you become a functioning adult one day, one who can look at all sides of a discussion and form, with reasoned arguments, an opinion that can stand up to scrutiny. Being that guy, the one who always picks the opposite of the commonly held opinion, might seem like a cool stance to take as if you're demonstrating some sort of high level of independent thought but actually it just identifies you as unreasonable and pointlessly arrogant. Neither quality endears anyone to your opinions. They have the opposite effect. If that was your intention then you succeed often.
     
  29. RPMBlast

    RPMBlast Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    132
    I'm not sure I understand the consistency here. If you say it doesn't matter where it happened, i.e. the conditions are what they are, then why would you bother saying Fed only beat Nadal when he was a boy? The ages when the beatings happened when they happened. And if slams are all that matters, then what difference does it make whether Nadal was a boy or a man. All things happened as they happened, and after all of that, Federer leads Nadal by 5 slams, DESPITE being owned in the H2H by Nadal :). How do you get out of that???
     
  30. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I'm not sure i understand your issue.

    Slams are really the only thing that matters . Where's the consistency problem?

    As far as the surface my response was the surface doesn't matter meaning "if it were faster or if it were carpet"......that doesn't matter because slam surfaces constantly change and what would have been or might be doesn't matter.

    I do not see how this is in contradiction to the development of a player ? The fact is those two grass court slams came when Nadal never won a slam outside the FO and was labeled a clay court specialist.

    Nadal was I believe 20 & 21 ? About the same age as Federer when he was Rafters whipping boy.

    But yeah Fed did win those 2 slams against Nadal.....I think of the two 2007 was solid . But even if you give fed those two wins as solid ( while not counting rafter)......it's still 8-2 in slams .

    And three of those slams were not on clay ....almost half . I'm sorry but how can you just ignore that and not give it any credit whatsoever ?
     
  31. RPMBlast

    RPMBlast Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    132
    You're saying the slam surfaces are what they are and it doesn't matter what they might have been right?

    By the same token Fed beat Nadal at whatever age he did and it doesn't matter if he had or hadn't beaten him at another age. Understand?

    Don't you agree that the player who owns the H2H agains the player that has 17 slams, SHOULD have more slams???? But he doesn't. AND if you were consistent, then it should not matter why not. It doesn't matter Nadal is younger or was "injured" or whatever. It happened as it happened, and after all that Fed has the most slams. The reasons don't matter as you said yourself.

    Read what the bolded part of your statement. YOU said it. It doesn't matter what might have been. It doesn't matter what the ages are. After all is said and done, Fed owns Nadal in slam count. Period.
     
  32. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Yes I am saying that the slams surfaces are what they are and it doesn't matter what they might have been or should be because they constantly change and you have to deal with it.

    But I don see the correlation between a players age and the surface they play on. I believe Rafter beat Roger on all surfaces because Roger was still developing as a player. I give Roger that.....but I think you have to apply the same criteria fairly and Nadal should be given credit for still being a boy.....just as Roger himself said....,in fact that's where I got the phrase. Roger himself said he witnessed Nadal grow from a boy to a man and that Nadal became a much better player.

    But complaining that the slams should be different is a whole different ball of wax. I don't see the connection.

    I said that That all that matters to certain Fed fans is the slam count. But O don't even agree that Fed owns Nadal in the slam count. Nadal has played in far Fewerer slams and Nadals winning percentage is actually better than Federers.

    No I don't agree that Nadal should have more slams. In fact the better question is why does Nadal dominate Federer so badly? Why has this never occurred before? It didn't happen to Laver ,Sampras , Borg....why? One explanation to me is the obvious one: Federer racked up the majority of his slams during a transitional phase or when Nadal was still a boy growing into a man.

    That's why this is the first time in tennis history this anomaly has occurred . Do you have a better explanation?
     
  33. Nitish

    Nitish Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    The 5 year age difference,did any other goat candidates have this with their main rival?
     
  34. chandu612

    chandu612 Guest

    Well thats the logic they come up with. But the truth is, Fed has more fans now. So he is called the GOAT because thats what they love to hear. The way the Nadal-Djokovic rivarly is shaping up these two players will gather more fans and Fed loses some post retirement. Then, all this 'Fed is GOAT' talk is gone.
     
  35. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    True.

    But always remember the masses are usually wrong . History has proven that.

    Columbus said the world was round

    Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun.

    Just a few examples. Just because the majority believes aethimg doesn't make it right. In fact it's usually wrong .
     
  36. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Yes they did . Absolutely .

    I'm doing this off the top of my head.....but I believe Borg Mcenroe have a similar age difference .

    Laver was older than most of his rivals.

    Connors was older than Mcenroe and Borg .

    Wasnt Hewitt younger than Sampras?

    The five year age difference is not that strange at all.

    I think the wide disparity between fed and Nadal in the h2h has to be the competition. And if you look carefully there is no one that would agree that Ferrero the world #1 is nearly as good as Joker the current #1.

    It's a shame Sampras retired , because he left a vacuum of talent in the top 10 . It would have been great to see a Sampras Fed rivalry .....even for a couple of years.

    But just take a look at the last year of Sampras ' career. You claim that age is a factor ? That last year was one of the oldest opens in history . I think both Sampras and Agassi were at least 30. They were older than everyone else and still beating the crap out of everyone .

    I don't think that age is the explanation for the poor head to head . It has to be the competition .
     
  37. Nitish

    Nitish Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    delete post
     
  38. RPMBlast

    RPMBlast Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    132
    If it doesn't matter what slam surfaces could have been, then it also doesn't matter that Nadal was a boy and it also doesn't matter that Nadal has played fewer slams. Do you understand consistency?

    If a player owns another player in H2H then the owner should have more slam titles. The only explanation for that is that the H2H owner was not as good against the "weak" field as you call it. And if you come back that he was a boy, then I will say it doesn't matter, things happened as they happened, just like the surfaces. Consistency.
     
  39. Nitish

    Nitish Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    I am talking about their main rival,fed leads against djoko.Lavers main rival was rosewall who was older than laver.Sampras main rival was agassi who was a year older.Borg was three years older (their h2h is 7-7)but remember they never played on clay borgs best surface and mcenroes worst,and the fact that borg retired early in his career.You are right connors was older but borg leads him 15-8 and mcenroe 20-14.The problem as you get older is you lose your consistency you can have good days but they are rare.Pete was on a two year title drought(any title not just slams)before uso 2002.
     
  40. ScottleeSV

    ScottleeSV Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    767
    Nadal was a two time grand slam champion going into Wimbledon 2006, and a three time champion going into 2007. At what point in your tennis career do you become a 'man'? Is it when you've won the career slam?

    Nadal was already a great player in 2006 and 2007; he just couldn't get it done.

    You regularly twist the facts to suit your own argument. I see you insist on discounting those early Wimbledon matches but are perfectly happy to include the 2011 French final and 2012 Aussie Semi when Federer was 29+ and clearly past his prime.
     
  41. Fiji

    Fiji Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,962
    Laver won 19 majors.
     
  42. Fiji

    Fiji Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,962
  43. ScottleeSV

    ScottleeSV Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    767
    So how many 'majors' per year were they playing to get those then?
     
  44. RPMBlast

    RPMBlast Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    132
    Actually in slams it's really 3-2. Is clay really a surface?
     
  45. Fiji

    Fiji Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,962
  46. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    No Federer does because they are his words my friend.

    Nadal was a great player at 20 and 21 .....a lot better than Federer at the same age that's for sure.

    But make no mistake about it ......he was still learning to play on grass and hard court was still a long way away.

    Nadal made certain adjustments for hard a that came much later . He changed to an eastern forehand for his serve giving him another 20 mph ....he didnt have that in 2006 & 2007 . He flattened out his strokes and he didn't have that in 2006 and 2007 . And finally as Fed said , Nadal grew from a boy to man and just became stronger all together .

    Hold on .....I'll get the quote from God himself . But even that will not convince you. Until the end you will say that Nadal was a goat contender from the moment he came out of his mothers china . :)
     
  47. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Here you go from God himself:

    Tennis - ATP World Tour - Federer: Nadal From Boy To Man

    Roger Federer has witnessed Rafael Nadal’s transition from a boy to a man. On Wednesday at Roland Garros, the Swiss reflected on the growth in his rival’s game from their first meeting in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years of age.

    “Well, he is more or less still the same player,” shared the 31-year-old Federer, “because when you come on the tour for the first time, you already have your own basis. So your strengths will remain your strengths and your weaknesses will remain your weaknesses, although you can improve them.

    “I believe Rafa improved in both. His strengths are even better now and his weaknesses are better, although they're still not as good as his strengths. Of course also he's fitter. He's no longer a young boy. He's a man now. He has experience on top of that. So he really improved. It's spectacular and the results are there to show, to prove it.”

    The pair faced off two weeks ago in Rome, their first meeting in a final since 2011 at Roland Garros, and Nadal won in straight sets to improve to a 20-10 mark in their FedEx ATP Head2Head series.

    With the victory, the Spaniard claimed his sixth title from eight finals this season and his 41st clay-court crown, second best on the list of Open Era leaders behind Guillermo Vilas with 45. Last year, Nadal won Roland Garros for a seventh time to break the record he shared with Bjorn Borg.

    Federer, who has a 2-13 mark against Nadal on clay, weighed how he’d fare against Borg on the surface. “Probably not so good,” he stated. “He was one of the greatest clay court players of all time. He was fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.

    “We will never know how we would have all matched up, because Borg would have played totally different in today's age. And Rafa would have played very different back then because you can't play the way he plays today, but great players find a way, and that's what Rafa is showing in these last 10 years.

    “It's amazing how successful he is and how he brings it every single match, and he can really enjoy utmost respect [from] all the players for what he has achieved, not only just on clay. He is still stapled off as the clay court guy which he clearly is not anymore.”

    View TV Schedule

    Follow ATP World Tour On Twitter | Like Us On Facebook
     
  48. Nitish

    Nitish Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    Hey TDK you didnt reply to my post.
     
  49. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Sorry . Post it again
     
  50. Nitish

    Nitish Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    .........................
     

Share This Page