Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Pwned, Jun 15, 2011.
Antonio Banderas must be heard:
I do argue, though, that if Laver had been able to compete at Grand Slams during those 7 years of his prime, he would have many, MANY more grand slam titles.
you mean this Banderas?
Actually Laver contested in the Pro Slams in 1963-1967 and believe it or not, besides 1967 he wasn't racking most of them, Rosewall was. Either way, Laver doesn't end up with more than 18-20 Slams.
I didn't mean to say that Laver would have wound up with 30!
I think 18-20 is probably about right.
what a read. Lol.
I liked the comparison of if Nadal never beats djokovic this year but still finishes number 1, does this mean he is not number 1?
Remember the year Simon beat Fed twice in a matter of months and didnt lose a match to him.. does this make him the number 1 in 2008? Lol, just kidding.
Your super long post confirms there there is no certainly yet as to who is even the best of this era between Fed and Rafa. We'll have to wait until their careers end.
John Mcenroe: "There is an argument to be made that Rafael Nadal may be the greatest player eventually, even possibly now,"
That's right. I think OP is talking about him.
I've been saying this for months, and he now gets the credit for publishing it? UNFAIR! :evil:
btw, Rosewall has 19+ slams, depending how you count them.
Banderas, you traitor
so has Laver... 11 (open) + 8 (pros) and also all the doubles & Mixed he raked
The majors won in this slow era are not worth half of a major 10...20....30 years ago. Back in those days it took some courage and great shot making to win a major. Now all it takes is stamina,a little foot speed, a big game improver racquet and a player can win at least 10 majors.
LOL it's funny how for Rafa's winning percentages you don't stop short of mentioning how many of those wins were on clay - Rafa's best surface but don't mention the winning percentage of Federer's matches on HC - which is his best surface.
No, it confirms that Federer is the best of his era. Ofcourse, about the future, no one knows.
You're a glutton for being owned aren't you? Assuming Federer does indeed retire before Nadal then while Nadal is racking a bunch of slams without Federer there that will be his era. You can only compare them in the parts of the era that overlapped. Generally as the OP did, you don't count 2003-2005 to compare with Nadal. By the same token you won't use the achievements of Nadal after Fed retires. Thus in the parts of their career that overlapped, Fed is definitely the greatest as attested to by the OP.
He has 5 open era slams, so he has 13 slams total. If you count amateur slams, he has 19 slams, but Rosewall has 23.
btw, Pancho Gonzales has 12 pro slams
Grand Slam finals
Singles: 17 finals (11 titles, 6 runner-ups)
11(6 titles) pre Open Era
6(5 Titles) post Open Era
Professional Slam Finals
Singles: 14 (8 titles, 6 runner-ups)
that is what i meant obviously. thanks for splitting hairs!!!!
I was referring to Rosewall having 19 slam titles
anyways, to me it's Laver for a more well rounded resume. even though Ken and Pancho made some dents in it!
Rosewall had 12 runner-ups in the slams, so by your count Rosewall has 35 slam finals (that beats Fed, btw)
4 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups
15 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups
4 slam wins, 4 slam runner ups
the finals are there just as a aid to place us in the conversation. the fact is, Laver has 19 Majors (pre&post open and pro) and Rosewall has 23, whereas Rosewall only has one Pro Calendar slam, Laver has 2 Calendar slams and an aditional Pro calendar slam.
Rosewall's competition in the amateur slams was harder
that my dear friend is quite questionable. but i wont go there. i would give one thing thou! both stand (IMHO) as the 2 more consistent GOAT contenders
Grass is Federer's best surface, imo. You have 2 slams played on HC these days and Fed has 9 compared to 6 Wimbledon wins and 7 finals. For having twice as many opportunities to win HC slams you'd think if it was his best surface he'd have quite a few more. The season is dominated by HCs. It's a shame there are not an even number of tournaments played on all surfaces, or at least much closer to it than the 68% hc - 31% clay - 1% grass that we have now.
that was a GREAT READ
Nice side-by-side comparison in the original posts.
Only thing I don't like seeing is the bracketed bits about clay courts. In true career and all-time greatness the court surface matters little relative to total achievements.
Oh don't get me wrong; it is a slightly biased assessment towards Federer, but for the most part it gets most things right. There's not a single ********* could even imagine of coming up with a counter argument to the main points of the OP.
I thought so too.
and davis cups
well, since you mention it, (in serious fashion i trust) i believe that Davis Cup is a important feature in any GOAT contender, but i believe what makes Laver's resume im pressive is having slams + pro slams + doubles + mixed + davis cup + calendar x2, and not the Davis cup per se!
Separate names with a comma.