Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Dec 6, 2012.
Regarding the perspectives of *******s, yes, i agree with the op.
I'm a federer fan. I'd say grass and clay have both had a lack of real competition, but I can't blame nadal for not beating the previous clay goat like Fed beat the previous grass goat - borg retired before Nadal was born. To be fair both Federer and Nadal didn't have much chance to beat all time greats since the era preceeding Federer, had Sampras who retired in 2002, Agassi who did carry on and a few minor players like Courier, Rafter etc who also all retired before Federer got going. I still think players like Fed, Nadal, Sampras are likely to thrive vs any players other than those on the same level (i mean a GOAT candidate)
But I do have to say that I don't think Nadal has had more competition at RG than Federer has at Wimbledon.The biggest level of competition comes on HC though.
With Ferrero's recent retirement, Nadal and Federer are the only active players to have won a French Open title, so that's not really an argument.
That's exactly my point.
Because Nadal is dominant on clay. In the past, Nadal has beaten former French Open champions on clay. He was beating Costa and Moya in masters series events in 2003.
and a wonderful website it is
How can somebody who won Wimbledon be below average on grass?
Ask Djesus. Or better yet ask Nadal for letting a grasscourt mug like Djesus win Wimby. Very for Nadal that's for sure.
I don't get what you mean haha, but on todays grass they're both remarkable. Djokovic has won Wimbledon and made 3 semi's, while Nadal has won 2 and made 5 finals, beating Federer, pushing him to 5 another time, and beating Murray three times, among other conquests.
Very well put.
It sums up the situation nicely. Tennis isn't, nor has it ever been, a comparison of head to heads between individual. It's a comparison of individuals to the rest of the field. In that respect Nadal is a distant pretender compared to Federer.
Slightly understated here... Post prime Federer beat Djokovic who was then the world number one, reigning champion at Wimbledon, runner-up at French Open and, title-holder at the prior three majors before that.
Federer's win over Djokovic at Wimbledon this year was one the most significant of his Wimbledon career imo. The win over Murray was great too but Djokovic was the man to beat.
This is ridiculous. Cvac is a grasscourt mug, so Fed SHOULD beat him there more often than not. I fail to see how beating Djesus at Wimby was the most significant win of his Wimby career since Djesus has one grass court title,and two grasscourt finals to his name over his entire career. It's too bad Nadal let him get inside his head so badly or else he would never have won Wimby, and would have zero grasscourt titles on his resume.
I didn't mean in terms of who is the better grass court player. Djokovic was the man when they faced off, having won 4 of the previous six majors and all of them off clay. So, situationally, is was extremely significant for post-prime Federer, especially given how many had written him off on the big stage.
Ok, that makes a lot more sense.
You obviously don't know what below average is.
I know how you feel. Sometimes I think it's too bad Federer let Nadal get inside his head so badly or else he would never have won the AO and would have zero titles there :lol: the tennis Gods jest with us
Murray could end up with two Wimbledon titles.
What people don't understand is that there is a parallel universe in which Hewitt and Roddick are all time greats with GS totals heading for double figures, endless acres of newsprint and interweb brainfart over their incredible awesomeness and monumental achievements the way that Borg, and McEnroe are spoken about. Safin, Davydenko, Nalbandian and others are similarly regarded as second tier greats with much more successful careers.
Federer has ruined our perspective on some fantastic players and doomed them to statistical irrelevance in the eyes of the tennis trainspotters of the world who see thing only in terms of winning percentages, numbers of trophies and mystical H2H counts. In some ways his achievements have wrought as much destruction as they have created beauty and pathos.
My name is Roger, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Hewitt and Roddick certainly suffered the most from Fed's dominance.
Historically however, the men who are suffering the most from the current generation's phenomenal feats are Borg and Sampras. Most of their landmark achievements are being wiped from the record books, or at least equalled.
The only man who remains safe - for now - is Laver, since none of the current greats have yet managed to win four in a row.
But we are certainly living in a phenomenal era of men's tennis greats.
Federer would've won multiple calendar grand slams if it wasn't for that pesky Nadal.
Also add Nadal to that list. Might sound stupid, but without Federer he gains an extra wimbledon, maybe 2 and is a 12-13 slam winner WITH a Career slam,plus olympics if you rate that and several DC wins. In this reality his nearest GOAT rival is reckoned by many to be Sampras (really the only people who pick Laver these days are Sampras fans who rather Laver get the GOAT hood than Fed) who has 14 majors but no career slam and no olympic gold either. Nadal sits 1-2 slams away from totally ending the debate, but is already ahead or at least equal of Sampras in many people's eyes.
But because of Federer the bar is 17 instead of 14 or even less considering Pete never won the french.
Yet the weak era champ beat the defending Wimbledon all time great in his baby years in 2001. Wonder what this suggests?
I think Nadal's nearest GOAT rival is Borg at this point in time. Not many consider Nadal ahead of Sampras right now. In fact that comparison (Nadal/Sampras) would be a very awkward one to make given the completely different ways they achieved their greatness...
Sorry what I meant was the next guy ahead of him. With a career slam he's moved ahead of borg. If he has 12 or 13 slams he would be so close to Sampras plus have a career slam to make up for a slam or two. Even if you still rated 14 slams over 12 or 13 with the whole set, Nadal would be very near to becoming greater than Sampras and thus in the eyes of most people, the GOAT. Because of Federer he still has about 6 slams to go instead of 1 or 2
Are people still taking 90's Clay seriously? Just look at his name, he's a clear 90's ****/Sampras ****. He'll do everything he can to try and downplay the GOATness of Federer.
Face it, 90's Clay. Federer is THE GOAT.
How many slams might Federer had amassed if he'd been born 2-3 years earlier and approached his peak around 2001 instead of 2003
I think it might have even been more fortuitous than peaking in '03... have to figure he'd have 19 slams rather than 17.
I'm adding in 1 more USO ('03) and a French Open title in '04
obviously i'm going to subtract the '12 Wimbledon... but he'll have won Wimbledon from '02 to '07 and then '09
Also he'd have the '04 Olympic Gold due to greater maturity at the time it was played.
(Calendar year Golden Slam in '04)
What's even more impressive is that he won the FO in his first try, and only lost once in 8 years.
Yep sorry I missed the bit where you said "in this reality", i.e. a reality where Nadal has another two Wimbledon titles and 13 slams in total (if Fed hadn't existed and Nadal had won W in 06 and 07).
Then he would have 13 slams (7 F, 4 W, 1 US, 1 AO), which would be very similar to Pete's 14 (7 W, 5 US, 2 AO) and he would have the benefit of having won all four.
Also if it weren't for Fed, he would have finished YE #1 in 2005-2007 and 2009, to add to his actual #1 finishes in 2008 and 2010; thus he would have matched Pete's six years in a row.
So yes you are right, if Fed didn't exist, Nadal would be considered on a par with Sampras rather than on a par with Borg.
Having said that, if Nadal didn't exist, Fed would not just be GOAT but some kind of otherworldly being (for one thing, he would have won 10 consecutive slams from 05 W to 07 US...) :shock:
No there is not. Who has been Nadal's big competition on clay throughout his career? Nadal has had zero competition on clay and I include Federer in that whole scenario. Who else has Nadal had to worry about on clay? Murray, Ferrer or Almagro? Don't make me laugh.
I actually agree with you OP. Whilst I don't buy into the Fed GOAT topic, I think that Fed's achievements have been so remarkable that it does distort what we as fans think is a successful career. We all once thought guys like Connors, Borg, Wilander and Lendl, guys who won at least 7 or more slams, had remarkable careers. Then Sampras took it to another level, and now Federer. Now we look at Nadal, who has 11 slams, and think meh as if it's no big deal. Now we will all expect a player to come along every generation and get to 17-18 slams.
I did not even see this post before I posted my response above. I agree with you 100 percent. Nadal had zero competition on clay throughout his career.
Nadal has beaten a clay slam champion in 4 of his 7 FO finals. Borg beat a clay slam champion in 4 of his 6 FO finals.
The only difference is that while, in Borg's case, this was multiple people (Vilas twice, Orantes once, Lendl once), in Nadal's case, it has been just one man - Federer.
Of course people arguing either side here will say this means either that Federer is so great he would have been a multiple FO champ if not for Nadal; or that the clay era is so weak it allows just two men, one of whom is not really that great on clay, to consistently contest finals.
I am not talking about how Nadal's competition on clay was versus Borg's, I am talking about how Nadal did not have any clay competition in his career in response to the post made by Clarky which stated Federer had no competition on grass and Nadal had loads of competition. Loads of competition on clay for Nadal? If Federer is his best competition on clay, I rest my case. (no offense to Federer as I am a huge Federer fan but Federer is not big competition for Nadal on clay. )
^ I know what you were saying, I was just pointing out that from a statistical point of view, Nadal has often faced a fellow clay champion in his FO finals. It just happens to always be Federer.
"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."
Sorry if I am repeating T. Nadal.
Yes. But I disagree with OP comparing him to Nadal and Novak. Nadal's clay streak is more impressive than Roger's streaks (individually) and Rafa's slam performances do not "pale" in comparison to anyone.
Novak is still very young but he already has some monumental achievements.
I think it's guys like Roddick and Murray who really suffer in the era of Fedal. The fact that some people think Roddick had a "meh" career is ridiculous. His career is among the very best, unfortunately he played it in the shadow of 2 of the best ever
Yes, Nadal's clay court streak is impressive, but it is more impressive that Federer has the longest streaks on two different surfaces, so I think Nadal's streak gets overshadowed in my opinion. Yes, Rafa's consistency at slams pales terribly in comparison to Federer. Consecutive grand slam finals: Federer - 10, Nadal - 5. Consecutive grand slam semifinals: Federer - 23, Nadal - 5. Consecutive grand slam quarterfinals: Federer - 34, Nadal - 11. Grand Slams where they reached at least 5 consecutive semifinals - Federer - all 4. Nadal - 0.
fed also faced roddick/hewitt on grass ..... so nadal wasn't fed's only competition at wimbledon ....
Using either one of those guys to try and bolster your argument is laughable. They are both Fed's pigeons, and gave him little trouble more often than not.
Fed is Nadal's pigeon at the French Open, so then are Nadal's French Opens less than impressive?
Comparing Fed's career/abilities to Roddick and Hewitt does him a huge disservice. It's not nearly the same thing at all because Fed is leagues above both of them. Your tardism must be waning if you don't think more of Fed than this. You may have to turn in your ******* Card if this continues. Lol.
safin,hewitt were crushing and I mean crushing sampras ( yeah, sampras was older by then, but then those sort of humiliations in those USO finals prove just good how they were )
funny how you ignore safin @ AO 2004/05 , indoor season in 2004 ....
agassi in 2004 wasn't crippled ... he was playing excellent tennis ........see how well he was playing @ the AO, then in the USO HC swing , wayyyyyyyyyyy better than in more than half of your crush sampras' prime ( agassi was playing better in 2004 than he was in 93-mid 94, 96-mid-99 ) ...
his injury problems were mainly in mid-2005 and beyond ...
roddick was playing excellent tennis in 2003-05 and then in spells in other places - mid-2006-2007 , wimbledon 2009 , early 2010 etc
hewitt was pretty good in 2004-05
nadal was already there on clay in 2005, was decent on grass in 2006 and brilliant already by 2007 ...
umm, federer has beaten nole 6 times in slams, and is 3-0 vs murray in slams ...and many of these wins with federer past his prime ...
johansson was in 2002 - federer wasn't even a major factor in slams then...
but then you wouldn't know that considering you are totally clueless about tennis outside of your crush sampras ..
here's some reality about sampras - how he benefited from a weak era
let us see - 93 , edberg who was 2-0 in slams vs sampras begins declining rapidly..
agassi - only a real force from mid-94 to 95 ...... then only from mid-99 onwards
becker - mainly a force only indoors in the mid-late 90s, occasionally on HC and grass, but never when he faced sampras ( tired after marathon matches/efforts in 93/95 in the matches before), well past it in 97 ....
courier - weakened considerably after 93 with injury problems ( dead arm )
which leaves ..
headcase goran , injured krajicek , the inconsistent stich and the mighty chang ( an inferior version of hewitt by some distance ) .... wow !
oh , no doubt, nadal has been more dominant on clay .....but federer was more dominant on HC/grass than sampras
so if federer dominates pretty good grass court players in roddick/hewitt, I shouldn't count it as impressive ... umm, makes sense .... :roll:
I guess then using anyone to bolster nadal's CC achivements is laughable because everyone is his pigeon on clay ....
******* card. Lol. I like that Clarky. That is good. I may have to get those printed up.
except in this case, its not a comparison of federer with roddick/hewitt as a whole ... its hewitt/roddick on their best/2nd best surface vs federer on his worst .... In terms of playing level , its not a stretch to make a comparison ....
It's his own official website.
yeah sorry, was easy to miss what I meant, could have made it clearer.
I didn't even think about the year end number ones, and all the consecutive weeks at number one that would have also gone with it, good thinking.
Yep Federer has lost a hel of a lot. Nadal has stopped him from being head and shoulders above everyone in tennis in almost every way possible. He's had a direct on Fed's career, Federer has had more of an indirect impact on Nadal's career by setting the bar higher.
But isn't that the way in most sports when you think about it. There is usually a rivalry in which forces the other team or player to improve.
There was Wayne Gretzky in hockey but along came Mario Lemieux. In baseball the Yankees and Red Sox set the bar higher. There was Larry Bird and Magic Johnson in basketball. Before that Chamberlain and Russell.
In tennis there has been many top rivalries prior to Federer and Nadal. There was Rosewall and Laver, Sampras and Agassi, Gonzalez and Hoad. Among the women, Court and King, Evert and Navratilova, Graf and Seles. I honestly don't think the Nadal/Federer rivalry is that unusual historically.
I guess it isn't unusual, it's just both players could be the GOAT. Federer already is in many people's eyes but it would be impossible to argue against if he didn't have Nadal around, Nadal could also be the GOAT to most people if Federer hadn't set the bar so high. Not sure if that's the case with most other rivalries, perhaps with some of them. I guess Agassi with let's say 11 slams and a full set might be considered the GOAT if Sampras had never existed
Yep that's a fair point. I would say that Nadal/Federer may be the best rivalry we have seen in the men's game however, but Evert/Navratilova is still the gold standard overall. (Just my opinion..)
Separate names with a comma.