is jimmy connors the best all courter the game has ever seen

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by manny pacquiao P4P king, May 23, 2009.

  1. manny pacquiao P4P king

    manny pacquiao P4P king Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    165
    he might not have won the french open, but he did win grand slams on all surfaces - (he won US open on hard and clay - and maybe even grass if im correct), he won wimbledon a few times and also won an AO.

    It's either him or agassi for the title of 'BAOAT', but they both won the same amount of granslams - so its a tough one. what do you think? or is it someone else - possible nadal (somethime in the future).
     
    #1
  2. R_Federer

    R_Federer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    911
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Federer. If you are going to put Conners without winning the French then how cant you put Federer? He has made the finals 3 straight times at the French.

    Nadal? Ummm the real hard court is at the US Open not the slow hard court at the Australian Open these days. Lets see if he can get that. Right now I doubt it considering how "tired" his body gets by the end of the season.
     
    #2
  3. manny pacquiao P4P king

    manny pacquiao P4P king Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    165

    OMFG - federer hasn't won a clay court slam, and being a rodick fan - i can admit that nadal won the AO fair and square and is a proper hardcourt - the only slam i think has changed for the worse in wimbledon - and nadal deserved that too.

    so in theory - roddick is a better hardcourt player than djokovic or even nadal because he won the US open and they didn't.
     
    #3
  4. R_Federer

    R_Federer Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    911
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    ^ Are you saying Nadal is overall a better hardcourt and grass player than Federer? lolllllllllllllllllllll
     
    #4
  5. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Connors skipped AO during most of his prime years. The Australian Open wasn't considered a real slam back in the 80s. If you're going to compare Agassi and Connors, then you have to take Australian Open out of context.
     
    #5
  6. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    Cuz Connors won the US Open on green clay.
     
    #6
  7. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Yes:)

    Well Connors was the best constantly attacking all-courter the game has ever seen at least:)

    But then I'm biased as he is my favourite ever player:)
     
    #7
  8. bolo

    bolo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,380
    All-court is sampras in the pro-era.

    All-surface, no idea.
     
    #8
  9. anointedone

    anointedone Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,655
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    So Nadal wins a hard court slam and the Olympics on hard courts to boot (in addition to his now 6 Masters titles on hard courts) and now it isnt a "real" hard court. First Wimbledon isnt "real" grass and now the Australian Open isnt even a real hard court. What a joke. You *******s are something else these days.

    I guess Federer has only 5 slams, not 13. Wimbledon isnt "real" grass anymore (according to even his own fans) and the Australian Open isnt "real" hard courts anymore so subtract those 8 right. Nadal now has only 1 slam less than Federer I guess. Also I guess Federer is now one dimensional. He can only win on "real" hard courts, he cant win on clay, he only wins Wimbledon in the past since it wasnt "real" grass, and he took so long to win an indoor tournament on indoor hard courts so imagine his chances on carpet.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2009
    #9

Share This Page