Is the slam record now Nadal's for the taking?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by octogon, Jul 20, 2013.

  1. Morj

    Morj Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Messages:
    496
    This is the truth, exactly what ive been trying to say. More FO's are perfectly fine but we all know he's the best there's ever been on clay, its not going to change his standing as far as GOAT is concerned. So while there is a tiny chance he could "catch" fed by continuing to dominate FO for the next several years, it wouldn't be "catching" fed in terms of GOAT implications.

    In my opinion, if he wins 2 more non-FO and at least 1 more FO (total 15) then he's tied with Fed/Laver for me. Winning more FO's beyond that or more weeks at #1 would make him the GOAT in my book.
     
    #51
  2. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525
    For Nadal to catch Federer its imperative he manages some slams outside of clay. Problem is its been 3 years and counting since hes done so
     
    #52
  3. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    I think the big problem is everyone is hung up on the impossible GOAT argument and they equate a great number of slams with it, instead of just accepting that several players are in a very high league, have different points in their favour and we should look at what was their strong points rather than just sum it up into one player being greater than another.

    If Nadal had 17 slams, 13 of which were RG titles it would mean he was a very good overall player but an insanely great clay player the likes of which has never been seen before. If Federer also had the 17 he currently has, he would be a better all round all surface player but less dominant on any one surface. Who would be better? IT WOULDN'T MATTER. What matters is the analysis I just wrote before. People just want an easy answer.

    About Borg and the USO, I think he deserves a bit of slack. He came up against Connors who won 5 USO titles and Mac who won 4. In the open era there's only Sampras and Federer who were on that level. Can you be sure Nadal would have won the USO if he met prime Sampras and Federer multiple times there? I mean sure he has a great shot agaisnt Federer, but it's still not a sure thing. Borg had it harder for sure, which is not tosay he was better but it's not an open and shut case.

    likewise, at RG he retired with 6 titles at the same age Nadal had 6 titles. Would he have won a 7th and 8th had he carried on? Who knows. I do think Nadal is a better clay player and Borg despite not winning the USO was a better all round player (especially considering the grass back then) but just saying it's too easy to write Borg off when I think he could have actually achieved more than even Federer if a couple of things had been different - mainly his early retirement and having a few all time greats to contend with. I don't even like Borg's style, but he really could have set GOAT records that people would stillbe trying to break now. He won 11 slams by 26 playing mostly 3 slams a year and dealing with Connors and Mac at the US Open... that's insane.

    Come on now, he did destroy Fed at the olympics last year. Ok, Federer was a bit gassed but it was still a great performance.Murray is not a classic grass player, but the change in grass has meant no one is really.
     
    #53
  4. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    how many slams do they have? Murray 2, Nadal and Djokovic 1. Funny how you left out slams whilst including masters and micky mose 250/500s, isn't it? Plus Murray has that all important Olympic Gold that Nadal fans have elevated to slam status :twisted:

    You could say Nadal is above Djokovic but that first round loss has dented that claim a bit. Really though the USO will tell us who's the big contenders
     
    #54
  5. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,346
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    A good and balanced post.

    Yeah comparing across era's is really difficult, there are a lot of subtlety's, like what you mentioned with Borg and the USO. I think tiers is the best way to do it, with the top tier being the best of each era. I tend to order the tiers as well but it's hard to balance out Gonzales head to head tour victories against Borg's channel slams.
     
    #55
  6. Candide

    Candide Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Yabba, the greatest little place on Earth
    Even if Federer hadn't won Wimbledon last year I still think Nadal would not have reached his total. The real question is will he be able to equal Sampras's total of 14. This is a possibility but still a big ask. It's not looking like he's going to win anything significant off clay again and so the question becomes can he keep his body together well enough to hold off Djokovic (and the field which can always contain another Soderling) for two furthers years? It's an interesting question and will become the biggest story in tennis as time goes on.
     
    #56
  7. octogon

    octogon Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    749
    Didn't Nadal just win Indian Wells this year? Often referred to as the "5th slam". He beat a monster of a hardcourt player in Juan Martin Del Potro (who took out both the top hardcourt players today in Djokovic and Murray). If Nadal can win Indian Wells barely 3 months into his comeback, he can win Australia and the US Open.

    Writing Nadal off at the other slams is beyond ridiculous. At worst, he's 3rd favorite at all the hardcourt majors. And if he ever gets into the second week of Wimbledon again, not many people would bet against him winning it.

    People constantly make the mistake of underestimating Nadal. he's simply too good a player to not win another major off clay.
     
    #57
  8. mistik

    mistik Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,892
    You say Borg deserves a bit slack. What about the rivals Nadal had to face in Wimbledon. I think Borg had it easier in Wimbledon till Mcenroe. Rafa would have won more Wimbledon titles if not faced prime Fed on grass.At the end of day Borg has only 1 more final in Wimbledon compare to Nadal. I think Nadal deserves a bit slack,he faced the toughest competition both on grass and hard courts.
     
    #58
  9. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    That is the more realistic goal at this point.

    I don't think it is a given that he wins 2 more slams at this point. He has managed to stave off Djokovic at Roland Garros for three years now (thanks to Fed in 2011, and a great, gutsy effort in 2013) - I think his run at RG is nearing the end. The problem is, outside of that tournament, he is the third best player in the field, at best, on all the other surfaces. And the top two guys, are always waiting come SF time. He won't beat Murray and Djokovic in back-to-back matches in a hardcourt slam.

    The question is can he win 2 more RG to tie Pete? Maybe.
    3 more to pass him? I doubt it.
    5 more to catch Fed? Not likely.
    6 more to pass him? Even less likely.

    Bottom line - he will likely have to win at least 3 non-clay slams to have a shot at Fed's count. I don't see it.
     
    #59
  10. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    Nobody gets slack. Federer doesn't get slack for having to face the most dominant surface champion in tennis history. Otherwise his slam tally would be at least 20 right now, and he'd probably have at least 2 calendar slams and who knows what kind of record he'd have set with consecutive slam wins. It doesn't work that way.
     
    #60
  11. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    I was talking about what someone said specifically about Borg at the US Open, and my response was specifically about the uso not overall who had it tougher. But of course if you say anything on here about how maybe it's not an open and shut case that Nadal is miles better than somebody, some Nadal fan will get annoyed and start bringing other arguments into it.

    I kind of agree that Nadal had the harder task at Wimbledon, having to go through Federer who was dominating Wimby while Borg had a good run til Mac showed up. Having said that, Borg was also playing on fast grass and bear in mind Nadal won wimby at practically the same age as Federer did - Federer has been written off by Nadal fans as having no chance to beat Nadal after that (no wimby for him in 2009 if Nadal was fit) so Nadal has had the same chance to amass Wimby titles with who to stop him? Djokovic? He's had since the age of 22 without anyone that great to stop him, that's only 2 years older than Borg was when he first won Wimbledon. Since Nadal's first win, he's won again, lost to Djokovic who isn't amazing on grass and lost to 2 rank outsiders. I don't think Borg had it easier than that. Unless you think Borg was only beating guys worse than Rosol/Darcis?

    Let's just remove the big rival of the time. If not for Fed, Nadal would have 3 or 4 Wimby titles, if not for Mac, Borg would have had 6 maybe more wimby titles. On fast grass.
     
    #61
  12. swedenparty

    swedenparty Rookie

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    235
    i think he can:

    5 FO + 1 more somewhere...
     
    #62
  13. mistik

    mistik Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,892
    For me it doesnt work like that as well. Other wise who knows what might happen peak Rafa would have the luck of facing the likes of Roddick, Hewitt and 35 years old Agassi in major finals.
     
    #63
  14. moonballs

    moonballs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,276
    Then he will have to up his FO level big time from this year's. The SF could have gone the other way.
     
    #64
  15. mistik

    mistik Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,892
    First of all this fast grass and slow grass thing is a total comedy. Can we all say Fed isnt as great as Borg or Sampras on grass because he also won all of his 7 titles on slow grass.The second thing is ı dont take this Darcis and Rosol defeats all that seriously because Rafa clearly not the same player as he used to be in genereal not even clay he is all that amazing anymore.He lost to Djokovic in 2011 on Djokovic golden year,I believe Djoko in 2011 can beat anybody on any surface even on grass. We also dont know what kind of ugly defeats Borg could have in Wimbledon since he retired age 26.Maybe he would have his Rosol and Darcis moments. Who knows seriously.
     
    #65
  16. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    First baby Fed did beat Sampras on fast grass. Fast surfaces SUIT Federer's game.This isn't about what grass makes you better, it's about what suits your game, and fast surfaces don't suit Nadal that much. They suit Federer although not as much as Sampras. Second, Borg dominating RG AND Wimby is something neither Federer nor Nadal have done and in his day the difference between the surfaces was far greater. So he had to make a far bigger change than players today. On slower grass Borg potentially might have won another Wimby and even more and more RG titles had he carried on playing.

    And funny to write off the losses to Rosol and Darcis, of course they don't count do they? I can say Borg wasn't the same player when he lost to Mac. But even if Federer hadn't existed and Nadal had won both Wimby 2006 and 2007 he'd still have less titles than Borg even with Borg retiring at 26. And on fast grass I don't reckon Nadal would ever have 4 Wimbledon titles. Laugh all you like but I don;t see him doing as well on a faster surface. Or are you denying surfaces play any part? :lol:

    Also Djokovic won Wimby in 2011 because he was in Nadal's head, no way Djokovic would beat prime Sampras or Federer, on fast grass loads of people probably could have beaten him too.

    Borg was amazing for being able to dominate two vastly different surfaces. I've said he could have been greater than Federer. But of course you only focus on what I've said about Nadal and it is vital that you prove Nadal is the best in every way.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2013
    #66
  17. mistik

    mistik Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,892
    Baby Fed beat way past his prime Sampras.2011 Djokovic is a guy who lost only 1 match all season till Wimbledon final.The guy was beating everybody that year.Yes he was in Nadal head no denying that. İt wouldnt be all that easy to beat a guy in a major final for anybody against a guy who only lost 1 damn match all year.2011 Djokovic had the best year ever till fall season not even Fed 06 comes near to that. İf not the Djoko 2011 and prime Fed Rafa would have won 5 titles in Wimbledon the same number of titles Borg won.Maybe Rafa wouldnt win 5 Wimbledons in faster Wimbledon but I also see Fed wouldnt win 7 as well.Believe me Roger isnt as good player as Pete on faster surfaces. He just doesnt have the same fire power.İf we talk about the conditions in 70s even the court was super fast the game it self wasnt those days.İt isnt like Borg faced some huge serving guys like Ivanisevic or Sampras.
     
    #67
  18. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,914
    Yes, I am pretty sure he will reach Pete's slam count.
     
    #68
  19. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,056
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    If Nadal wins the US Open then this thread may have some merit, right now its fan fiction.
     
    #69
  20. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,914
    We don't know if this new Murray can beat Nadal at a slam and Djokovic is looking iffy to me right now. It will be interesting to see what will happen at the USO and AO and how Nadal will perform there. That will indicate a lot.
     
    #70
  21. GatorNation

    GatorNation New User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2013
    Messages:
    60
    With Nadal being significanly weaker off of clay to begin with plus the sudden emergence of Andy Murray of Hard and Grass courts the chance of Nadal winning another major away from Paris is lowered quite a bit. Now he could if we wins the French 5 more years in a row.:):)
     
    #71
  22. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686
    I doubt it very much.
     
    #72
  23. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,056
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Nadal may not be the outright favorite for either HC slam ATM but he is definitely up there with the best of them. The US Open will be very telling, the last time he played there it took an on fire Djokovic to stop him, since then Djokovic has regressed a lot and Nadal looked extremely good in the one HC tournament he's played this year. Let's see how his HC form looks before writing him off, if he's in good form after Montreal I'd put him as 2nd favorite for USO behind only Djokovic.
     
    #73
  24. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York
    Murray has 1 slam in 2013 just like Rafa (and he had 1 slam in 2012 just like Rafa as well - and Novak). That's why I'm excited about this coming USO. It has a "winner takes all" feel to it!
     
    #74
  25. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,914
    I seriously can't see how he won't reach Pete's slam count at this point.
     
    #75
  26. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686
    You'd put Nadal as a favorite over Murray?
     
    #76
  27. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,914
    Sure he will be a favorite, I would say third favorite behind Murray and Djokovic. But let's see how Nadal does at the hc tune-ups.
     
    #77
  28. moonballs

    moonballs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,276
    Not on clay. He did beat Nadal in all their encounters including clay masters finals. But ******* beat him in RG SF.

    This is a perfect example of different matchups in tennis. A can beat B and B can beat C have absolutely no bearing as to whether A can beat C. That's why in tennis we have tournaments. A player wins by beating the field.
     
    #78
  29. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Sure, Smpras who had won the last 4 Wimbledon's was WAY past his prime :lol: lmao. No he was slightly past his prime, but a lot closer to it than Federer was at the time.

    And yeah Djokovic was on a great run in 2011, but old man Federer (same age as Pete was in 2001) beat Djokovic at RG on clay which is a far better surface for Djokovic than grass. Nadal is a better grass player than Djokovic, and had won Wimby twice where as Djokovic had never been in a final before. Nadal has no excuses for losing that match. Comparing one time winner Djokovic to five time us open champ Connors and 4 time champ Mac, is a bit much

    Also I said that Sapmras was a better fast court player than Federer. Of course you ignore that because your agenda is to just defend nadal and if anyone says anything about Federer's drawbacks you just ignore that and act like your boy is under fire.

    And the serve is one shot in a game. So what there were no huge servers? That's not the sole point of grass tennis.Borg was a baseliner on clay and he serve and volleyed every first serve and in the early days, every second serve too.He totally changed his game in 3 weeks to go from RG to Wimby because he probably would have been beaten trying to baseline on that grass.

    Sorry to tell you but Borg was a better grass courter than Nadal, irrespective of competition. Nadal is definitely better on clay, though I still think Borg could have won more RG titles than he did had he stayed around though obviously Wilander and Borg were there so Borg would need to play well. I'm not saying it's certain, but he could have. At the US Open Nadal is the better player because he won it, but it's very hard to disect since in borg's time it was played on 3 seperate surfaces. Borg made 4 finals against better players and almost won once in which case he'd be ahead of Nadal. As a HC player he only played 4 HC slams.

    3 players have surpassed Borg in number of slams but that doesn't mean any of them were better players, Borg in some ways underachieved. He really could have been seen as the GOAT still today. Now here's the part where you act like I've said Borg was better than Nadal, and ignore me saying he could have won more slams than anyone including Federer.
     
    #79
  30. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    That doesn't work either - except for a very short period, Rafa has never proven himself capable of dominating the field across all surfaces the way Federer did. Sure, he has the drop on Federer, but if he'd been able to translate that into winning against the field, he'd already have 20 slams himself.

    All it proves is that Nadal's ability to beat Federer consistently doesn't translate to him automatically beating everyone that isn't as good as Federer.
     
    #80
  31. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Did someone seriously claim that IW was considered the "5th slam"...? Really?
     
    #81
  32. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    In a way, but then if not for Djokovic 2011, or Rafa letting get into his head, whatever, he would be very close.

    I would feel just fine :)
    He has a legitimate goat argument right now, more RG wouldn't hurt it.
     
    #82
  33. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    thanks. life is boring with only one GOAT :lol:
     
    #83
  34. Incognito

    Incognito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,018
    How you can put Nadal above Andy Murray who is the defending champion, and was at the last two HC major finals is beyond me.
     
    #84
  35. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,056
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Depending on how good Nadal's form is, yes I would. I still trust Nadal to bring a really high level at the tail end of a major more than Murray. Murray will probably be the bookmakers 2nd favorite though, unless Nadal shows unexpectedly great form at the HC tune ups.
     
    #85
  36. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    It's debatable, but Nadal was in the final of the last two hc slams he played in, has a very favourable record against Murray and won their last hc slam match.

    Murray was in the final of the last two hc slams he played and won one. And he won the last hc match they played.

    I wouldn't say either is much of a favourite against the other. If his form is good, I would favour Rafa though :)
     
    #86
  37. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    Nadal's won one slam a year for the last three years, and only twice in his nine slam-winning years has he won more than one major. If he continues at that pace, he'll have to be winning slams when he's 33 to break the record.
     
    #87
  38. hisrob777

    hisrob777 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    FL
    We have to see how his body holds up. 9 tournament finals took its toll. That's a lot of tennis.
     
    #88
  39. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,915
    lol @ comparing Murray's Wimbledon draw with young Federer's.
     
    #89
  40. mistik

    mistik Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,892
    Sampras was clearly way past his prime what ever you want to believe :) only a year later he lost to a journey man on grass. Fed beating Djokovic on RG was a big achievement but that doesnt mean he would handle Djokovic easily on grass in 2011. Older player doing well against younger player also dont mean things would be so easy if they were younger.Things never worked like that.Can we say grandfather Agassi playing some great quality matches with Fed,Fed would be hopeless player against prime Agassi.:):) To me compare tennis played in 70s with current era is rather silly.Everything was so different than todays game since they used play with wood racquets. Borg in my book probably the biggest star the game ever seen but still in my book he didnt retire when things going perfectly for him he retired when he saw he wont be the dominant player anymore.He clearly burn out and lost his motivation,thats way ı have some serious questions marks when people say he would have win more.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2013
    #90
  41. NADALbULLS

    NADALbULLS Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,065
    Nadal will win about 12 Roland Garros titles. So its pretty easy for him to win 5-6 more slam titles. All he'll need is 1-2 more of the non-clay slams. He's definitely good enough, considering 2013 is his 'transition year' (he said) and he's already won Indian Wells and Roland Garros. 2014 will be even better. I wonder if Federer will want to be on the tour when Nadal wins the 17-18th slam title. Maybe Federer would prefer to be at home on the couch eating potatoes.
     
    #91
  42. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,142
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Transitional year?

    Transitional to what?
     
    #92
  43. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,220
    the problem with your post towser is that federer is dominant. he has 5 us open titles(consecutive) and 7 wimbledon titles(5 consecutive). he has actually been dominant at 2 slams winning the wimy us open double 4 years in a row. i highly doubnt anybody will achieve that ever again just like nadal with 8 RG titles
     
    #93
  44. phnx90

    phnx90 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,063
    Location:
    Banned
    No

    10characters
     
    #94
  45. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I suggest you watch the 1979 Wimbledon final, Borg vs. Roscoe Tanner.
     
    #95
  46. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,346
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    No he doesn't lol. The arguments that place him as the GOAT are extremely weak.
     
    #96
  47. mike danny

    mike danny Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    5,220
    sampras won a slam in 2002 at 31. federer did not even reach a slam quarter and he lost in the 1st round in 2 slams him being 10 years younger than pete. so yes pete was more in his prim than roger
     
    #97
  48. jelle v

    jelle v Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,991
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    to answer the question of this topic:

    I think it depends on how much Grand Slams Nadal can win outside of Roland Garros. Just wondering, what was the last Grand Slam Nadal won, other than Roland Garros?
     
    #98
  49. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,346
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    It was the USO 2010.
     
    #99
  50. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Yeah and a year earlier he won wimby for the 4th straight time. a year later he lost to a journeyman but he won another slam too. If you can be way past prime after winning the last 4 wimbledons then i guess fed was way past prime in 2007/2008.

    In any case federer lost at wimby in the first round the following yeah so he was less prime than sampras.

    My point is not that a younger fed would have beaten Djokovic at wimbledons, (though you love making a past prime excuse on one hand and on the other claim that being younger and more prime doesn't mean you would win) my point is that if he could be beaten by a past his prime fed on his 2nd best surface, he certainly could have been beaten on his worst surface. you just don't want to admit any failing on nadals part so you have to make out Novak was unbeatable on grass which is laughable.

    Also just like you switch between way past prime excuses and saying that being younger and more prime wouldn't alter the match, you also say you don't like comparing eras.. except when saying Nadal had it tougher in his era. you're full of contradictions. ironic because my point was that you can't compare eras and say Borg failed at the uso because the situation was very different back then.

    Also had Borg played the aussie open he would probably have about 14 slams been with retiring at 25.
     

Share This Page