Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Jun 6, 2010.
She should look a bit to the west, to France...
Why did Bobby get banned guys?
Are you sure he got banned?
I think that he was researching the 1968 end of year event for WCT.
Maybe he's still looking for it.
His username says "Banned" underneath it.
Rest assured, he will be back soon.
Nadal: moving on up!
I hope that next time he appears he will have better supporting evidence for his unusual opinions.
I rank Nadal 2nd after Federer.
As i wrote in post 39 of this thread, some 4 years ago, Nadal seems to be firmly on the verge of becoming the Player of his era, at least alongside Federer. He is lasting much longer than many had expected, and he is able to overcome adversity, not to talk about bad matchups, on the highest levels of the game. All talking about declining was premature, he seems to pace himself better than in the past. Last year he won verything on clay, and was overplayed and tired coming into Wimbledon. Now he peaked better during RG - i think his win over Ferrer was pivotal - and seems to be fit and eager enough for the magic double again.
Numero Uno, no?
And last year, Nadal had a terrific hard-court season.
Nadal might become the player of this era, but he's not there yet. His accomplishments on hards or grass will never match Federer's. Clay is his trump card as he dominates it like no one has and possibly will ever again.
The guy has the career slam as well, masters record (which should count for something, and domination over ALL main rivals when it matters most (Something Fed can't say). To me that makes up for not having an extra AO title or Wimbledon and has posted domination on a surface that will probably never be matched again like Laver's 200 tourney titles.
Nadal's "resume" is balanced enough.
Its almost as though Fed fans will continue to make up "Nadal needs this" and find loopholes as to why Nadal isn't great despite DESTROYING Fed for the better part of a decade.
Like they won't be happy unless Nadal wins 5 AO's, 6 Wimbledons, 10 RGs, 5 USOs
The guy has posted many tittles among all surface, has the career slam (something only a few guys have managed in the open era). Again.. Balanced enough
Nadal still trails in terms of pure numbers. He has some X-factors in his favor such as leading his main rivals and supreme domination of a surface. But he still trails in the traditionally important metrics.
Heres the problem though..
There are two hardcourt slams. Nadal only gets a crack at one clay slam. So the AO-USO is considered distributed well despite both being hard courts.
If they had two clay slams and Nadal dominated both would that be considered "Distrbuted well".
Its unfair to Nadal in this regard. Fed only has 1 French Open title as well.
There's only one grass slam too. It's just the way the tour is.
I wasn't really arguing about distribution anyway, but if you want to down that root he has 4x the amount of slams at the French than he has at any other one slam. He has 2/3 of his titles on a surface that is generally played on for 1/3 of the year.
So there is a big and definite skew in his results. Pretending it doesn't exist is silly. Now Nadal to his credit has beaten the best on every surface and has had spurts of dominance everywhere.
If someone feels like his titles are too biased towards one surfaces for him to be the ultimate GOAT right now. I see nothing wrong with that. Likewise if someone things Federer got beaten by Nadal to many times to be the ultimate GOAT then that is fine as well.
Right now the GOAT talk for Nadal is premature though. He's on track to surpass Fed though IMO.
I agree. When (or if) it happens, then we'll have lots to discuss.
You're correct of course but that's always what the tennis writers always do. It happens not just in tennis but in every sport. There will be others that will be called the GOAT unless one player gets so overwhelming a resume that he or she cannot be cannot but questioned as the GOAT. That rarely happens in any sport.
I've seen so many so called GOATs in tennis that it seems like most of the population of the world is a tennis GOAT. lol.
What it does is fuel debate and that's what the media wants also.
8 ) Agassi
Nadal's outside the top 10.
3rd behind Laver and Federer probably. He still has more to accomplish to pass Federer for 2nd, let alone Laver for 1st.
Well Nadal certainly good in direct comparison with Federer because he beat him so many times in important matches, but the ranking of all time great isn't done by comparing with Federer only.
He is still behind Sampras to me: Less Master Cups (which are a lot more valuable than Masters 1000), less time at the top of the ranking (both weeks and years). I doubt Nadal will end the year number 1 and I find it disturbing that he seemingly cannot hold the top sport.
Of course Nadal will pass Sampras this year or the next (or the next). He might tie or pass Federer, but now he still miss things in comparison with Federer, Sampras, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, maybe other greats of the past I'm less familiar with (Tilden). His superiority over Borg is narrow too.
Ridiculous. You are not doing favors to Federer fans.
2) Nadal = Sampras
There is simply no way Sampras or Borg are above Laver. Nadal being above Laver is questionable at this point as well.
Agreed on Sampras and Borg, but Nadal is in the same category as them. There's no way he is above Laver either.
PS. I spy another NadalAgassi username. :twisted:
Laver career is not fully open era... How many of his 11 slams come from the open era ?
This for open era seems about right. But seriously people Lendl deserves to be over agassi he has 19 slam finals, more 30 more atp titles, much more weeks at 1#,etc. It seems about right except I switch Lendl with Agassi and connors with Mcenroe. In fact its always for me hard to determine who should be above.. If agassi or connors..Id even inclined to say jimmy, despite of andre versatility.. But it could go the other way around too.. Rosewall in open era list? Come on...
Rafa is above borg, just like fed is above sampras. Now the comparison between sampras and rafa is quite interesting... Imo its as close as It gets, same amount of slams, but rafa has calendar slam, golden slam, 16 extra m1000, golden medal, the most slams ever in a tournament, 3+ gs finals on every slam, the second man with more slam finals..(14-6 > 14-4)
10 years in a row winning 1+ slams , 8 calendar years playing at least 2 gs finals, 3 slam winning session, the only man to win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a single year. The only man (besides wilander) to win at least 2 slams on every surface. Even in his worst tournament (wtf) he has been twice runner up.
Sampras: no rg finals,no calendar slam, no golden medal, no 3 slam winning season, slamless in a slam ina surface, only 11 m1000, 20 out of 64 atp titles came out from atp 250 tournaments (compared to only 7 from rafa) lest atp finals and less grand slam finals played compared to rafa.
He has the lead on weeks at 1# and YE#1.
I rank them as follow: 1) Lendl 2) Connors 3) McEnroe 4) Agassi
Lendl won 8 slams, was in 11 other finals, 9 SF. He won also 7 WCT or Master Cup, and was in 4 other finals. He was in 9 straights master cup finals! He was ranked number 1 for 270 weeks. He was very consistent for a long time. He was also very good on all surfaces, from quick indoor to slow clay. He didn't won Wimbledon, but going through Edberg and Becker isn't a walk in the park.
Connors won 8 slams too (including 1 AO in a weaker field) and reached 7 other finals and 16 SF. He did that while playing the AO only twice and missed several RG in his prime years! He never won RG and frankly when your peak coincide with Borg, it's not your fault! But, like Agassi, he did win slams on hard, grass and clay (USO).
His longevity and consistency are incredible too. He is recorded as number 1 for 268 weeks, but their are several issue with this. Many believe that Vilas and Borg should have been ranked number 1 in his stead at some point.
McEnroe won 7 slams, reached 4 other finals and 8 SF, and like Connors without playing much of the AO, who wasn't a true major at the time. But he did perform quiet well in the fourth most important tournament of the season: He won 8 Master cups or WCT! He was number 1 for 170 weeks.
Agassi won 8 slams, reached 7 other finals, 10 SF, also while skipping several AO. But the tournament was huge at the time and all the best players where competing, which wasn't the case during Connors and McEnroe best years. He also one the Master cup once, the olympics, and of course has the calendar slam, which I feel is a bit overrated. Winning RG and Wimbledon once doesn't prove that he is more polyvalent than Lendl or Connors to me, who had harder competition on their weakest surface. Lendl had peak Edberg and Becker, Agassi won it just after their best years, and before Sampras best. His RG draw isn't the most impressive either. McEnroe and Connors had Borg, then Lendl and Wilander.
At last Agassi was ranked number 1 for 101 weeks, but was never as consistent as the other at the top: he should have been a fixture in the top 4 at least for all the 90's, but instead ended several years number 6, 7 or 8ish.
His longevity is very impressive tough, and while this post is a bit severe with him, it's mostly to give weight to an uncommon opinion that put him below McEnroe (despite him having less slams) and Lendl (despite him being a cold commie).
Agassi is the underachiever of the four and is ranked accordingly.
I agree with you, but agassi for me is above mcenroe, he won every slam on every surfsce, the golden slal, plus one more slam. For me agassi shoulnt be under johnny mac.
Once again, if McEnroe could enter Roland Garros and meet players of the same calliber than Agassi met when he won it, he would have too. Oh I forgot that the AO wasn't a legit slam at the time so had he played and won it, we wouldn't give him proper credit for it.
Borg, McEnroe and Connors are all time great who played in an age where they were de facto only 3 slams available each years. A difference of one, to me, is not enough to be held against them. The gap between Borg and Sampras is high enough, but between McEnroe and Agassi, Just no. And McEnroe WCT and Master Cups were really huge tournaments.
Separate names with a comma.