Where do you rank Nadal on the GOAT list?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by papertank, Jul 19, 2012.

  1. nadal_ownz_fedjok

    nadal_ownz_fedjok Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    Nadal will play a lot longer than Borg, so it won't be close in 5 years, not that the GOAT list even exists, right?
     
  2. MariaRafael

    MariaRafael Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    388
    Turdies will event some new greatness calculation system. They've already started counting the weeks at number one. As if anybody remembers this stat. Or if it matters. Go to 1920 and some Frenchmen there were sitting on this pedestal for years.

    Previously it was only the number of slams for them. Now they are finding every excuse to place Rafa below Borg and Laver, and even Connors and even journeyman Lendl who was described by JMac as absolutely devoid of any talent but working like a horse.

    Poor darling were also blabbering a lot about Rafa being so much inferior to their idol because he'd never win anything outside natural surfaces. Rafa refuted this point by winning AO and USO. And now Lendl who never won Wimbledon, COnnors who never won RG, Sampras who never won RG and Borg who never won either AO or USO are still better. In normal life this logic design is called double standards.
     
  3. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,136
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    So, what is your calculation system?

    BTW. I am not from the fans, that think that Nadal is not an all time Great. He is.

    There are record books and there are books for those, who write record books.

    Borg participated at AO only once. Guess how old was he?

    He has argument against Nadal being better than him.

    And he still had much more versatile game, than your idol. So, go figure.

    For Lendl and Connors, I agree.
     
  4. nadal_ownz_fedjok

    nadal_ownz_fedjok Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    Anyway, most of Federer's fans are over 70, so they won't be around for much longer.....In 10 years will talk tennis be mostly Nadal fans?
     
  5. Zarfot Z

    Zarfot Z Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2012
    Messages:
    786
    We openly acknowledge that Nadal is an all time great. Not the all time great, mind you, just an all time great ;)
     
  6. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,893
    Talk Tennis is ran by Federer fans. In 10 years they'll be 80, not likely they'll want to stick around and put up with you.
     
  7. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,136
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    We are not THAT old.

    Luckily, the health care system in the leading Economies is very good, so we hope, that we will be around for a little while.

    :)
     
  8. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    You can be one of the greatest while not bieng as great as other. It is difficult to settle between Borg and Nadal because while Nadal has a career slam, it is much more easier to dominate all surfaces now than it was at his time. Back then players like Youzhny, Ferrer or Tsonga couln't reach the QF of all four slams.
     
  9. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,893
    One of, if not the truest, statement in this thread. Bravo.

    It's incredibly difficult to separate them. Borg was literally unplayable for a while but the same can be said for Nadal on clay. The more I think about it the more I see them as equals.
     
  10. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Thank you. Anyway I don't think that it is really an issue to separate them and to declare on of them superior to the others. I personnaly favor Rafa in this matter, but I'm biased because I have analysed his era far and wide (and I'm thus able to appreciate his accomplishments), but I don't know very well Borg era.
     
  11. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    As of now, I would place Nadal in the second tier, below Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer. I would also place Rosewall and Gonzalez above him for now. Generally, I think he hovers in the range of McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl..for now. I think he'll end up being a tier one great and expect him to be the player to beat in the years to follow.
     
  12. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,136
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    BINGO!

    10uselessseparations
     
  13. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,893
    How are Borg and Sampras on the same tier as Laver and Federer? (Maybe a topic for another thread)
     
  14. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    What do mean all thoose 10something signature? 10chars for exemple?
     
  15. BHud

    BHud Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,297
    Weeks at #1:
    Fed 288+...
    Sampras 286
    Lendl 270
    Connors 268
    Mac 170
    Borg 109
    Nadal 102

    Weeks Consecutive #1
    Fed 237
    Connors 160 and 84
    Lendl 157 and 80
    Sampras 102 and 82
    Hewitt 75
    Mac 58
    Nadal 56

    You're probably right. To be considered GOAT, shouldn't you be dominant in your own era? While Nadal's slams and head-to-head are impressive, it doesn't make up for the fact that he has spent most of his career in the passenger's seat.
     
  16. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    LOL.. Pete-worshippers have no problem claiming that Pete would thrash pretty much everyone from this era on grass, without a time machine and proof of course.

    while we're at it, Pete sucking on clay does diminish his legacy, and he unfortunately has no place in tier I anymore. Nadal firmly belongs in the group that Borg and Pete do (tier II), and I do wish Nadal wins a few more slams and moves on to tier I.
     
  17. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,893
    I am not exactly a 'Pete worshipper' but it's not hard to imagine modern players struggling on fast grass. Why would you pretend the obvious isn't there unless you had an agenda?
     
  18. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    they're not; but BNO, being a die-hard Borg fan, has the tendency to ignore all stats and have Borg at the top of all time discussions. And IF Borg has to be at the top, then Pete has to be as well, and that's the rationale for putting Borg and Sampras on the same tier as Fedever.
     
  19. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,136
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    It is a form of rupor for the subconscious part of our self.

    :)
     
  20. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    it's one thing to say that Pete was great on old grass; completely different animal to call today's players incompetent on old grass when they've never played on the old grass. how is it fair?

    in any case, I was merely pointing out the rich hypocrisy in helloworld's post -- he & many of his fellow fans have no qualms trashing this era as "weak" compared to the previous eras, yet demand proof when someone compares this era favorably to the Pete-era
     
  21. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Rupor? Sorry I still don't get it.
     
  22. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    For Nadal to go ahead of Borg on the GOAT debate, he needs 3 more slams off clay and 2 YECs.

    For all I am concerned, he could win 10 more RG but those won't add anything to his GOAT claim, just his CGOAT claim.
     
  23. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,893
    I think you can draw pretty realistic parallels between today's players' performance on the fastest surfaces they play on, and their hypothetical performance on old fast grass. The fact that people like Djokovic and Nadal never really learned to move on grass is a further nail in the argument that they would perform well in such a theoretical matchup.
     
  24. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,893
    I suggest you read this thread in its entirety unless you're only interested in inciting flaming.
     
  25. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    I did spend the last half hour doing so and I too have borg ahead of nadal and sampras just like some other thoughtful posters.


    To say 17 > 14 > 11 and thus ranking guys based on that is the sign of a lazy mind and those advocating just pure numbers, frankly, couldn't think their way out of a paperbag.

    I studied stats at undergrad level and the first thing our professor told us was this "a monkey can quote you the numbers. It takes some critical thinking to analyze those numbers"

    Some people have done a good job in this thread to analyse those numbers and show why Borg is ahead of nadal and sampras. Borg will always be ahead of nadal until nadal wins 3 more slams off clay and 2 YECs.

    Just to make a point. What if someone comes along and wins 20 RG but nothing else. Do we now have him above everyone else? afterall 20 > 17> 14 > 11. Ofcourse not.

    Not only that but Borg is much much closer to federer than people give him credit for.

    Laver for me is very hard to judge because frankly, I don't know much about that era. So my thoughts are only limited to pete, roger, bjorn and rafael.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012
  26. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    What a total load of sh*t. So Nadal needs to win 14 slams to surpass Borg's 11 slams when Borg never even managed to win the USO on multiple occasions,and never won the AO? The ******* logic reeks in your post,sir.
     
  27. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,893
    Nadal has won USO (if we agree that the AO was regarded in a lesser light at the time) and 6 more Masters 1000-equivalent tournaments than Borg. His whole career, all of his accomplishments he has achieved under the constant threat of the Greatest tennis player of all time. You make it seem clear-cut that Borg is greater but I think that's unkind to Nadal.
     
  28. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    I am arguing for Borg and you call me a *******? I also acknowledge that federer is not as far ahead of borg as people seem to think and you call me a *******? what the hell is wrong with you?
     
  29. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I think one can make an argument for several players being the "greatest"..as I've said many times, this is necessarily a subjective and objective discussion, there's no way around that. That is necessarily so when we try to compare players from different eras who played in different circumastances against different competition. I'm a big Borg fan and Fed_Rulz is a big Federer fan right? Everyone has their own experiences and biases, that's just being human. Look at Laver's stats for example, they are through the roof. So are Borg's especially when you consider how much he won at "unofficial" tourneys as well as at official ones. Look at Borg's stats even by 25-26, his win totals and even winning % are better than either Nadal or Federer. For example, he won about 63 "official" titles by that age! He won 20+ indoor titles! He had big wins at the YEC in January 1980 and January 1981, going 5-0 against Lendl, Borg, and Connors. Plus, he won at a time when there was much more variety of surface and look at his competition at the top. He won 11 majors and reached 16 finals, only losing to either McEnroe or Connors in major finals. His winning % at the majors is close to 90%. If you say that it was only that high because he retired early, well his percentages are better than Nadal's or Federer's at basically any age. So, that argument has many deficiencies. The top 10 around 1979-1980 was incredible. He played in exactly 4 hard court majors and reached the final three times. He took the game to heights it had never been at before and probably has not reached since. That's just for starters. He transcended tennis and was probably the biggest superstar it has ever known. He developed a style of play that basically predominates today. Now that is being a influential tennis player.

    What criterion do you use and how do you weight each piece of criteria? That is a question we should all ask ourselves.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2012
  30. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Hey Russel,

    I meant 3 more outside of clay on top of what he already has. Preferably at atleast 2 of the other 3.
     
  31. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    I called you a ******* because you are one. Your post was ridiculous,and like I said,reeks of bitter *******ism,trying to discredit Nadal's career. It's ridiculous to expect Nadal to have to win 3 more slams in order to surpass Borg's 11 slams. Especially when Borg never won the USO or the AO and Nadal has.
     
  32. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    But I said that federer is not that much better than borg? call me a borgtard but ******* seems like a leap of logic. How old are you?
     
  33. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,893
    1. Thread title is "Where do you rank Nadal on the GOAT list?". The reason Borg is mentioned is not because he is a candidate for greatest of all time but because he is an important benchmark for Nadal's position as the two are closely matched in terms of achievements.


    2. Federer's longevity, Slam title count and all time record of Slam match victories defeat any and all Slam win % arguments.

    3. This is just hilarious :)
    4. Do you really want the records list pasted in here?

    The truth is assertions such as this derail the discussion and nothing more. Borg is Borg and bringing Laver into it doesn't make Borg better. Bring up arguments about why you think Borg has achieved more than Nadal but please don't mention Federer in the same sentence ;)
     
  34. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    RJ, I answered the question as to where Nadal belongs and simply added context, listing other truly great players. You can't talk about where Nadal belongs without discussing other players. Simple logic. As I mentioned in the previous post, it depends on what criterion you use and how you weight it. Even major count and "weeks at #1" is tough to use given (a) how majors have changed over the eras/years in many ways, especially pre-Open era and (b) ranking systems have changed considerably over time.
     
  35. 10is

    10is Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,451
    Considering how the ranking system was revamped after Musters ascension to number 1 by playing MM tourney's, the ranking system in place today is actually more stringent and credible than the one(s) used in yester-years.
     
  36. Nadalgaenger

    Nadalgaenger Professional

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    1. Fed
    2. Nadal
    3. Sampras
    4. Borg
    5. Djokovic (after career done)
     
  37. gennosuke

    gennosuke Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Lol at people expecting Borg to win the AO. :lol:

    Also, Borg won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, during a time when it actually WAS a tournament with superior prestige. During a time when surfaces were actually different.

    Saying Nadal needs to win 3 more slams to surpass him isn't all that ridiculous as you think.
     
  38. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686



    Then each and every one of Fed's slams don't mean as much as Borg's do then right? He won his slams on those same homogenized surfaces that makes you think Nadal would have to win 3 more slams in order to surpass Borg. Based on that logic,Fed's slams don't count as much,either.


    Yes it is for reasons I already explained.


    Oh,and which previously banned and then resurrected troll are you? I also think you might be a double account as well.
     
  39. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    in what planet is reaching 5 wimbledon finals, and winning 2 of them considered not "learning" to move on grass? wow, those are some pretty high standards you have.

    Djoker is equally comfortable on fast and slow hard courts. Has won the WTF, Dubai, Basel etc., which have traditionally been the quickest courts. Murray's biggest successes have been in the latter half of the year, when the courts are faster.

    Other top 10'ers: Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro. Pretty evident that their favorite surfaces are faster ones, as they play first-strike tennis.

    Sorry, not seeing evidence that today's top 10 would struggle on faster surfaces. you may have a point about movement on grass, but that has nothing to do with old vs new grass.
     
  40. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    +1. That Nadal lived under Federer's shadow for mutiple years should work in his favor, and not against him. No other era had two possible Tier I candidates playing alongside one another. That is the context that one should use, if you're keen on "analyzing" the numbers.
     
  41. gennosuke

    gennosuke Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    :lol: I honestly just used to lurk. I am like this right from the start :D

    Federer has won 6 more slams than Borg. It's not really that close sis.
     
  42. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    Mmmhmm,I bet. :wink:



    But he won all of those slams on homogenized surfaces. They simply don't count as much according to you.
     
  43. DolgoSantoro

    DolgoSantoro Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    846
    Location:
    Far away
    I pretty much agree with this
     
  44. gennosuke

    gennosuke Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    what borg did was impressive beyond just his total tally is what I'm saying. Anyone who judges borg by just his tally is doing him an injustice. He is more on the level of a person that won 14 slams which is why nadal would have to win more than 1 to surpass him.
     
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    It's very likely that Pete would be the 2nd fiddle behind Federer. Fed spent his time at #1 was when he's a multi-slam winners. He's also light years ahead of Pete on clay season. Nadal's being #2 was actually good enough to be #1 in the 90s. Pete never had a stellar year as Fed, and was stuggling to hold his #1 against players like Rios and Musters. He managed to hold the #1 with only 3 titles and 1 slams. That would never be a case in this generation.

    Nadal is superior over Agassi which Pete had much less stiff resistance than Federer on the ATP race. I'm pretty sure Pete would spent quite a number of weeks at #2 just like Nadal.

    You want to knock Nadal for holding the record for being #2. Basically, you can knock on any past great players playing in the same generation with Federer because they would face the same consequence.
     
  46. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
     
  47. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,136
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    No love for Rosewall, Gozales and Tilden? Surely, if Laver is there, they have a place too.
     
  48. Evan77

    Evan77 Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,745
    Borg is God. God is Borg.

    as a reborn Christian/Nadal fan, I think he is a son of God. Ballerina is the devil herself. get some more purses and nice shoes Federina (maybe more of some of Victoria's secrets stuff, I'm sure Mirka would be OK with it, plus you can share) ... your tards will celebrate and love you even more ... :p:grin:
     
  49. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Absolutely, I completely agree. It has become very consistent and everyone understands the methodology involved. Whereas in the 70's for example, it was very ad hoc and before then, forget about it. I mean how many "weeks at #1" did Laver actually have? Rosewall? Gonzalez? Of course, it's not quite fair to simply place towards system in a past era and then crunch the numbers, because the players then were operating with the priorities of those times, not todays. That also speaks to the problem with the AO. In the late 1970's, though it was technically a "major", it wasn't even in the top 10 in terms of toughest tournaments in terms of depth/prestige. On the other hand, in the late 1970's and early 1980's, the WCT and Masters championships were huge events. The Masters YEC tourneys won in Jan. 80 and Jan. 81 by Borg indoors at MSG were likely considered the "4th biggest tourneys" of those years. The "Masters Cup" in those years drew huge crowds, big money, and it was a very coveted title. Borg won both of those events, going 5-0 vs. Lendl, McEnroe, and Connors.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuiEzBb7hk (Jan. 81 final vs. Lendl)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhbIcGwqk8s (Jan. 80 sf vs. McEnroe)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuEu_axZIw (Jan. 81 sf vs. Connors)

    The players were focused on THIS tourney at the end of the year back then, and not the AO. It's just one reason why it does not make sense to apply today's tennis season priorities to that era and other past eras as well.
     
  50. ubermeyer

    ubermeyer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,176
    Location:
    Texas
    Federer
    Laver
    Sampras
    Borg
    Nadal

    I'm missing guys like Rosewall, etc., but I really know next to nothing about long-ago tennis.
     

Share This Page