Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MonkeyBoy, Mar 16, 2013.
The Grand Slam. Nothing else comes close.
Exactly. Such a comparison is pointless. All you can say is that with good probability, Djokovic and Nadal at their best would make Roger's successes more difficult to achieve... than Roddick or Hewitt did. That much cannot be argued by any reasonable person.
So all you can do for a player is establish the strength of the field they faced when they achieved something... and then (given their accomplishments over that period of time) establish the level of difficulty of achieving those accomplishments. You cannot merely count the number accomplishments alone.
Context not only matters... it is almost all that matters. And I'm not talking hypotheticals. I'm talking objective context.
In basketball, there is a reason that Michael Jordan is considered by almost everyone to be the best of all time and it is not because of the numbers. It is because of the strength of the field he faced when he achieved those numbers. There are guys with better numbers in several of the individual categories.
Against a weak field, a player that is one-of-the-greatest is expected to completely dominate -- almost god-like. Against a strong field, the same player will still dominate, just not as much.
We just have to take everything in context.
Weeks are irrelevant to the ultimate accomplishment. Anyone can be a #1 player, and many have had long, consecutive runs in the position, but only the truly great can win the Grand Slam--the shortest list of all, because only a few were masters of the sport.
Your "come closer" means nothing--other than the player in question was not on the level of one with the talent to win it. Do we suddenly rate McEnroe one of the great French Open players because he came close to winning it in the '84 final? No. For history's sake, it was a dramatic moment in his career, but it ends there.
Coming close is not getting the job done, or nowhere close to the signficance of getting said job done.
And Safin in 05 AO would smashed Nadal in 09 AO had he met him in the semifinal instead of Verdasco. Two can play that game.
Not quite. Novak was still very consistent in 2012 and he match up well against Nadal so there's not a sure thing that Nadal win both Wimbledon and USO. I don't think neither of them would win 3 slams per year had Nole was born 1 year earlier.
You see? it doesn't good for ANY player when you play the "if" and "but" card.
Yeah, tell us more about Don Budge is the goat.
to you it's irrelevant because your Serena doesn't have that high in number. Anyone can be #1 but how many have even come close to 237 consecutive weeks?
Mac only made one final, no one ever said he's one of the great FO player.
But if the streak is far beyond reach, it's more impressive. That's why Fed's 23 straight semifinals is one of the greatest streak in history.
I voted for Borg's accomplishment. I'm actually quite surprised it only has 9 votes. If I had to pick one for 2nd best it would be the grand slam and 3rd would be Federer's 237 weeks.
I was thinking about rating Federer's accomplishment 2nd and the GS 3rd, but I don't think that would be right. Of course Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have all theoretically come very close to the CYGS, but they've never really been one match away. Yes, Federer has theoretically been one match away twice, but if he had won RG in 06 or 07, there's no guaranteeing he wins Wimbledon and the USO. The pressure would have been greater so we can't really say he was one match away.
Then of course Federer's 237 consecutive weeks at #1 is next IMHO.
It was irrelevant before she ever played, so your little troll act fails again.
You are not comprehending the point: the issue is the pointless argument of "coming close," when that is not the ultimate accomplishment. "Coulda, woulda, shoulda" arguments are irrelevant.
Then the Grand Slam is more impressive as it is highly unlikely anyone will ever win it again, as no man since Laver was able to match that--not Borg, not Wilander, not Sampras, and not Federer. A number one ranking run is easier to accomplish, as many have enjoyed long consecutive runs at #1.
The same cannot be said of the ultimate accomplishment in the sport.
Yes, that was pretty awesome.
Also, I'm really amazed by Federer's 10 consecutive slam finals from July 2005-Sep 2007. He won 8 of them.
You can certainly make a case for Don Budge being the GOAT, but I don't even think his 1938 Grand Slam year was his best year at all. Toppling Ellsworth Vines in 1939 in the professional game was his greatest achievement, as well as winning pro majors.
237 consecutive weeks - great but not near the top
Do people realise that Connors was number 1 for 243 out of 244 weeks from 1974 to 1979? Because of that I don't rate Federer's consecutive 237 as high as some others.
Laver's Calendar Slam first
Borg's channel slam for 3 years when Grass and Clay were much farther apart in surface speeds.
Close enough is not good enough, otherwise making 18 of 19 consecutive slam finals would certainly trump the 23 consecutive semi streak.
If the streak is broken, then it's no longer a streak.
whats meant by 3 consecutive pre-homogenized channel slams (Borg)
17 slams is pretty good. Only one could do it, just as those other records.
18 out of 19 is still a record, it is just not a streak (rather two streaks...).
In that case any three slams/year is not very inferior to Laver's all four no? 14 is not far from 17 either? And 1 RG for Agassi and Federer is not a lot more than 0 RG for Sampras?
Did I miss something, someone else also reached the semi streak?
Anyone can play games, doesn't mean you're any good at them though. Verdasco played at a higher level than Safin in AO05:
59% first serve
1 Double Fault
74% first serves won
52% second serves won
220kph fastest serve
204kph average first serve speed
160kph average second serve speed
31% return points won
60 Unforced Errors
70 Forced Errors
194 total points won
69% first serve
4 Double Faults
71% first serves won
55% second serves won
220kph fastest serve
188kph average first serve speed
158kph average second serve speed
31% return points won
76 Unforced Errors
72 Forced Errors
192 total points won
It's quite clear that Fernando was playing better, in fact when you consider he hit 95 winners against Nadal defending at his very best on a slightly slower surface while committing UE's at a lower ratio than Safin and causing 2 more forced errors despite winning 192 total points to Safin's 194, there's no argument.
Sorry to embarrass you, but it's quite clear you don't know what you're on about. Fernando played better than Safin did, just because your idol couldn't handle it when he was at his best doesn't mean Rafa couldn't, in fact Rafa handled an even tougher opponent.
He wasn't as good at Wimbledon, nor the US Open where in 2011 he beat both Federer and Nadal back to back, only the second guy in history to do that. In 2012 his form at US Open was CLEARLY not that high.
And that match up well thing, you're wrong. Nadal leads the head to head 19-14, so Nadal is actually a bad match up for Novak. On clay Rafa lost to him twice (but did have many other good battles where Novak lost), and on HC Novak only lost to Rafa twice. On grass Rafa leads 2-1. So really only HC is a bad match up for Rafa. But Rafa beat Novak in US Open final before too, so it's no given that Novak of 2012 US Open form would beat Nadal of 2011 US Open form.
It's not as clear cut as Novak in AO11 form being a LOT better than Fed of AO06 form.
I don’t see how you just list two stats for Safin and Verdasco and come up with the conclusion that Verdasco played a better match. Verdasco played Fed and Safin play Nadal wouldn’t reflect the stats that you’ve posted above anyway, because the dynamic, matchup differ. For instance, on hc Nadal is comfortable playing Fed but not against Davydenko, but everyone knows Fed crushed Davydenko. My take here is Fed would be more comfortable playing Verdasco than Safin, who’s more fear because of his power groundstrokes. Verdasco 2nd serve was always his Achilles' heel, and it was no surprise that he choked by double faulting on a match point. His only 4 double faults maybe fine for a 5 setters, but 2 of those came from the final game which cost him the match. When Safin face a match point against Roger, he was more clutch. Prime Roger(2004) was difficult to ace and a better returner. In 2009 Verdasco met Roger twice: he only aced Roger 2 times in 2 sets, and 1 time in a 3 sets. Your stat show he aced Nadal 20 times but evidence say he wouldn’t even come close to ace Roger that much. Stats are nice but it doesn’t tell the whole story, so no, it’s not quite clear that Verdasco play a better match. Even if it’s true, that doesn’t mean Roger wouldn’t fare better against Verdasco than Safin. For Nadal, I’m not so sure who he would rather face. But I know Safin’s fh was more lethal and could do more damage to Nadal staying well behind the baseline. Oh, and keep in mind 2004 was rebound ace and 2009 was plexi. Fed can play on both surface while Nadal only prove he can play well on plexi.
So again, your stat prove nothing. It would be like me saying Safin straight set Verdasco on hc in their only meeting, so Safin would be the tougher opponent.
You say you embarrassed me and other posters just because they disagree with you?:???:
All you can say is Nole 2012 wasn’t that good but there’s no evidence to say Nadal 2011 would beat him either. Both were very consistent making the final.
Prior to 2011, I agree Nadal has the better in mental department, but after 2011 the tide was turn. Had Nole was born a year ealier, Nadal 2010 results would be a lot difference, and Nole could end the year #1. H2h is irrelevant as Nole improve his confidence. Between the two, matchup wise is in favor of Nole. Nadal fh topspin is his major weapon but can’t attack his bh like he nomally can against other players. He rely on his bh but it tends to get breakdown more often in a long rally. Nole’s bh is more reliable. Also, Nole’s shots and serve return are deeper, which is harder to attack.
Exactly. Sure someone could come along and reach 24 consecutive SF, but that's why the streak is really impressive. Because nobody else has. Djokovic is the only one who's even close, and I don't see him breaking it.
I think Sampras deserves more votes in this, being the top player overall for 6 years in a row is a great stat. He may not have been as dominant as Federer but for 6 years he was consistant enough to be the best player.
I disagree. It is a great stat, but I don't think it deserves more votes when comparing it to the other accomplishments. It just means Sampras was #1 at the end of the year for 6 straight years, but he lost it most years sometime throughout the season. Like Djokovic last year. He was #1 at the end, but he lost it in the middle for about 5 months. Not that impressive to me.
Meh, I think being the best player for 6 years straight is pretty impressive. It's not the best achievement on the list, IMO the Grand Slam is the greatest by a decent margin. But I think it should be higher considering Federer's consecutive weeks at number #1 has 40 votes...
Yeah, relative to Federer's it probably should have more, but people just vote for Federer because he's Federer on this forum. Or they want to troll 90's clay.
I think Nadal's record is the greatest (or at least on par with Laver's record) since Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass AND hard-court in a calendar year, whereas Laver's era never had terrifying cement-packed hard-courts to play on endlessly in the slams. And Nadal is looking to be most like Laver in the current era, since Nadal could win Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open AGAIN this year, meaning Nadal would be the first man EVER to win slams on clay, grass and hard-court TWICE in a calendar year, and he'd also be the first player in world history to win 3 slams on clay, 3 slams on hard-court, and 3 slams on grass.
Trolling 90's clay is a good enough reason IMO.
I quite agree.
How would you rank the achievements?
Maybe you but hardly if ever I see experts list him as part of the goat discussion. It's mainly Roger, laver, Sampras, Borg, Pancho. Even Rosewall sometime gets left out.
No, that's just you. Ranking IS important to her. Explain to me why she cry this year after she claimed the #1 ranking? At first, I thought she won the Calendar Grand Slam.
Yeah, it's irrelevant to you, however when Roger won 2009 FO, it's all about Coulda, woulda, shoulda. biased much ?
And no player has ever came close to 237 weeks. That's stretch over 4 years playing hundreds of matches !
The GS only last one year and total of 8 weeks playing time.
Big difference. Capiche?
As I said before. I'm pretty sure if someone asked Roger: "So Roger, would you trade your 237 consecutive weeks at #1 for the Grand Slam?" ... he'd say yes immediately.
In fact, I'm sure that if someone asked Roger: "So Roger, if you lost your 237 consecutive weeks at #1 to win just one more slam... would you do it?" ... he'd say yes immediately.
It doesn't mean that 237 is more or less difficult. But to a tennis player, slam achievements are definitely over and above anything else.
Again, it is irrelevant. Unlike you, I was around to experience Connors' run at #1, so you cannot comment on the perceptions of the time. In all considerations, no one ranked his weeks at #1 over the Grand Slam. To even think that was a possibility is utter nonsense, and yet another attempt to (ultimately) give Federer some kind of prize because he was not talented / dominant enough to ever win the Grand Slam--the ultimate example / prize for masters of the sport.
Well I already ranked my top 3. Those being:
The rest of them I would rank like this:
99.5% vs 75%
Umm...243/244 is 99.5% of the way there. 3/4 slams is only 75% of the way there. Yes, it was broken streak .....but it is still impressive to say that he was number 1 for 99.5% of the time for nearly 5 straight years.
99.5% vs 75%
243/244 is 99.5% of the way there. 3/4 slams is only 75% of the way there. Yes, it was broken streak .....but it is still impressive to say that he was number 1 for 99.5% of the time for nearly 5 straight years.
not sure you are comparing apples to apples here.
federer was two sets away from winning the grand slam.
he won 82/84 sets in order to achieve the grand slam.
that is 97.6% the way there....
or 27/28 matches there...
Channel slam: winning both Wimbledon and the French in the same year.
Surface homogenization: change in courts making all surfaces play much closer in speed (happened around 2003)
Thats a good point
For a player to be successful over the long run, they need a little luck, a lot of skill, and the right set of circumstances. Some are more lucky than others. Some are more skillful than others. Some seem to have perfect astrological alignment.
But "almost" doesn't count. When it comes down to _the moment of truth_, it is one set that counts. It is one game that counts. It is a single point that counts. Nothing that has happened before the moment of truth matters. Great players can raise their level and overcome the moment.
Connors "almost" getting there doesn't count. Federer "almost" getting there doesn't count.
Great accomplishments aren't about what you did to get there. It is about what you did when the moment of truth arrived... and the accomplishment came within your reach.
All true, all supported by history.
Agreed. "Almost" is simply "coulda, woulda, shoulda." The fantasies of fanboys unwilling to accept the obvious limitations of the object of their fandom.
Connors' hiccup in his weeks at #1 is the result of a limitation.
Federer never winning the Grand Slam is a limitation of talent, otherwise, he would be in the conversation with Laver.
Consecutive weeks at number one
The grand slam on 3 different surfaces would definitely be impressive. Unfortunately no one on the men's tour has ever achieved it.
Only one man however, has managed to win 3 slams in one year on 3 different surfaces!
Any notion of a Grand Slam meaning more if won on different surfaces is illogical from the start as that argument usually assumes it was somehow "easier" to win on similar surfaces for a certain player, when everyone in the era had the same access to/experiences on the available surfaces in one way or another, thus there was no unfair advantage for anyone. The Grand Slam disticntion is about concentrated dominance over the field at a single season/year's majors. No matter the era, each player was equipped to play on the same available surfaces, and if someone...say a Roger Federer...could not accomplish that, it is strong comment on the limitations of his game.
Additionally, any "coulda, woulda, shoulda" arguments about his alleged chances must be rejected--as several have alreay noted in this thread, "almost" is not the real accomplishment.
Federer has won 3 grand slams on 3 different surfaces in a non calendar year...
Almost is not real, true. But you can deny the calendar year slam is made harder after USO and AO were changed to hard court, a third surface.
If you think the variety of surfaces have minimum effect, just think how many CYGL will there be if all slams were played now on one surface. Two types of surfaces is much harder than one, three is harder than two.
Nadal has won 3 consecutive slams on 3 different surfaces.
So it's not much different to what Federer accomplished. It also happened with one year like you originally said.
Fed won 3 slams per year in three occasions. Nadal doesn't measure up to Fed, not even close.
Separate names with a comma.