Which of these is the greatest accomplishment

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MonkeyBoy, Mar 16, 2013.

?

Which should be the most revered?

  1. THE grand slam (Laver)

    74 vote(s)
    42.0%
  2. 3 consecutive pre-homogenized channel slams (Borg)

    14 vote(s)
    8.0%
  3. 237 consecutive weeks at #1 (Federer)

    64 vote(s)
    36.4%
  4. 6 consecutive YE#1s (Sampras)

    8 vote(s)
    4.5%
  5. 3 consecutive slams on 3 different surfaces (Nadal)

    13 vote(s)
    7.4%
  6. 46 match win streak (Vilas)

    3 vote(s)
    1.7%
  1. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,340
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    If Laver grew up with modern strings etc...he could hold his own IMO.
     
  2. 2ndServe

    2ndServe Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    986
    how many grand slam semis did Fed reach in a row? 20? I think this stat is mind boggling
     
  3. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,104
    Beating the greatest player of the history NINETEEN times!
     
  4. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,697
    Agreed. In tennis terms, he was a great physcial specimen, and very much ahead of his time (it is no wonder he won the Grand Slam) I think he would be able to adapt no matter the era. There's not too many players who would be considered in that way.
     
  5. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,360
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    This is where the "grass is slow" argument comes in play. Since the surface is slow (which favors baseliners) and Nadal is the best baseliner it's not that weird that he held so many times in a row.
     
  6. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Greatest and beaten 19 times? Sounds like an oxymoron to me...
     
  7. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,360
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Still nothing like Rosewall and Laver who beat each other like 100 times.
     
  8. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Rosewall, Gonzales, and Hoad all beat Laver more than 19 times, so I guess those 3 can share that distinction.
     
  9. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,104
    What? You mean Federer isn't the greatest?

    How dare you commit such blasphemy?
     
  10. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,104
    And here's where you fail. They beat each other "100 times".

    Federer and Nadal haven't beaten each other 19 times, only one of them has won that many encounters against the other and it's pretty obvious which one that is now isn't it? :grin:
     
  11. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    And having the record for nr 2.
     
  12. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    160 consecutive weeks at #2, exactly the same number of weeks for Connors holding the #1.
     
  13. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,104
    So the greatest player of the history and the best human being to have set foot on Earth wasn't even able to get the better of the record #2 guy???
     
  14. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    160 straight weeks at #2
    237 straight weeks at #1

    Which would you rather have ?
     
  15. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,104
    TBH, I wouldn't care about where some computer puts me.

    I'd care about firstly winning majors, then being able to consistently beat my main rivals. Winning the biggest tournaments and beating the toughest opponents along the way. Those are the 2 things I'd want more than anything else as a player.

    I'd hate to be the guy winning majors but somone keeps beating me and I know deep down in my heart I need to avoid this guy / hope that he gets beat by somebody else in order to win my majors. This would make title wins hollow.
     
  16. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,474
    Location:
    USA
    Federer
    Federer
    Federer

    Did I say Federer? 237 consecutive weeks at #1 across ALL surfaces is more impressive to me than achievements contained within a calendar year.
     
  17. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,474
    Location:
    USA
    That would apply to Wozniacki who was #1 without winning majors and Serena would spank her every time in a major. But Fed has won 17 slams, so what is your argument?
     
  18. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    The field is the opponent, and Federer won that battle so far. You really do not need a computer to see that.
     
  19. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    You have your own biased opinion. The only thing I agree with you is the bolded part.
     
  20. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,697
    But the pointless reference to weeks at #1 is what you get as a last-ditch effort on the part of some to give Federer a credit, when doing so reduces the value of majors.

    Weeks at #1 is a superior accomplishment? Quite funny.

    That is the heart of delusion. As noted earlier, many have had long runs at #1, but few ever won the Grand Slam--the height of tennis achievement. This is why Federer would never be a GOAT. The talent for that kind of dominance was not there, so in comes celebrations of weeks at #1.
     
  21. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Do you think Laver would have won the Grand Slam if he had to face Nadal in the FO final?
     
  22. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yet you are anyones example of an unbiased source, ROTFL!
     
  23. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,764
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, Laver refused to play in all those hard-court tournaments and hard-court slams. He avoided them because he was afraid of losing.



    It looks like someone is a bit defensive.:cry:
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2013
  24. MonkeyBoy

    MonkeyBoy Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,485
    Without poly? Yeah. Easily.
     
  25. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Most GS titles
    1. Roger Federer 17*
    2. Pete Sampras 14
    3. Björn Borg 11
    = Rafael Nadal 11*
    5. Jimmy Connors 8
    = Ivan Lendl 8
    = Andre Agassi 8
    8. John McEnroe 7
    = Mats Wilander 7
    10. Dkokovic 6*
    = Stefan Edberg 6
    = Boris Becker 6

    GS finals
    1. Roger Federer 24*
    2. Ivan Lendl 19
    3. Pete Sampras 18
    4. Björn Borg 16
    = Rafael Nadal 16*
    6. Jimmy Connors 15
    = Andre Agassi 15
    8. John McEnroe 11
    = Mats Wilander 11
    = Stefan Edberg 11

    Consecutive GS finals
    1. Roger Federer 10*
    2. Roger Federer 8
    3. Rafael Nadal 5*
    4. Andre Agassi 4
    = Rod Laver 4
    = Novak Djokovic 4*
    7. Jimmy Connors 3
    = Andy Murray 3*
    = Björn Borg 3
    = Björn Borg 3
    = Björn Borg 3
    = Ivan Lendl 3
    = John McEnroe 3
    = Ivan Lendl 3
    = Ivan Lendl 3
    = Mats Wilander 3
    = Jim Courier 3
    = Jim Courier 3
    = Pete Sampras 3
    = Rafael Nadal 3*

    GS semi-finals
    1. Roger Federer 33*
    2. Jimmy Connors 31
    3. Ivan Lendl 28
    4. Andre Agassi 26
    5. Pete Sampras 23
    6. John McEnroe 19
    = Stefan Edberg 19
    = Rafael Nadal 19*
    9. Boris Becker 18
    = Novak Djokovic 18*
    10. Björn Borg 17

    Consecutive GS semi-finals
    1. Roger Federer 23*
    2. Novak Djokovic 11*
    3. Ivan Lendl 10
    4. Ivan Lendl 6
    = Nadal 6
    6. Novak Djokovic 5*
    = Andy Murray 5*
    = Boris Becker 5
    9. Roger Federer 4*
    = Rod Laver 4
    = Tony Roche 4
    = John McEnroe 4
    = Andre Agassi 4
    = Jim Courer 4
    = Nadal 4*

    GS quarter-finals
    1. Jimmy Connors 41
    2. Roger Federer 39*
    3. Agassi 36
    4. Ivan Lendl 34
    5. Pete Sampras 29
    6. John McEnroe 26
    = Stefan Edberg 26
    8. Boris Becker 23
    = Rafael Nadal 23*
    9. Novak Djokovic 22*
    10. Björn Borg 21

    Consecutive GS quarter-finals
    1. Roger Federer 34*
    2. Ivan Lendl 14
    = Novak Djokovic 14*
    4. Rafael Nadal 11
    5. Pete Sampras 10
    6. Andy Murray 9*
    7. Ivan Lendl 7
    = Mats Wilander 7
    = Andy Murray 7*
    10. Andre Agassi 6
    = Rafael Nadal 6*

    All Four Slams Per Year
    Rod Laver 1969

    Three Slams Per Year
    Jimmy Connors 1974
    Mats Wilander 1988
    Roger Federer 2004
    Roger Federer 2006
    Roger Federer 2007
    Rafael Nadal 2010
    Novak Djokovic 2011

    All Four Finals Per Year
    Roger Federer 2006
    Roger Federer 2007
    Roger Federer 2009
    Rod Laver 1969

    All Four Semi-finals Per Year
    Rod Laver 1969
    Ivan Lendl 1987
    Roger Federer 2005
    Roger Federer 2006
    Roger Federer 2007
    Roger Federer 2008
    Roger Federer 2009
    Rafael Nadal 2008
    Novak Djokovic 2011
    Andy Murray 2011

    Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
    1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
    2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
    = Roger Federer (US Open), 40
    4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
    = Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

    Most consecutive Slams played:
    1. Wayne Ferreira 56
    2. Stefan Edberg 54
    3. Roger Federer 53*
    4. Fabrice Santoro 46
    5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
    6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
    7. Tommy Robredo 41
    8. David Ferrer 40*
    9. Mark Woodforde 37
    =. Jonas Björkman 37

    Most Grand Slam match wins
    2. Roger Federer 252*
    2. Jimmy Connors 233
    3. Andre Agassi 224
    4. Ivan Lendl 222
    5. Pete Sampras 204

    Other Stuff:

    Year-End Championships
    1. Roger Federer 6*
    2. Ivan Lendl 5
    = Pete Sampras 5
    4. Ilie Nastase 3
    = John McEnroe 3
    = Boris Becker 3

    Most Weeks at #1
    1. Roger Federer 302*
    2. Pete Sampras 286
    3. Ivan Lendl 270
    4. Jimmy Connors 268
    5. John McEnroe 170
    6. Björn Borg 109
    7. Rafael Nadal 102*
    8. Andre Agassi 101
    9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
    10. Novak Djokovic 73+*

    Consecutive Weeks at #1
    1. Roger Federer (1) 237
    2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
    3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
    4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
    5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
    6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
    7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
    8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
    9. John McEnroe (1) 58
    10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

    Year End #1
    1. Sampras 6
    2. Federer 5*
    3. Borg 4
    4. Connors 3
    = Lendl 3
    = McEnroe 3

    Highest Season Winning Percentage
    1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
    2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
    3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
    4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
    5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
    6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
    7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
    8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
    9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
    10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
    = Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

    Most ATP Titles
    1. Jimmy Connors 109
    2. Ivan Lendl 94
    3. John McEnroe 77
    4. Roger Federer 76*
    5. Björn Borg 64
    = Pete Sampras 64
    7. Guillermo Vilas 62
    8. Andre Agassi 60
    9. = Rafael Nadal 53*
    10. Boris Becker 49

    Consecutive Match Win Streak
    1. Björn Borg 49 1978
    2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
    3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
    4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
    5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
    6. John McEnroe 42 1984
    7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
    8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
    = Roger Federer 35 2005
    10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
  26. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,697
    Yes. Nadal seems invincible when compared to the likes of Federer, but Laver is on a level far and above Federer and others of this period.
     
  27. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,340
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Haha
    ....
    Hahaha

    Laver isn't just above Federer but he's on a completely different level...

    I've seen clips of Rod's 1969 French Open victory, it maybe on another level but not in the way you mean :oops:
     
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    :rolleyes:
    Yes, and that's why we have so many player at 5'8" dominating the modern sport.
     
  29. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,697
    I meant what was posted. Nadal seems invincible steamrolling over players of Federer's level, but to a player as dominant--overall--as Laver (a dominance not seen since), that is another conversation.
     
  30. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,340
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Dominance relative to era. Nadal is as close to invincible on clay as any player. Laver only had a subpar Rosewall to contend with at RG in 1969.

    Different era's anyway, historically Laver's career achievements are perhaps the greatest of all time. That doesn't mean his top playing level was though...
     
  31. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,598
    Hi mate - I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers from but:

    Murray has made 9 consecutive slam QFS, 5 consecutive slam SFs and 3 consecutive Finals.

    Novak made semis of all 4 slams in 2012.

    Lendl appears twice in the consecutive slam QFs and SFs list and 3 times in the consecutive finals list, as does Federer in the consecutive semis list.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2013
  32. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,019
    Nadal on clay is pushing it. For anyone to beat Nadal on clay, you would need a guy who was at his absolute best with Nadal playing average at best simultaneously. I'll compare Nadal on clay with Sampras on grass with Federer (on grass & HC) that when they are playing their best on those respective surfaces, they are as close to unbeatable as it gets. I don't think Laver could beat Nadal on clay, now, some internet troll who doesn't understand the concept of 'matchup' can disagree, I don't see Laver out-gunning Nadal from the back court and I don't see laver being that successful at the net against Nadal on clay. Hard and grass are different stories. I do think people can't bare to let go about these old-time greats and don't want to realise that the sport might have moved on.
     
  33. MonkeyBoy

    MonkeyBoy Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,485
    With wooden racquets Nadal's clay game would be defunct.
     
  34. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,340
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    It wouldn't. He would have his movement and a powerful forehand. He could still generate alot of topspin even with wood.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2013
  35. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    It is probably different streaks then. Sorry if it is not totally updated, but it was just in answer to TV's words of "lack of dominance".
    Edit: It is apparently as per of july last year. It is from here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=387860
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2013
  36. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,014
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Borg's achievement does it for me.
     
  37. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,857
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Please. Just stop. This is ridiculous.
     
  38. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,340
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Stop what? Stop giving current players their due? I'm not the one saying that an 11 time Grand Slam champion and 7 time French Open winner would be a nobody if he didn't have poly strings...

    Direct your pleas at someone else. In this very thread I've said that with todays equipment I think Laver could hold his own against Djokovic.
     
  39. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,353
    Post #1 is not updated. See post #87.
     
  40. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,857
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I absolutely agree that Nadal would be excellent in any era. Just as I believe Laver would be excellent in any era.

    But Nadal wouldn't be great because of his great topspin. Not with a Maxply racquet. It isn't happening. I believe in Laver's era, Nadal would develop the necessary touch and net game required in that era -- and be successful.

    But the things that give him success in this era, are not the things that would make him successful in Laver's era.
     
  41. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,697
    Quoted for truth.
     
  42. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    30,232
    Location:
    Orlando FL
    This. People don't seem to get that Nadal is a product of the generation he plays in, and would learn, practice, and play differently if he was in a different era. The whole "stick a wooden racquet in his hand" argument is so pathetic it's ridiculous.
     
  43. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,340
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Sorry but I disagree. Yes Nadal would develop a better net game and touch. But I think the skills he already has would also be useful in the 60's. Not as effective as they are now ofcourse but still effective. His speed and movement would be excellent in any era wouldn't you agree? Would that not aid him in his success.

    Likewise I'm often told by those in the Former Greats section that many older players did hit with topspin. Now why is it wrong for me to say that Nadal would still generate some topspin even with an older raquet?

    I thought it best to mention the qualities he possesses rather than hypotheticals, however true they maybe.
     
  44. moonballs

    moonballs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,270
    Wasn't 1969 just the 2nd year of the open era? Were the matches televised to hundreds of million or billions of viewers? Was the top tennis more like gentlemen's sports or nowadays megamillion fight? I for one believe in capitalism, ie, megamillion endorsement contracts bring out the best competition in sports. The pro circuit in 1969 couldn't possibly be like today's in term of debts and top level of competition.

    Where are the weak era folks when we need them?
     
  45. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,764
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    With a 66 square inch racquet?

    I guess it's possible--after all, Laver did.
     
  46. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,340
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    If Laver can why couldn't Nadal? It's not just the strings that give him more topsin than anyone else ever.
     
  47. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Laver would beat Ralph on clay in his era but will lose to him in the current era.
     
  48. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Hoodjem,Ralph wouldn't generate half the topspin with a wooden racquet that he does with the Babo. I think some of these folks who make these claims need to play with a wooden racquet, it's hard enough to play with one. :lol:

    BTW have you played with a wooden,hoodjem? Man it's hard! I still remember the day when my dad gifted me a graphite tennis racquet and I remember vividly what a relief it was to switch.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2013
  49. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,764
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    That's what I said.
     
  50. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,764
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    This I don't get.

    Are you saying that the 100 sq. in. head-size helps too? So, if you take away the poly and the 100 sq.in. head-size, Nadal would not be able to get his topspin?
     

Share This Page