View Single Post
Old 03-04-2013, 03:33 AM   #44
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,643

Originally Posted by timnz View Post
I feel sorry for Djokovic and Nadal. People.may consider them great now, but in the years to come their careers will move to being completely irrelevant. Why? Because some commentators in the future will say....only their current players count, because..'.they are so much better'

So the question remains then, if great players records are counted as irrelevant after a few decades....should they put such huge efforts into establishing their records?
No, no don't get me wrong, I'm not saying JMac and Connors records are irrelevant. What I'm saying is they are not as good as Federer and Nadal, which therefore means they are easier to beat, which therefore means that it's easier to get these higher winning percentages.

However, if you want to hold JMac and Connors above Nadal and Federer as players that's up to you, it's your opinion but it is a ridiculous notion.
helloworld - "If Nadal wants to surpass Pete, he will need 34 slams, twice more than Federer to be in the same conversation with Sampras."
The_Order is offline   Reply With Quote