Roger @ 20 Rafa @ 20

[hectornorton]

ROG IS THE BEST

There is no doubt about that.. But by the time he was 20 he wasn't half as good as Rafa is now...

what do you think?

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

Thats true, but wait until Rafa is 25 and lets see if he is still around and healthy.

[Kim]

been there, discussed that.

So Rog's a "late bloomer", so what? Did you think Einstein was the greatest thinker when he was young? The point is its pretty pointless comparing a and b when a was this age and b was this age blah blah...Einstein is arguably the greatest thinker of our times, but there are child prodigies today who were greater than him at a particular age (well, didn't Einstein's teacher say he wouldn't amount to anything as a child??)...but do you think these child prodigies will be the "next" Einstein?

This is why its pointless to compare talents at a particular age.

[Kim]

Also why is this thread here at Pro Match results and not at General Player Discussion?

[skip1969]

Originally Posted by Kim

This is why its pointless to compare talents at a particular age.

truer words were never spoken. this has to be one of the most asinine debate topics in all of sports. and yet . . . it's so popular.

[LarougeNY]

Originally Posted by Kim

been there, discussed that.

So Rog's a "late bloomer", so what? Did you think Einstein was the greatest thinker when he was young? The point is its pretty pointless comparing a and b when a was this age and b was this age blah blah...Einstein is arguably the greatest thinker of our times, but there are child prodigies today who were greater than him at a particular age (well, didn't Einstein's teacher say he wouldn't amount to anything as a child??)...but do you think these child prodigies will be the "next" Einstein?

This is why its pointless to compare talents at a particular age.

Exactly.
There is no point even comparing them at different ages. If we go by that rule, then in a few years Nadal will win just about every grandslam, and he would have a huge lead at No.1, which we all know CANNOT happen.

[8PAQ]

After 2002 Wimbledon Hewitt had two slams and #1 ranking. He was then at similar age to what Nadal is now. That was all before 2004 and 2005 when Hewitt actually reached his prime. If you looked at Hewitt when he was 21 you would think he will have at least half a dozen slams by now. If not a dozen. Things change however.

[Zaragoza]

Nadal and Federer belong to different generations. Federer needed more time to reach the top but once he did, he has been dominating in 3 of 4 Slams in the last years. If he had won his 1st Slam at 15, winning 1 Slam every year he would own 10 Slams at 25 (the same situation).
But it´s also unfair to compare a 20 y.o. to one of the greatest players ever at 25 like some Fed fans usually do.
Nadal has over 5.000 ranking points which would be enough to be a solid no. 1 in a normal situation like Federer admitted. It´s not necessary to win 10 majors to be an awesome player. I think Federer is making some people lose perspective.

[tennis_hand]

Nadal should consider himself lucky to specialize on clay courts, while the clay court season still remains so long for him to gain points.
Most of the other players who are good on hard and grass courts now don't even have many chances of winning a Slam while Federer is around.

If Nadal is not better on clay, he probably can't even win a Slam either while Fed is here. Federer is the 2nd best on clay.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by hectornorton

ROG IS THE BEST

There is no doubt about that.. But by the time he was 20 he wasn't half as good as Rafa is now...

what do you think?

This is very true.

Now lets see if Nadal will be half as good when he reaches Rogers age, as he is now. >>> I doubt it. He will probably be heading for the exits.

[Mad iX]

Different kinds of players. Not to mention people don't all peak at the same age.

[jelle v]

Not to flame on Nadal, but I have the idea that he already is at the top of his game. That's not bad since he is a great contender on clay and will win a lot of tournaments on clay, but I am starting to doubt whether he will improve more on hardcourts. Plus, I think other players will start to figure him out, especially on hardcourt and a little bit on clay, bringing him more losses on clay. But not for the coming 2 years I think

[pj80]

Originally Posted by 8PAQ

After 2002 Wimbledon Hewitt had two slams and #1 ranking. He was then at similar age to what Nadal is now. That was all before 2004 and 2005 when Hewitt actually reached his prime. If you looked at Hewitt when he was 21 you would think he will have at least half a dozen slams by now. If not a dozen. Things change however.

You're right...back then i tought hewitt was gonna dominate tennis like sampras did after pistol retired. Boy was i wrong