Where do you rank Nadal on the GOAT list?

[ivan_the_terrible]

Originally Posted by tank_job

1). Rafael Nadal
2). Jim Courier
3). Michael Chang
4). Michael Russel
5). Caroline Wozniacki

Mostly right, but my list:

1) Serena Williams
1) Venus Williams (tied)
2) Lukas Rosol
3) Robin Soderling
4) Jim Courier
5) Michael Chang
6) Feliciano Lopez
7) Caroline Wozniacki
Fernando Verdasco
9) David Ferrer
10) Rafael Nadal

[Evan77]

Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible

Mostly right, but my list:

1) Serena Williams
1) Venus Williams (tied)
2) Lukas Rosol
3) Robin Soderling
4) Jim Courier
5) Michael Chang
6) Feliciano Lopez
7) Caroline Wozniacki
Fernando Verdasco
9) David Ferrer
10) Rafael Nadal

LOL, you guys are too much. 10 chairs

[Strobe Lights]

I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.

[Federererer]

Originally Posted by Strobe Lights

I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.

Good point. I guess people are just throwing a bone to the pre-Open era dinosaurs.

[zam88]

1) Federer
2) is not a winner
3) nobody remembers

#nelly #iamnumber1

[Russeljones]

Originally Posted by Strobe Lights

I never claimed Rosewall was a factor in the Open era, though he did win 4 Majors and reach a further 4 finals in it. So clearly he was. But people are including Laver in their lists near the top. He only won 5 Majors in the Open era (and one further final), even if it did include the Grand Slam. Are people seriously putting Laver above Borg and Nadal in terms of the Open era? I assumed they were including achievements before the Open era, in which case the absence of the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales and others is noticeable.

I never claimed I was disregarding the Majors. Of course they are the most important tournaments in tennis. I said I felt that looking at just the number was simplistic. If we could just use the number then wouldn't this entire discussion be pretty pointless? I am trying to look at each person's case and comparing them. The Australian was not treated like an important event, and therefore not often played, by a lot of the top players until the mid-80's due to a number of factors. So I do think that factor is important. Are we to say that Johan Kriek (2 AOs, no other Major finals and career high rank of #7) and Brian Teacher (1 AO, only one other QF at Majors and career high rank of #7) are better than Andy Murray?

I loved watching Sampras play. His win over Agassi in his last ever match to tie the US Open record will always be a favourite memory of mine. Why would you assume that I rank them based on liking the player or not? It is simply my opinion on their achievements. Borg's achievements on a wide-range of surfaces puts him ahead of Sampras for me. Borg played the Australian only once at the age of 17, so really his weakest Major was the USO, where he reached 4 finals. Sampras only reached a single SF at the French and those shortcomings on clay help Borg edge ahead in my opinion.

I can, of course, understand the argument for Sampras ahead of Borg. 3 more Majors, far more weeks at #1 (though arguments on the ranking system in the early years are well documented) and more YECs. You asked the question of how people could place Borg ahead of Nadal. I put forward the argument for why I, and others, place Borg not just ahead of Nadal but Sampras also.

Laver got the Slam. It's all he (or any pro player for that matter) needs to do be ranked among the very best in his sport. This ranks him higher than Borg for me. Nadal has 11 GS titles that include a career golden slam whereas Borg has a gaping whole in his resume with the absense of AO and USO titles. Yes the 3 consecutive FO-Wimbledon doubles is unprecedented and probably will never be done again. But it's not enough to put him over an accomplished all-rounder like Nadal (of course this is skewed by the change of surfaces but I have to be objective). Sampras has 14 Slam titles and I don't think it can be dubbed as simplistic to say 3 Slam titles is a large gap. Large enough to push almost every tennis player down the pecking order.

I like this discussion and have to (in this climate on tw) thank you for maintaining a proper level.

1. Laver
2. Rosewall
3. Federer
4. Sampras
5. Nadal
6. Gonzales
7. Tilden
8. Borg
9. Budge
10. Lendl or Connors (will be Djokovic at some point, or higher)

No way in hell is Nadal below Borg who didnt even win 2 of the 4 majors, and couldnt win the U.S Open even with it being on clay for a few years. Add to that Nadal clearly suprassing Borg on clay. I also agree Nadal will surpass Sampras in the future, he is already above Borg.

Rosewall is the most underrated player ever probably. He was a top 3 player in the World for about 20 years, and while his period of dominance wasnt as long as Laver or Gonzales, it was roughly as long as Federer (about 4 years).

[mattennis]

Nadal: the second best player of his era (as of today).

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Strobe Lights

I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.

some do that just cause he won the Grand Slam twice so he's automatically some sort of a default placement in the 1st tier....Rosewall had a pimp career no doubt, a lot of pro and amateur majors won.
I place Fed and Laver as the two greatest based on acclamation, and the then 2nd tier of best ever has Rosewall, Gonzalez, Sampras, Tilden, Borg, Nadal in my opinion

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by ZeroSkid

1. Nadal
2. Sampras
3. Laver/Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Federer(why so low?, because he won slams in a weak field)

Federer won slams 2003 to 2010 and 2012. Nadal was in the top 3 for seven (7) of the years when Federer won a grand slam. And since Nadal has been near the top, Federer has won 13 slams. If those 13 are worth so few, than how little must Nadal's 11 in that same time be worth? Fail.

I'd put Nadal slightly below Sampras, so 4th probably. Still could catch up to Sampras's slam count, though, if he keeps staying healthy for the clay season, where most of his points come.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by Strobe Lights

I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.

I agree with you, they should. Tier 1 imho (in chronological order): Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and Federer, with the last two probably getting the top spots, in whatever order.

[tistrapukcipeht]

1-Fed
2-Sampras
3-Roy Emerson
4-Borg
5-Laver
6-Nadal over achiever or if you prefer overacheater

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

(listed alphabetically within each tier)

Tier 1:
Federer, Gonzalez, Laver, Sampras, Tilden

Tier 2:
Borg, Budge, Kramer, Nadal, Rosewall

Tier 3:
Agassi, Cochet, Connors, Hoad, Lendl, McEnroe, Perry, Riggs, Vines

Bottom half of the top ten for me. If he can manage a third year as the world's best player and equal Sampras' slam count, then I'd probably bump him up to the top level.


Regards,
MDL

[Leto]

Before Wimbledon, I had Fed and Laver tied, but I'm finally willing to give Fed the outright GOAT title

Also before Wimbledon, I had Rafa at #5 overall. That remains the same for me, but instead of thinking that he'd be shooting his way up the ranks over the next few years to the very top, I'm starting to think that he'll be lucky to even surpass Samrpas, given his poor WO performance and ongoing knee problems

I am actually EQUALLY interested in seeing what happens with Rafa now, in the leadup and completion of the USO, as I am in who will win the Olympic Gold (very big deals for Fed/Murray in particular, so I hope at least one of them wins it).

1. Fed
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Rafael Nadal

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by ZeroSkid

1. Nadal
2. Sampras
3. Laver/Borg
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Federer(why so low?, because he won slams in a weak field)

There's always someone out there trying to stir it up

[hoodjem]

5. Federer
6. Borg
7. Sampras
8. Budge
9. Nadal
10. Lendl

[tank_job]

Originally Posted by Leto

Before Wimbledon, I had Fed and Laver tied, but I'm finally willing to give Fed the outright GOAT title

Also before Wimbledon, I had Rafa at #5 overall. That remains the same for me, but instead of thinking that he'd be shooting his way up the ranks over the next few years to the very top, I'm starting to think that he'll be lucky to even surpass Samrpas, given his poor WO performance and ongoing knee problems

I am actually EQUALLY interested in seeing what happens with Rafa now, in the leadup and completion of the USO, as I am in who will win the Olympic Gold (very big deals for Fed/Murray in particular, so I hope at least one of them wins it).

1. Fed
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Rafael Nadal

Dunno why everyone is going crazy with this Laver hype.

He has 11 slams. Sampras should be ranked higher, because.... uh, he has more slams.

Duh.

[hoodjem]

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
--Albert Einstein

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
--Euripides

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
--Elbert Hubbard

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[pc1]

There are some greats with unbelievable resumes playing at a super high level for decades. Nadal is a super player but his career is rather short compared to some players like Bill Tilden. Tilden from 1912 to 1930 won 138 of 192 tournaments played, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. That's a winning percentage of 93.6. Players couldn't play all the majors every year because travel by boat would take many weeks and they would get out of shape. Still Tilden won 10 classic majors and 14 total majors if you include Pro Majors.

Pancho Gonzalez played at a high level for decades and was number one for many years, from the late 1940's to the 1970's. Arguably the greatest serve and the best player ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

You have Rosewall, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Kramer, Budge, Borg, Lendl, Vines, Connors. Rosewall, Laver, Borg and Lendl for example all won over 100 tournaments in their careers.

I think Nadal has a chance to be the greatest ever but we'll have to see.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by tank_job

Dunno why everyone is going crazy with this Laver hype.

He has 11 slams. Sampras should be ranked higher, because.... uh, he has more slams.

Duh.

There are a gazillion threads on this forum, articles at wikipedia, and numerous other sources that can educate you on Laver's greatness and why it's perfectly reasonable (even if you decide to disagree), to put Laver at/near the top.

But even if you want to ignore all of the many factors, I can keep it simple and say:

- Laver has 2 actual Calendar Year Grand Slams
- Pete was useless on clay, so doesn't even have a CAREER slam

Those two things combined, are enough for me to put Laver ahead of Sampras, but there's more than that, which can be researched pretty easily at the various sources I provided above.