Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I believe the opposite: The General PPD posters would damn my list thus the more....

Theres a few who will be thrilled Fed aint there but "the greatest rivalry in world history" is on the list. Local posters will know who I am referring to lol

[arche3]

Originally Posted by TMF

But wouldn't also want to help BobbyOne with his top 10 flawed list about players' longevity? That's even worse than arche3's opinion about Roger's BH. Yet, you were all over arche3 in another thread but openly support BobbyOne's opinion(which no one agree his list).

To be fair to my opinion I said fed bh is goat. I know his fh is even more goat than his goat bh.
Just that his bh is more goat than Laver bh. That's all.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

If you would consider Hewitt, Roddick and Safin on the same level as Rosewall, Gonzalez, Newcombe and Roche, you would be a first class idiot. I guess you would not. Or yet???

Federer's prime coincided with a weak era without a prime Nadal and so on...

what exactly are you trying to prove by mentioning names like rosewall, gonzalez, newk & roche ?

gonzalez exited his prime long before newk/roche hit theirs .....even rosewall was past his best before newk/roche hit their primes ...

and rosewall's prime coincided with a weak era b/w that of gonzales/hoad and that of laver ? get it ?

coming back to the modern era,

nadal was already in the scene by 2005 btw .....djokovic by 2007

agassi was playing a high level of tennis in 2004-05

you also had guys like nalbandian, davydenko, coria etc in the mix

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Do you realize that Nadal is pretty much younger than Federer and has possibly more top years to come??

and do you realize that nadal being younger than federer is consistently closer to his best/prime in the past 2-3 years ..... which is one of the main reasons why he's been better than federer in that time-period ?

besides we were talking about level of play ...... what exactly has nadal done that shows convincingly that his level of play is superior to that of federer's , off clay ...

or for that matter same for djoker ( except maybe on the slow courts of the AO these days )

and nadal is an early bloomer ....... we'll see how long his career goes ...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by arche3

To be fair to my opinion I said fed bh is goat. I know his fh is even more goat than his goat bh.
Just that his bh is more goat than Laver bh. That's all.

Ok, got it. I appologize for not being clear.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Feather, Federer is good regarding longevity but f.i. far behind Tilden, Gonzalez and Rosewall.

It does not honour you that you blame Nadal for getting injured!!!

You're well aware that it's much harder to maintain longevity at the top of an individual sport like tennis when the game has become so much more physical and the fitness demands are greater now than in previous eras.

Hence we will never again have guys like Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall who played into their 40s at a high level. This doesn't mean that later greats are lacking in longevity compared to these guys, however.

The better way to look at longevity is to look at players within a certain generation and assess their longevity compared to their peers. In this instance, I would say that Agassi, who played to 36 (and made a US Open final at 35) had comparable longevity to Rosewall, who played to around 44 (and made Wimbledon/US Open finals at 39).

Similarly if Federer plays at a high level until he is 35, I will consider him, in the context of his era, to have achieved comparable longevity to Rosewall. Consider how all the other top players of Fed's era, bar Hewitt, have now retired - and yet he is still sitting as Wimbledon champion and No 2 in the world.

Oh and one more thing...........no man who has a 0-4 record in Wimbledon finals can be GOAT. So please remove Rosewall from equal first in your list.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Feather

The pertinent point is slowing down of Wimbledon. Rafa plays five setters with absolutely nobodies in second or third round of Wimbledon. He struggles when the grass is relatively fast in the first week. Had it been old grass, I doubt he would have made all those finals..

I read Rafa's biography. He describes about his match with Federer. He says that Roger has a more powerful weapon than him : serve. That was his main concern in the fifth set. He knew he had an edge in the rallies. That explains how much slowing down of grass helped him and put Federer at a disadvantage.

Federer didn't have the benefit of Sampras to play on fast US Open and fast Wimbledon. He literally had to struggle for each point. That too with players who are in their prime. We all saw what happened when Roger played Djokovic at Cincinnati this year.. It's not like these guys don't know about these disadvantages that Federer face but they pretend to ignore

yeah, this .......

djokovic @ this year's wimbledon was still unable to keep up with the quick-strike tennis of federer even though federer's diminished reflexes were clearly showing ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You underrate the important fact of the current racquets. Give Federer a wood racquet and you will be astonished how good Newcombe and Roche (two excellent claycourters!) would fare against Roger.

federer >>> newk/roche on clay or slow HC , quite a bit better on any kind of HC for that matter..... regardless of equipment ...they might get occasional win here and there , but federer would dominate them easily

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

A top player can attack Roger's defensive backhand...

I LOL'ed at this .....especially in a post involving newk .... federer's BH is so much better than newk's it isn't funny !

federer's BH is a very good BH, with crazy variety (one of the most versatile ones, if not the most versatile one ) ...... yes, has problems in dealing with high balls to it ( so do many 1-H BHs ) and can be inconsistent with it at times ( those times were rare in his peak ).......

But when in form, he's outclassed almost every other baseliner in BH to BH on many occasions, every one of them - agassi, safin, djoker, murray, nalbandian ....... this isn't to say its better, just that its not that far behind ....

its only nadal on slow, high bouncing surfaces who was able to make a dent consistently @ his prime....... otherwise, most others tried and failed, miserably at times - including agassi, hewitt, nalbandian etc ......

even nadal on the low bouncing surfaces @ the YEC, got ripped apart multiple times by federer's BH, barely able to make a dent on it , a grand total of 1 set in 4 matches there ......

[forzamilan90]

^^^oh yeah Fed's backhand is amazing during the WTF

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Please do call me forza for short. Should have been more creative instead choosing a username after a poular football chant

forza, I will do so.

Bobby

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by arche3

To be fair to my opinion I said fed bh is goat. I know his fh is even more goat than his goat bh.
Just that his bh is more goat than Laver bh. That's all.

arche3, If Federer's bh is GOAT, his fh (even much better) must be God...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

what exactly are you trying to prove by mentioning names like rosewall, gonzalez, newk & roche ?

gonzalez exited his prime long before newk/roche hit theirs .....even rosewall was past his best before newk/roche hit their primes ...

and rosewall's prime coincided with a weak era b/w that of gonzales/hoad and that of laver ? get it ?

coming back to the modern era,

nadal was already in the scene by 2005 btw .....djokovic by 2007

agassi was playing a high level of tennis in 2004-05

you also had guys like nalbandian, davydenko, coria etc in the mix




and do you realize that nadal being younger than federer is consistently closer to his best/prime in the past 2-3 years ..... which is one of the main reasons why he's been better than federer in that time-period ?

besides we were talking about level of play ...... what exactly has nadal done that shows convincingly that his level of play is superior to that of federer's , off clay ...

or for that matter same for djoker ( except maybe on the slow courts of the AO these days )

and nadal is an early bloomer ....... we'll see how long his career goes ...

abmk, I mentioned those players because all of them (and many more greats) were opponents of Laver. Laver had tougher competition than Federer had in his prime

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

You're well aware that it's much harder to maintain longevity at the top of an individual sport like tennis when the game has become so much more physical and the fitness demands are greater now than in previous eras.

Hence we will never again have guys like Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall who played into their 40s at a high level. This doesn't mean that later greats are lacking in longevity compared to these guys, however.

The better way to look at longevity is to look at players within a certain generation and assess their longevity compared to their peers. In this instance, I would say that Agassi, who played to 36 (and made a US Open final at 35) had comparable longevity to Rosewall, who played to around 44 (and made Wimbledon/US Open finals at 39).

Similarly if Federer plays at a high level until he is 35, I will consider him, in the context of his era, to have achieved comparable longevity to Rosewall. Consider how all the other top players of Fed's era, bar Hewitt, have now retired - and yet he is still sitting as Wimbledon champion and No 2 in the world.

Oh and one more thing...........no man who has a 0-4 record in Wimbledon finals can be GOAT. So please remove Rosewall from equal first in your list.

Phoenix1983, If the physical of the game is now so much stronger is debatable.

I will not remove Rosewall from his place. I would have thought that I and others have long enough explained why Rosewall did not win at Wimbledon.

I woun't explain it once more. It's your -easy-task to find the answer...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

federer >>> newk/roche on clay or slow HC , quite a bit better on any kind of HC for that matter..... regardless of equipment ...they might get occasional win here and there , but federer would dominate them easily



I LOL'ed at this .....especially in a post involving newk .... federer's BH is so much better than newk's it isn't funny !

federer's BH is a very good BH, with crazy variety (one of the most versatile ones, if not the most versatile one ) ...... yes, has problems in dealing with high balls to it ( so do many 1-H BHs ) and can be inconsistent with it at times ( those times were rare in his peak ).......

But when in form, he's outclassed almost every other baseliner in BH to BH on many occasions, every one of them - agassi, safin, djoker, murray, nalbandian ....... this isn't to say its better, just that its not that far behind ....

its only nadal on slow, high bouncing surfaces who was able to make a dent consistently @ his prime....... otherwise, most others tried and failed, miserably at times - including agassi, hewitt, nalbandian etc ......

even nadal on the low bouncing surfaces @ the YEC, got ripped apart multiple times by federer's BH, barely able to make a dent on it , a grand total of 1 set in 4 matches there ......

Federer may very well be better than Nadal indoors but I do also wonder if a partial reason is that Nadal is worn out by the end of the year. It's really not an excuse because Federer's style is so smooth that he's less worn out but I would be curious what would happen if they played an important indoor match let's say around May or June. Anyone check the record for Nadal and Federer indoors around the middle of the year? I doubt if they have played any matches around that time since few indoor matches are played nowadays. I can't check now because I have some work to take care of.

One think Federer does have in common with Rosewall is that both were ultra smooth strokers and moved very well with great footwork. I think that helps tremendously in prolonging a career because of the lesser wear and tear. Gonzalez was along those lines also. And all of these guys played a long time and accomplished a lot. I worry if Nadal can last with his style. Djokovic, while smoother imo than Nadal also plays a very grinding game and you also wonder if that will wear him down early.

[forzamilan90]

Yeah hopefully Fed does keep playing till 2016 as he wanted to partake in Rio Olympics. The longer he plays the better for the sport.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I will not remove Rosewall from his place. I would have thought that I and others have long enough explained why Rosewall did not win at Wimbledon.

Presumably you mean because he missed many years of opportunity? Of course, if everyone had played at Wimbledon, he would have had to face Hoad, Gonzales et al every year so no guarantee he would have won it in any case, but that's not the point...

The point is that in the Wimbledon finals he did reach, he had a 0-4 record. I simply cannot accept that someone who has such a record in the final of the game's biggest tournament can be GOAT. Irrespective of whether he would have won in other years he was banned.

If you are GOAT, you win the biggest matches at the biggest venues. Of course even the greatest players can lose to other greats in finals, but to reach 4 Wimbledon finals and not win a single one....you simply cannot call such a man GOAT. I don't care what else he achieved in his career...

[pc1]

Nadal at WTF aka Masters Cup record.

Just curious if he was worn out at the end of the year.

Here's his record in the years he played
2006-2-2
2007-2-2
2009-0-3
2010-4-1

Total-8-8

Now it's possible he wasn't worn out but just played super tough opponents and just doesn't play well indoors. However he has lost to guys you think he should beat in Ferrer, Davydenko, Soderling, Tsonga and ....... drum roll James Blake.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Presumably you mean because he missed many years of opportunity? Of course, if everyone had played at Wimbledon, he would have had to face Hoad, Gonzales et al every year so no guarantee he would have won it in any case, but that's not the point...

The point is that in the Wimbledon finals he did reach, he had a 0-4 record. I simply cannot accept that someone who has such a record in the final of the game's biggest tournament can be GOAT. Irrespective of whether he would have won in other years he was banned.

If you are GOAT, you win the biggest matches at the biggest venues. Of course even the greatest players can lose to other greats in finals, but to reach 4 Wimbledon finals and not win a single one....you simply cannot call such a man GOAT. I don't care what else he achieved in his career...

Phoenix,

Let's be fair, Rosewall was a teen when he lost his first two finals and 35 and 39 when he lost the last two. In the Open Era along Rosewall won the French Open, two Australian Opens and one US Open. That's pretty big tournaments won on big stages. He also won the WCT championships in 71 and 72 over Laver and that essentially was a big time major. Rosewall was born in 1934. The open era started in 1968.

In the Wimbledon final of 1970 he lost in five sets to John Newcombe on grass. Newk was perhaps the best grass player in the world. In 1974 he just got destroyed by Jimmy Connors at his best but he did defeat Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith in that tournament to reach the final.

The odds are very high that Rosewall imo would have won at least one Wimbledon in the years he was dominant. No one can prove it of course but I believe there was great chance.

Sometime I do think this stuff about not winning a tournament is overrated. I think the important thing is that great players prove that they can win and be very strong on all surfaces. Certainly Rosewall has more than proven he can win on grass.

Federer is for example a super clay court player as is Novak Djokovic. Federer has won one French but would he be any less a player if he never won the French? Don't think so. I think Djokovic is a super clay court player. I would not hold it against Djokovic if he never won the French.

Look at how many years it took Martina Navratilova to finally win the US Open. But given the extra opportunities she finally won it. Rosewall didn't get that chance as did Pancho Gonzalez by the way.

Kiki's going to get me for this but Jan Kodes won Wimbledon, Rosewall did not, does that make Kodes a better player or a better pressure player than Rosewall?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

You have a sharp sense of humor. (Sounds like something my wife would say.) lol.

Thanks, I guess.

Originally Posted by pc1

Federer may very well be better than Nadal indoors but I do also wonder if a partial reason is that Nadal is worn out by the end of the year.

There's absolutely no maybe about it, Fed is just plain better than Nadal indoors, disregarding the lopsided H2H in Fed's favour in those conditions, Fed has 20 indoor titles to Nadal's one and 6 YEC titles to Nadal's one final.

Now regarding their encounters indoors, yes Nadal might have done better if they played in the middle of the year but I sincerely doubt the final outcome of those matches would have been different.

Remember, even in the best year of Nadal's career in 2010 which also happened to be Fed's worse year since 2003 Fed still won rather comfortably in the final (6-1 final set), remember this is a 29 year old Fed vs Nadal in his absolute peak.

The low bounce and indoor conditions at YEC take away Nadal's main weapon against Fed, it's hardly a surprise he struggles to beat him (or even take a set) in those conditions.

Of course if Fed sticks around till 2016 I have little doubt Nadal will beat him at WTF eventually but at their best I'd favour Fed to beat Nadal indoors 9 out of 10 times regardless.

Originally Posted by pc1

Nadal at WTF aka Masters Cup record.

Just curious if he was worn out at the end of the year.

Here's his record in the years he played
2006-2-2
2007-2-2
2009-0-3
2010-4-1

Total-8-8

Now it's possible he wasn't worn out but just played super tough opponents and just doesn't play well indoors. However he has lost to guys you think he should beat in Ferrer, Davydenko, Soderling, Tsonga and drum roll James Blake.

-Ferrer has beaten Nadal in both HC slams and his only masters title is indoor Paris.

-Davy has Nadal's number on HC, their H2H is 5-1 on that surface so that's hardly a surprising loss (quite the opposite actually).

-Soderling beat Nadal at WTF the same year he also beat him at FO so he was obviously tough for Nadal to handle that year (in 2009) and for a long time Soderling was considered to be an indoor specialist (certainly more comfortable in those conditions than Nadal).

-Tsonga is a big server, losing to a big server indoors is hardly something I'd call a shock loss.

-James Blake was always a tough opponent for Nadal on HC and he was playing the tennis of his life in 2006, it was an expected loss (and not even a close match).


Aside from maybe Tsonga and Ferrer I didn't really expect Nadal to beat any of those players at YEC/WTF at the times that he faced them, against Ferrer I actually thought it was roughly 50-50 (Ferrer was in excellent form at YEC and has beaten Nadal in USO that year).

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

Phoenix,

Let's be fair, Rosewall was a teen when he lost his first two finals and 35 and 39 when he lost the last two.

He was 21 when he lost to Hoad in 1956. And he won all the other three majors from the ages of 18 - 20, and the ages of 33-37, so his age is no excuse!

Originally Posted by pc1

In the Open Era along Rosewall won the French Open, two Australian Opens and one US Open. That's pretty big tournaments won on big stages. He also won the WCT championships in 71 and 72 over Laver and that essentially was a big time major. Rosewall was born in 1934. The open era started in 1968.

Yes I know, he won everywhere bar Wimbledon regularly. Everywhere bar the biggest tournament of them all.

Originally Posted by pc1

In the Wimbledon final of 1970 he lost in five sets to John Newcombe on grass. Newk was perhaps the best grass player in the world. In 1974 he just got destroyed by Jimmy Connors at his best but he did defeat Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith in that tournament to reach the final.

1974 was a year I can excuse him for losing in the final, aged 39 and against Connors who was just a completely new type of player from what Rosewall and his generation had faced before.

I can't excuse him for 1970 though.

Originally Posted by pc1

The odds are very high that Rosewall would have won at least one Wimbledon in the years he was dominant. No one can prove it of course but I believe there was great chance.

No-one can prove it and it's also irrelevant. He was 0-4 in the finals of the biggest tournament in the game.

Originally Posted by pc1

Sometimes I do think this stuff about not winning a tournament is overrated. I think the important thing is that great players prove that they can win and be very strong on all surfaces. Certainly Rosewall has more than proven he can win on grass.

I know what you are saying but I slightly disagree - i.e. you would presumably demote Sampras because he was relatively poor on clay, despite him dominating all other surfaces. Yet his overall record, including winning a record 7 Wimbledons, demands for me that he be placed above Rosewall.

Originally Posted by pc1

Federer is for example a super clay court player as is Novak Djokovic. Federer has won one French but would he be any less a player if he never won the French?

Let's put it this way - I consider Federer GOAT, just ahead of Laver. If Federer hadn't won the French, I would still have Laver top.

So yes - if we are talking about being GOAT - not just one of the greats, but GOAT, you have to have won all four slams (assuming you participated enough everywhere to have done so - i.e. can't hold it against Borg at the AO, Gonzales at most of the slams). It's not good enough to reach 4 finals and never win at a particular slam, and expect to be ranked No 1 all-time (this argument goes for Borg and his failures at the US Open as well).

Originally Posted by pc1

Don't think so and I think Djokovic is a super clay court player and I would not hold it against him if he never won the French.

He can never be GOAT if he hasn't won the French though. Not when Federer and Laver have won all four slams.

Originally Posted by pc1

Look at Navratilova, she took many years to finally win the US Open. But given the extra opportunities she finally won it. Rosewall didn't get that chance as did Pancho Gonzalez by the way.

Pancho is a different case to Rosewall. He missed even more of his career to the pros, and was not good enough (i.e. too young or old) to be a contender at Wimbledon when he was allowed to compete. Therefore I can make concessions for him that I cannot for Rosewall. I say it again - if a man makes 4 Wimbledon finals and does not win a single one, he cannot be GOAT.

I don't consider Pancho the GOAT either by the way, because he never won a clay court major in the pros. He was essentially a Sampras equivalent but played in a weaker period of mens' tennis with a divided tour.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

Thanks, I guess.



There's absolutely no maybe about it, Fed is just plain better than Nadal indoors, disregarding the lopsided H2H in Fed's favour in those conditions, Fed has 20 indoor titles to Nadal's one and 6 YEC titles to Nadal's one final.

Now regarding their encounters indoors, yes Nadal might have done better if they played in the middle of the year but I sincerely doubt the final outcome of those matches would have been different.

Remember, even in the best year of Nadal's career in 2010 which also happened to be Fed's worse year since 2003 Fed still won rather comfortably in the final (6-1 final set), remember this is a 29 year old Fed vs Nadal in his absolute peak.

The low bounce and indoor conditions at YEC take away Nadal's main weapon against Fed, it's hardly a surprise he struggles to beat him (or even take a set) in those conditions.

Of course if Fed sticks around till 2016 I have little doubt Nadal will beat him at WTF eventually but at their best I'd favour Fed to beat Nadal indoors 9 out of 10 times regardless.



-Ferrer has beaten Nadal in both HC slams and his only masters title is indoor Paris.

-Davy has Nadal's number on HC, their H2H is 5-1 on that surface so that's hardly a surprising loss (quite the opposite actually).

-Soderling beat Nadal at WTF the same year he also beat him at FO so he was obviously tough for Nadal to handle that year (in 2009) and for a long time Soderling was considered to be an indoor specialist (certainly more comfortable in those conditions than Nadal).

-Tsonga is a big server, losing to a big server indoors is hardly something I'd call a shock loss.

-James Blake was always a tough opponent for Nadal on HC and he was playing the tennis of his life in 2006, it was an expected loss (and not even a close match).


Aside from maybe Tsonga and Ferrer I didn't really expect Nadal to beat any of those players at YEC/WTF at the times that he faced them, against Ferrer I actually thought it was roughly 50-50 (Ferrer was in excellent form at YEC and has beaten Nadal in USO that year).

I would agree with you on every point. I was curious what Nadal's record was in the World Tour Final. I was surprised it was that bad. Ferrer to me seems to me to be the type of player who will trouble Nadal on surfaces aside from clay. Always enjoyed Ferrer's game.