Roger Federer – ’03, ’04, ’06, ’07, ’10, ‘11
Pete Sampras – ’91, ’94, ’96, ’97, ‘99
Ivan Lendl – ’81, ’82, ’85, ’86, ‘87
Bjorn Borg – ’79, ‘80
John McEnroe – ’78, ’83, ‘84
Jimmy Connors – ‘77
Andre Agassi – ‘90
Novak Djokovic – ’08, ‘12, '13
Stefan Edberg – ‘89
How can Rafael “I wish the WTF was played on clay” Nadal be considered an all-time great when he cannot accomplish something that every great player of the open era has?
Of course and he could still end up as #1. He is #1 in overall winning % in open era.Players are measured on their achievements NOT their gaps in their resume.
Every great player has a gap in their resume - but that doesn't make them a non-great. (Borg - US Open, McEnroe - French Open, Lendl - Wimbledon etc etc)
The WTF is the 5th biggest tournament it is very important. But Nadal's lack of a win doesn't make him a non-great. In fact he is definitely one of the greatest players of all time. I would put him in the top 3 in the Open era and top 7 or 8 all time. That is an incredibly great player.
He never won a slam after 1969 and the first WTF was in 1970. His best years were behind him by 1970 and so he is exempt from the discussion.
First YEC was held in 1970 and he never even won a slam after 1969. His prime was before the open era.
Players are measured on their achievements NOT their gaps in their resume.
Every great player has a gap in their resume - but that doesn't make them a non-great. (Borg - US Open, McEnroe - French Open, Lendl - Wimbledon etc etc)
The WTF is the 5th biggest tournament - it is very important. But Nadal's lack of a win doesn't make him a non-great. In fact he is definitely one of the greatest players of all time. I would put him in the top 3 in the Open era and top 7 or 8 all time. That is an incredibly great player..
Oh with regard to Wilander - his Australian Open wins had good competion - he beat McEnroe and Lendl in 83 and Edberg (1988 Wimbledon champion) and Cash (1987 wimbledon champion) in 88 - just from the top of my head. When some people talk about the Australian Open - they can confuse the weak period of 1972 to 1982 with the period afterwards when the top players starting coming back (beginning in '83).
Imo, Wilander is not a tier 1 tennis great. OK, he won 7 slams (3 of which being AO at a time when a lot of top players skipped it) but other than that: only 33 titles overall, only 8 master titles, only 20 weeks at #1. No way I would put him in the same category as Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Sampras, Agassi etc. I would put him somewhere in tier 2. So I tend to agree with the opinion that all the greatest tennis players in open era have won WTF. I sincerely hope that Rafa won't be the exception but even if he was, it wouldn' t be a big deal given everything else Rafa has won including the record in masters, slams way in the double digits, olympic gold, several DCs...
I really wouldn't rank Wilander that far below McEnroe and Agassi. Below, yes. But not in a totally different ballpark. And Wilander had a really short career. His last major occurred the month after he turned 24. Even more truncated than Borg or McEnroe.
The only contender to miss the Australian Open in any of the years Wilander won it was McEnroe in 1984. He beat McEnroe and Lendl in 1983, and Edberg and Cash in 1988 (Cash having beaten Lendl in the semis). His route to those titles was if anything more difficult than his route to, say, the 1988 Roland Garros.
Also, it's worthy of note that Wilander in 1988 was the only 3-Slam winner of any man between 1975 and 2003. To have the greatest year in nearly 30 years is an incredibly impressive achievement.
He's probably a tier 2 great, whatever that means, but he's certainly a great.
He is as bad indoors as Sampras was on clay.
You said:
His best year would be one where he won the Grand Slam--in the Open Era.
I really wouldn't rank Wilander that far below McEnroe and Agassi. Below, yes. But not in a totally different ballpark. And Wilander had a really short career. His last major occurred the month after he turned 24. Even more truncated than Borg or McEnroe.
The only contender to miss the Australian Open in any of the years Wilander won it was McEnroe in 1984. He beat McEnroe and Lendl in 1983, and Edberg and Cash in 1988 (Cash having beaten Lendl in the semis). His route to those titles was if anything more difficult than his route to, say, the 1988 Roland Garros.
Also, it's worthy of note that Wilander in 1988 was the only 3-Slam winner of any man between 1975 and 2003. To have the greatest year in nearly 30 years is an incredibly impressive achievement.
He's probably a tier 2 great, whatever that means, but he's certainly a great.
that's correct... mats is indeed the only open era great who didn't win the YEC.Mats Wilander didn't.
Thread fail.
that's correct... mats is indeed the only open era great who didn't win the YEC.
you've got a point ! i didn't mean to question john's greatness but he has a step into the pre-open era, so...Are we not considering Newcombe an Open Era great?
Are we not considering Newcombe an Open Era great?
Nadal has suffered from the year end championship being played -year in, year out -on his least favourite surface. If the YEC was played on clay, McEnroe, Sampras and Federer would have zip.Of course he is, but so are Laver and Rosewall. However, all three men cross the dividing line between pre- and post-Open Era.
Among pure Open Era greats, only Wilander and Nadal have failed to win the YEC, the only tournament featuring solely top players.
McEnroe, Federer and Sampras have suffered from Roland Garros being played -year in, year out -on their least favorite surface. If Roland Garros was played on grass, Nadal would have zip.Nadal has suffered from the year end championship being played -year in, year out -on his least favourite surface. If the YEC was played on clay, McEnroe, Sampras and Federer would have zip.
Of course he is, but so are Laver and Rosewall. However, all three men cross the dividing line between pre- and post-Open Era.
Among pure Open Era greats, only Wilander and Nadal have failed to win the YEC, the only tournament featuring solely top players.
The difference is, Roland Garros has an established surface that has been consistent for almost a century and is part of the clay court season. The YEC is supposed to be a tournament that presents a challenge to the best tennis players of the entire year, across all surfaces. It should not be constantly played on a surface that favours certain players and discriminates against others. Any unbiased, decent-minded person knows that.McEnroe, Federer and Sampras have suffered from Roland Garros being played -year in, year out -on their least favorite surface. If Roland Garros was played on grass, Nadal would have zip.
Nadal has suffered from the year end championship being played -year in, year out -on his least favourite surface. If the YEC was played on clay, McEnroe, Sampras and Federer would have zip.
McEnroe, Federer and Sampras have suffered from Roland Garros being played -year in, year out -on their least favorite surface. If Roland Garros was played on grass, Nadal would have zip.
Because, like many of the posters here, they deal in prejudice-not facts.Why do you think Nadal would have zero titles at a hypothetical Roland Garros on grass when he has two titles at Wimbledon on grass?
YEC presents a challenge because only the best tennis players participate there. As we all know Nadal is hardly ever capable of going through several quality opponents in succession outside of clay. There are no evaporated draws in YEC so he can't fluke a title, and that is because he has always sucked indoors, not because YEC is biased towards hard court players. You have a three month long clay season and barely any indoor events and you are still moaning about YEC not being played on clay, how triggered are you LOL.The difference is, Roland Garros has an established surface that has been consistent for almost a century and is part of the clay court season. The YEC is supposed to be a tournament that presents a challenge to the best tennis players of the entire year, across all surfaces. It should not be constantly played on a surface that favours certain players and discriminates against others. Any unbiased, decent-minded person knows that.
The same reason why he thinks Federer would have zero clay WTF titles when he's won Roland Garros and several clay Masters.Why do you think Nadal would have zero titles at a hypothetical Roland Garros on grass when he has two titles at Wimbledon on grass?
Sure, if Nadal was injured Federer could theoretically have won a WTF finals on clay. Highly unlikely though.YEC presents a challenge because only the best tennis players participate there. As we all know Nadal is hardly ever capable of going through several quality opponents in succession outside of clay. There are no evaporated draws in YEC so he can't fluke a title, and that is because he has always sucked indoors, not because YEC is biased towards hard court players. You have a three month long clay season and barely any indoor events and you are still moaning about YEC not being played on clay, how triggered are you LOL.
The same reason why he thinks Federer would have zero clay WTF titles when he's won Roland Garros and several clay Masters.
Still more likely than Nadal beating Federer indoors.Sure, if Nadal was injured Federer could theoretically have won a WTF finals on clay. Highly unlikely though.
You could be right. They seriously struggle against each other on their favourite surfaces. Which is why it is unfair to play the YEC constantly on Roger's favourite surface.Still more likely than Nadal beating Federer indoors.
who said Indoor HC is Fed's favorite surface? Surfaces which suit Federer best are Grass, Fast HC. Indoor HC is probably his 3rd favorite surfaceYou could be right. They seriously struggle against each other on their favourite surfaces. Which is why it is unfair to play the YEC constantly on Roger's favourite surface.
Nadal has beaten Federer indoors.Still more likely than Nadal beating Federer indoors.
Given Nadal has pulled out of almost half the wtf he qualified for it's safe to say he isn't that interested in it.
Players are not judged on wtf. Olympics is more remembered. Ask Andy Murray who made the point last year.
Even the players this year seem jovial and relaxed, not like they are at masters 1000 or even atp500 events when they are super serious.
Until the wtf becomes a straight knock out it will have the feel of an exhibition at end of season event .
well then, looks like Nadal has beaten Federer on the grandest stages of each of Federer's favorite surfaces/conditions.who said Indoor HC is Fed's favorite surface? Surfaces which suit Federer best are Grass, Fast HC. Indoor HC is probably his 3rd favorite surface
Given Nadal has pulled out of almost half the wtf he qualified for it's safe to say he isn't that interested in it.
Players are not judged on wtf. Olympics is more remembered. Ask Andy Murray who made the point last year.
Even the players this year seem jovial and relaxed, not like they are at masters 1000 or even atp500 events when they are super serious.
Until the wtf becomes a straight knock out it will have the feel of an exhibition at end of season event .
True, but in 2013. I am saying overall that is less likely to happen.Nadal has beaten Federer indoors.
Nadal has also won 2 gold medals, just that one was in doubles and one in singles...If he wasn't interested he wouldn't play when he's injured though he has nothing to gain, or complain again and again that it's never played on clay. He's interested, just that he always ends up out of gas at the end of the season and years ago he either had other priorities (completing a career slam) or he thought he'd have years left to win it.
Don't get me wrong, if he never wins it it's not a big deal, No player has won everything, but no it's not an exhibition and Nadal pulling out of Paris but still entering the WTF despite being too injured to win a match says as much. The only other explanation for him playing is he wanted the appearance fee which I really doubt.
Murray would tout the olympics seeing as he's the only male player to win 2 gold medals, but however for most of tennis history it's not been a medal event. The olympics flat out snubbed tennis or the other way around so in Tennis history it doesn't mean that much.
Having said all this Nadal haters need to stop going on about Nadal not winning the wtf and Federer haters need to stop going on about the wtf being an exhibition and the olympics being the be all and end all because they're both talking crap
Given Nadal has pulled out of almost half the wtf he qualified for it's safe to say he isn't that interested in it.
Players are not judged on wtf. Olympics is more remembered. Ask Andy Murray who made the point last year.
Even the players this year seem jovial and relaxed, not like they are at masters 1000 or even atp500 events when they are super serious.
Until the wtf becomes a straight knock out it will have the feel of an exhibition at end of season event .
Question: How many of those Open Era greats you listed ever completed the career Grand Slam?
Answer: Just 2 of them, Federer and Agassi along with Nadal and Laver of course.
So there is more than one way to measure all-time greatness and holding all 4 Slam titles is probably a more impressive achievement than holding a YEC title.
Sure, if Nadal was injured Federer could theoretically have won a WTF finals on clay. Highly unlikely though.
Nadal has beaten Federer indoors.
Nadal has won slams on all surfaces; why can he not master an indoor event?
Nadal has also won 2 gold medals, just that one was in doubles and one in singles...
well then, looks like Nadal has beaten Federer on the grandest stages of each of Federer's favorite surfaces/conditions.
the inverse remains, and will probably always be, unfulfilled.
Nadal has won slams on all surfaces; why can he not master an indoor event?
you're essentially correct, but of course your phrasing and terms lean toward shade more than necessary.The conditions don't allow him to grind. He is forced to play a game based on shot-making rather than grinding so that's where he falls short.
Nadal simply cannot beat a string of top 8 players with enough consistency to get a WTF title. Doesn’t matter if it was clay or not
yes, Murray does have a better Olympic record than Nadal, and a way better one than Federer and especially Djokovic!Murray has better Olympic record than nadal
Nadal has never beaten Djokovic at AO and most masters
Djokovic has happily beaten nadal at AO, FO, WIMB, US, WTF, all masters
Djokovic, davednko etc all have h2h leads against nadal
Weak arguments
Nadal simply cannot beat a string of top 8 players with enough consistency to get a WTF title. Doesn’t matter if it was clay or not
Nadal simply cannot beat a string of top 8 players with enough consistency to get a WTF title. Doesn’t matter if it was clay or not
yes, Murray does have a better Olympic record than Nadal, and a way better one than Federer and especially Djokovic!
the rest of your post has nothing to do with what was under discussion and is largely folly.