Standaa
G.O.A.T.
Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.
The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal
Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.
First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:
No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.
If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal
Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.
First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:
- He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.
- There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
- His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.
- His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.
- As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)
- Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.
- Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.
If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
