Is Nadal the greatest ever athlete in Tennis ????

Is Nadal the greatest ever athlete in Tennis ????

  • Yes, Nadal is the Greatest Athlete ever in Tennis

  • No, Federer is the Greatest Athlete ever in Tennis

  • No, Sampras is the Greatest Athlete ever in Tennis

  • No, Djokovic in the modern era is the Greatest Athlete ever in Tennis

  • Someone else (I shall mention in comments)

Results are only viewable after voting.
Karma Tennis

Karma Tennis

Legend
skaj said:
Not sure what your first sentence has to do with what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Djokovic has a 1-2 Punch (FH + BH) which is the main reason why you think he dominates Nadal.

If that is what you believe, I disagree with you. At the elite level, the quality of the stroke is irrelevant. The important things are shot selection, and making the ball.

Djokovic has always had superior shot selection and more consistent ability to make balls on both sides of his body. So FH+BH, BH+FH,etc. doesn't matter in his case.
 
skaj

skaj

Legend
Karma Tennis said:
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Djokovic has a 1-2 Punch (FH + BH) which is the main reason why you think he dominates Nadal.

If that is what you believe, I disagree with you. At the elite level, the quality of the stroke is irrelevant. The important things are shot selection, and making the ball.

Djokovic has always had superior shot selection and more consistent ability to make balls on both sides of his body. So FH+BH, BH+FH,etc. doesn't matter in his case.
Click to expand...

Djokovic has better groundstrokes overall, and that is what gives him the edge in their baseline exchanges. I hope it is clear now.

At the elite level the quality of strokes is irrelevant?? Plus we are talking about modern, predominately baseline tennis. Do you want to rethink that one, and post about it again?

As for the shot selection, Djoko's is nothing special and not "superior" to Nadal.

Not sure what you mean here: "more consistent ability to make balls on both sides of his body".
 
Karma Tennis

Karma Tennis

Legend
I'm of the opinion that Djokovic has better groundstrokes than Nadal overall and that give him the edge in rallies.

It doesn't matter how good your strokes are. The important thing is to win points, win games, wins Sets and win Matches by any means possible. Roger Federer has the purest stroke technique of any player in the entire history of the sport. He has textbook technique. And yet, he has not dominated either of his two major opponents.

We can disagree on shot selection superiority. But H2H records suggest that Novak dominates Rafa. Therefore it is easy to conclude he achieved that thanks to superior shot selection over the course of all of their matches. He has won more matches, hence more Sets, more games and more points. (Meaning he has been better at selecting the right shots at the right time than Rafa has.)

Novak is stronger and more consistent on both sides. Rafa has an incredible FH and a decent BH. But imhoe neither of those shots are as consistent as Novak's are. Novak's stroke technique has a much greater margin for error than Rafa's does.
 
skaj

skaj

Legend
Karma Tennis said:
I'm of the opinion that Djokovic has better groundstrokes than Nadal overall and that give him the edge in rallies.

It doesn't matter how good your strokes are. The important thing is to win points, win games, wins Sets and win Matches by any means possible. Roger Federer has the purest stroke technique of any player in the entire history of the sport. He has textbook technique. And yet, he has not dominated either of his two major opponents.

We can disagree on shot selection superiority. But H2H records suggest that Novak dominates Rafa. Therefore it is easy to conclude he achieved that thanks to superior shot selection over the course of all of their matches. He has won more matches, hence more Sets, more games and more points. (Meaning he has been better at selecting the right shots at the right time than Rafa has.)

Novak is stronger and more consistent on both sides. Rafa has an incredible FH and a decent BH. But imhoe neither of those shots are as consistent as Novak's are. Novak's stroke technique has a much greater margin for error than Rafa's does.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I am saying from the beginning(your first sentence).

Talking about modern professional tennis, and Saying that it doesn't matter how good your strokes is just silly, sorry, I must say. Winning points, games, sets and matches depends, among other things, on your groundstrokes. It's funny that you are mentioning Federer because, although he does have the purest technique on his forehand and one of if not the best forehand ever, his backhand is a weakness, notorious for breaking in longer rallies, so of course he did not dominate the two in their baseline exchanges.

Head to head record suggest that Novak dominates/has the edge over Nadal. Therefore it is easy to conclude that it is because of his - better groundstrokes overall. Something he is known for - great groundstrokes, not "shot selection". He's not Hingis or Nalbandian, some genius mind, he's Novak Djokovic. He's experienced, knows how to choose the shots, but nothing special and not better than most of his peers.
 
Karma Tennis

Karma Tennis

Legend
We are splitting hairs now.

The most important thing is to win Matches. It is simplistic to say the player with the superior strokes always wins the matches. The history of tennis is full of successful players who had terrible strokes.

Federer's BH was only a weakness against Nadal's FH. And we now know why that is the case. (Federer did pretty well against Novak early on. Age catches up with all of us eventually.)

I wouldn't say Novak has GREAT ground strokes in terms of technique. He just has consistent groundstrokes that allows him to get the ball back in play more often than his opponent. Novak's success lies in his ability to minimise his groundstroke errors. He wins most of his points by not losing them rather than by hitting winners.
 
skaj

skaj

Legend
Karma Tennis said:
We are splitting hairs now.

The most important thing is to win Matches. It is simplistic to say the player with the superior strokes always wins the matches. The history of tennis is full of successful players who had terrible strokes.

Federer's BH was only a weakness against Nadal's FH. And we now know why that is the case. (Federer did pretty well against Novak early on. Age catches up with all of us eventually.)

I wouldn't say Novak has GREAT ground strokes in terms of technique. He just has consistent groundstrokes that allows him to get the ball back in play more often than his opponent. Novak's success lies in his ability to minimise his groundstroke errors. He wins most of his points by not losing them rather than by hitting winners.
Click to expand...

No, we are not splitting hairs, I am pointing out a very important thing in modern tennis, groundstrokes quality - something Djokovic has the edge over Nadal at. That is why he wins more matches.

Nobody said that "the player with the superior strokes always wins the matches", I was talking about Djokovic and Nadal.

Federer's backhand is a weakness in long rallies, against any good baseliner. Especially Nadal, of course, we know why, but certainly not only him.

I wasn't talking about textbook technique when it comes to Djoko's strokes but their effectiveness overall, which is what counts in this discussion.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
When Nadal is operating at his highest gear on Clay displaying the highest level octane play beyond the reach of mortals, then even the likes of Novak look like second grade beta males, federer would look 3rd grade, thats how high Nadal is as an athlete.

Skill levels or such things are not in play even if you try to match him in rallies, he is just superior.

Nadal is like Khan Noonien Singh from Star Trek ..... he is just better ... at everything on clay .... that is athleticism involved

228652592ea53f36fd4dc41e13238714.gif
 
skaj

skaj

Legend
Karma Tennis said:
Here we see a picture of Rafa (left with the black hair) and Novak (Right with the medals).
uApht.jpg


History tells us the fellow with the medals destroyed the fellow with the black hair. Further proving that brains always beats brawn.
Click to expand...

But it's Nadal who has the medal, not Djokovic.

And it's not nice to make fun of someone who might seem to be not too intelligent. (Personally, I think he's not that unintelligent, it's just his English. Maybe Spanish speakers can back me up on this.)
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Karma Tennis said:
Here we see a picture of Rafa (left with the black hair) and Novak (Right with the medals).
uApht.jpg


History tells us the fellow with the medals destroyed the fellow with the black hair. Further proving that brains always beats brawn.
Click to expand...

Outside clay !!!

Yes, brain has always beaten brawn.

On Clay, Nadal's Brawn does beat Brain as well as Brawn since Nadal has too much brawn :D

That left Arm of Nadal produces so much Revolutions that it is too much for anyone to handle, not to mention those powerful shots from the back of the court.... nobody hits like that
 
D

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Very few votes to Federer. Says a lot about his talent and tennis skill set. Imagine what he would have done if he was physical beast like Nadal. But again nature never makes you perfect.
 
skaj

skaj

Legend
D.Nalby12 said:
Very few votes to Federer. Says a lot about his talent and tennis skill set. Imagine what he would have done if he was physical beast like Nadal. But again nature never makes you perfect.
Click to expand...

I don't think he needs it. He's athletic enough, and he makes up for Nadal's power and speed with his technique and talent. The only thing he misses is a solid backhand.
 
S

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
difficult to tell just like goat debate.......borg and sampras were ahead of their time as far as athleticism is concerned, supreme athletes.......bug-3 have the advantage of modern day nutrition, medicine and injury recovery procedures.......
 
Karma Tennis

Karma Tennis

Legend
Sunny014 said:
On Clay, Nadal's Brawn does beat Brain as well as Brawn since Nadal has too much brawn :D
Click to expand...

Bah! Skinny Soderling using only his brains smashed Peak Nadal at Roland Garros.

Sunny014 said:
That left Arm of Nadal produces so much Revolutions that it is too much for anyone to handle, not to mention those powerful shots from the back of the court.... nobody hits like that
Click to expand...

Borg was doing it with a skinny right arm, 70 square inch hoop and a full bed of natural gut.

skaj said:
And it's not nice to make fun of someone who might seem to be not too intelligent.
Click to expand...

I agree. You should stop suggesting that Rafa's success is primarily a function of his athletic prowess. Rafa has an incredible tennis brain. He often finds the solution to win tennis matches. It's just that he finds the problem of Novak a lot more difficult than anyone he has encountered previously.

The one thing I do not like about Rafa though is that he is a sore loser when he is beaten by anyone other than Roger, Novak or Andy. I have never heard him refer to any defeated opponent as being dis-respectful. However, he often calls players who beat him "dis-respectful". (Kyrgios for example)
 
skaj

skaj

Legend
Karma Tennis said:
Bah! Skinny Soderling using only his brains smashed Peak Nadal at Roland Garros.



Borg was doing it with a skinny right arm, 70 square inch hoop and a full bed of natural gut.



I agree. You should stop suggesting that Rafa's success is primarily a function of his athletic prowess. Rafa has an incredible tennis brain. He often finds the solution to win tennis matches. It's just that he finds the problem of Novak a lot more difficult than anyone he has encountered previously.

The one thing I do not like about Rafa though is that he is a sore loser when he is beaten by anyone other than Roger, Novak or Andy. I have never heard him refer to any defeated opponent as being dis-respectful. However, he often calls players who beat him "dis-respectful". (Kyrgios for example)
Click to expand...

I should stop suggesting that Rafa's success is primarily a function of his athletic prowess? :unsure:

As for why Nadal is bothered by Djoko, we have covered that here already - Novak has better groundstrokes overall, it gives him the edge over Rafael.

And I don't think Nadal is too sore of a loser, at least not compared to most players. Kyrgios is I'm afraid not a good example :giggle:
 
M

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
D.Nalby12 said:
Very few votes to Federer. Says a lot about his talent and tennis skill set. Imagine what he would have done if he was physical beast like Nadal. But again nature never makes you perfect.
Click to expand...

I think he only has very few votes due to who he is up against on the poll. I think nearly everyone would agree Federer is a top 5 overall athlete in the Open Era. Only Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, and Sampras could be argued as possibly better. He is definitely still a physical beast in his own right. He is not like Agassi, an average to just good athlete for a top player, who thrived almost exclusively off his tennis skills. Mind you Federer also has great tennis skills to go with the physical skills. Nadal is kind of the anti Agassi, relying for more heavily on physical and mental skills, with just average to good tennis skills for a top player.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
martinezownsclay said:
I think it might be Borg honestly. I have heard amazing things about some scientific data that proves his athleticsm. Things like his endurance capacity, court coverage data, etc...
Click to expand...

Quite possible, you can't go wrong with any of the poll choices here, they're all amazing athletes (Fed included).

I read things about Borg (his amazing heart rate for example) but he was still way before my time. In terms of sheer display of athleticism on court, no player I've ever seen vowed me as much as Nadal.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Karma Tennis said:
Bah! Skinny Soderling using only his brains smashed Peak Nadal at Roland Garros.



Borg was doing it with a skinny right arm, 70 square inch hoop and a full bed of natural gut.



I agree. You should stop suggesting that Rafa's success is primarily a function of his athletic prowess. Rafa has an incredible tennis brain. He often finds the solution to win tennis matches. It's just that he finds the problem of Novak a lot more difficult than anyone he has encountered previously.

The one thing I do not like about Rafa though is that he is a sore loser when he is beaten by anyone other than Roger, Novak or Andy. I have never heard him refer to any defeated opponent as being dis-respectful. However, he often calls players who beat him "dis-respectful". (Kyrgios for example)
Click to expand...

Nadal hits with maximumj power from the baseline
Nadal hits with maximum Revolutions/Topspin on his strokes
Nadal has the maximum footspeed in Tennis and covers the court like Superman, in his peak he used to

So yes, he is a superior athlete to your boy from Serbia, deal with it !
 
skaj

skaj

Legend
martinezownsclay said:
I think he only has very few votes due to who he is up against on the poll. I think nearly everyone would agree Federer is a top 5 overall athlete in the Open Era. Only Nadal, Djokovic, Borg, and Sampras could be argued as possibly better. He is definitely still a physical beast in his own right. He is not like Agassi, an average to just good athlete for a top player, who thrived almost exclusively off his tennis skills. Mind you Federer also has great tennis skills to go with the physical skills. Nadal is kind of the anti Agassi, relying for more heavily on physical and mental skills, with just average to good tennis skills for a top player.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of players who are/were better athletes physically.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
zagor said:
Quite possible, you can't go wrong with any of the poll choices here, they're all amazing athletes (Fed included).

I read things about Borg (his amazing heart rate for example) but he was still way before my time. In terms of sheer display of athleticism on court, no player I've ever seen vowed me as much as Nadal.
Click to expand...

martinezownsclay said:
I think it might be Borg honestly. I have heard amazing things about some scientific data that proves his athleticsm. Things like his endurance capacity, court coverage data, etc...
Click to expand...

Why 26 yr old Borg lost a 100M race to Gretzky and 42 yr old Pele ?
 
M

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
Sunny014 said:
Why 26 yr old Borg lost a 100M race to Gretzky and 42 yr old Pele ?
Click to expand...

Well I do think soccer players are the best athletes of all, but yes a 42 year old Pele is surprising. I don't think Borg would be the fastest tennis player ever over a short sprint, but his endurance and as an overall athlete he is pretty amazing.
 
Bumbaliceps

Bumbaliceps

Professional
Sunny014 said:
No, he somehow came close to Pele but it seems he was behind Pele, he never came second, it is surprising that borg was struggling vs a 16 yr older pele who was in his 40s
Click to expand...
Just pause at 13 seconds and then just think about how you actually saw, with your own eyes, that he was the last in this race as your first stated, when he is actually second, and it is pretty easy to see that. How can you see so differently, that is beyond belief, you are the most ultimate biased person, on the whole planet lol.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Bumbaliceps said:
Just pause at 13 seconds and then just think about how you actually saw, with your own eyes, that he was the last in this race as your first stated, when he is actually second, and it is pretty easy to see that. How can you see so differently, that is beyond belief, you are the most ultimate biased person, on the whole planet lol.
Click to expand...

Borg is not as great as you guys are making him to be.

He struggles vs Pele and is light years behind Gretzky and you want to convince me that he came 2nd :D Even if he somehow groveled and came 2nd sneaking past by a millimeter, it is shameful for him to struggle in the race vs someone 16 yrs older, LOL
He wasn't even ranked 1 for more than 100 odd weeks and I am being told that the rankings were biased, LOL....

Hype regarding Borg lives on :D
 
Bumbaliceps

Bumbaliceps

Professional
Sunny014 said:
Borg is not as great as you guys are making him to be.

He struggles vs Pele and is light years behind Gretzky and you want to convince me that he came 2nd :D Even if he somehow groveled and came 2nd sneaking past by a millimeter, it is shameful for him to struggle in the race vs someone 16 yrs older, LOL
He wasn't even ranked 1 for more than 100 odd weeks and I am being told that the rankings were biased, LOL....

Hype regarding Borg lives on :D
Click to expand...
I don't hype him, I don't think he is that fast. I am just putting you in front of your stunning, incredible bullsheet and dishonesty.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Bumbaliceps said:
You are so stupid, there is a good margin between him and Pele
Click to expand...

Look in the mirror, you will see a really stupid guy roaming around with Arnold's pic on a tennis forum

Here, check this video in slow motion, from another angle

They are both together or Pele is ahead, the point is a 26 yr old should not be behind 42 yr old for most of the race and then end up looking like together? lol

 
Bumbaliceps

Bumbaliceps

Professional
Sunny014 said:
Look in the mirror, you will see a really stupid guy roaming around with Arnold's pic on a tennis forum

Here, check this video in slow motion, from another angle

They are both together or Pele is ahead, the point is a 26 yr old should not be behind 42 yr old for most of the race and then end up looking like together? lol

Click to expand...
Pause at 53 second, you can see Borg crossing the line with an advance of about 1 meter.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Bumbaliceps said:
Pause at 53 second, you can see Borg crossing the line with an advance of about 1 meter.
Click to expand...

That guy who came last in not Pele, it is Sugar Ray.

Pele beat Borg, this is at 0.53

You cannot even distinguisn between Pete and Sugar Ray and you are lecturing on Borg's athleticism ?

244449516_2669788563167624_8131252258870062329_n.jpg
 
Bumbaliceps

Bumbaliceps

Professional
Sunny014 said:
That guy who came last in not Pele, it is Sugar Ray.

Pele beat Borg, this is at 0.53

You cannot even distinguisn between Pete and Sugar Ray and you are lecturing on Borg's athleticism ?

244449516_2669788563167624_8131252258870062329_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Borg is ahead on that pic, just look at his trunk, not the legs, I know Borg is running in lane 1 lol. Not 1 meter as I said though, but definitely ahead.
By the way, you said that Borg finished last.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
Bumbaliceps said:
Borg is ahead on that pic, just look at his trunk, not the legs, I know Borg is running in lane 1 lol. Not 1 meter as I said though, but definitely ahead.
By the way, you said that Borg finished last.
Click to expand...

Sugar Ray was last but I don't count him in that, the main thing he Borg lost to a 16 yr older Pele :eek:
Borg struggled a lot in this race and he should have smoked Pele but see what happened, even if you argue that in the end Borg somehow pulled a millimeter ahead still that sort of margin vs Pele after lagging whole race is equal to losing.

Gretzky however did what was expected of him, totally smoked the field.

Borg's athleticism might have been tremendous in rallies and endurance, but not in explosiveness, I guess he could be a marathon runner but not a sprinter.
 
R

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Sunny014 said:
I agree, evolution has to be natural selection and the way you described about passing of genes and weaker species dying etc etc

But what do we call this difference in genetics across decades ?

Clearly in Atheletics there is big difference in times of 90s sprinters and Bolt who was born like 10 years after them

You can see Maurice Greene's times vs Tyson Gay's, they are both in the 5'10 range, Maurice was the 1st sprinter ever to run (legally) under 9.8 seconds and Gay ran under 9.7 seconds as his best, so what is making the difference?

Something like that is in place between the guys born in late 70s/early 80s between those born in late 80s as well..... athletes are all just stronger and better, if send Sampras to 2010s then guys born 15 years after him would smoke him in all 4 slams.

It matters a lot in these GOAT debates, we quickly sent 2011 Novak to 2006 to play Federer or to 1995 to play Sampras but such comparisons r wrong, infact 2015 Novak is sent to 2006 to play Federer on Grass but then the new grass was just 5 years old in 2006, so the whole field had been playing on it for just 5 years, while in 2015 the new grass could be said to be 14 years old, so the whole field has been playing that long, so a champion of 2015 has certain advantages over the champion of 2006, so is it right to send such players backwards to prove superiority ?

If we want a 2015 vs 2006 clash then IMO you should send 2012 version of Novak to 2003 so that he and Federer can against each other for 3 years until they clash in 2006 for you to make your observations on who is better. Still it woouldn't be fair taking into account how game has changed but at least here it will be fairer than sending someone from 2015 to directly 2006
Click to expand...

you don’t see genetic differences in 5 years
You might see differences in who plays your sport (more taller players or better athlete)
You might see population changes in phenotype due to environmental factors (people getting fatter, etc). One such example you might find interesting is the Flynn effect
but it’s not genetics that differentiates people born 1985 vs 1990 vs 1995
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
RelentlessAttack said:
you don’t see genetic differences in 5 years
You might see differences in who plays your sport (more taller players or better athlete)
You might see population changes in phenotype due to environmental factors (people getting fatter, etc). One such example you might find interesting is the Flynn effect
but it’s not genetics that differentiates people born 1985 vs 1990 vs 1995
Click to expand...

There is something about the period 85-88, many beasts have been born in this period.

Bolt
Ronaldo
Phelps
Nadal
Novak
Messi
Eddie Hall
Hapthtor

Some others names too in other sports who were at the peak.
 
R

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Sunny014 said:
There is something about the period 85-88, many beasts have been born in this period.

Bolt
Ronaldo
Phelps
Nadal
Novak
Messi
Eddie Hall
Hapthtor

Some others names too in other sports who were at the peak.
Click to expand...

either something environmental or randomness. In tennis I think it has to do with coming up during the last major time of transition (court speed, technology, money in the game, tournament changes)
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
RelentlessAttack said:
either something environmental or randomness. In tennis I think it has to do with coming up during the last major time of transition (court speed, technology, money in the game, tournament changes)
Click to expand...

Last person under 6 foot to win a slam was Gaudio in 04?

Once upon a time 6'6 was seen a height not suitable for winning slams but now Medvedev has won a slam, more will come from guys like him of that range.

So where is Tennis heading?
 
T

TennisLurker

Professional
the big 3 were all fantastic athletes with fantastic movement, even Federer in his prime would return every shot with a very annoying slice

that athleticism is the difference between the career of djokovic and the career of berdych. Berdych had top 3 groundstrokes and power, but not top 3 movement. The same happened to Davenport, she could hit as hard as the William sisters and much cleaner than them, Agassi level ball striking talent, but she couldn't move like the William sisters.
 
T

TennisLurker

Professional
Sunny014 said:
Last person under 6 foot to win a slam was Gaudio in 04?

Once upon a time 6'6 was seen a height not suitable for winning slams but now Medvedev has won a slam, more will come from guys like him of that range.

So where is Tennis heading?
Click to expand...

I think the talent pool of people as tall as Medvedev who can move as well as Medvedev, and not have short careers because of injuries, is very small.
 
Sunny014

Sunny014

Legend
TennisLurker said:
I think the talent pool of people as tall as Medvedev who can move as well as Medvedev, and not have short careers because of injuries, is very small.
Click to expand...

It will increase in coming years
Those days of 6'0 or 6'1 tall ATGs might be over
Even 6'2 seems short now

6'3 and above is the norm, someone like ********** at 6'4 seems ideal
 
T

TennisLurker

Professional
Sunny014 said:
It will increase in coming years
Those days of 6'0 or 6'1 tall ATGs might be over
Even 6'2 seems short now

6'3 and above is the norm, someone like ********** at 6'4 seems ideal
Click to expand...

I don't like that kind of prediction, in the late 90s we all thought the future of tennis were people like Philippoussis or Greg Rusedski.
These giants are the lesser successors of the top 3 (and Murray and Wawrinka). Not a next step of evolution of the sport improvement. Perhaps Alcaraz will be number 1 in a couple of years.
 
R

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Sunny014 said:
Last person under 6 foot to win a slam was Gaudio in 04?

Once upon a time 6'6 was seen a height not suitable for winning slams but now Medvedev has won a slam, more will come from guys like him of that range.

So where is Tennis heading?
Click to expand...

that’s not genetic there were always tall people they might just not have been playing tennis
 
M

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
TennisLurker said:
the big 3 were all fantastic athletes with fantastic movement, even Federer in his prime would return every shot with a very annoying slice

that athleticism is the difference between the career of djokovic and the career of berdych. Berdych had top 3 groundstrokes and power, but not top 3 movement. The same happened to Davenport, she could hit as hard as the William sisters and much cleaner than them, Agassi level ball striking talent, but she couldn't move like the William sisters.
Click to expand...

Mostly agree, but I think you are overrating Berdych some. Cilic doesn't move any better than him but still won a slam, made 3 slam finals, and when playing his best at Wimbledon and U.S Open in 2014 crushed Berdych. Wawrinka doesn't move much or any better than Berdych, and has had a far better career. I don't know if I would agree Berdych has either top 3 groundstrokes or power when you think of an era with Del Potro, Berdych, Cilic, numerous others, as well as the Big 3 and Big 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rografnovand
Rafael Nadal is possibly the greatest athlete ever in tennis' - Rod Laver
Replies
1
Views
243
Backspin1183
Backspin1183
Backspin1183
'Rafael Nadal is possibly the greatest athlete ever in tennis' - Rod Laver
2 3
Replies
108
Views
5K
Tennis_Hands
T
clayqueen
Is Nadal the greatest athlete in history?
2 3 4
Replies
160
Views
3K
SonnyT
S
F
Federer is not the greatest athlete ever...
2
Replies
81
Views
4K
bonga77
B
DoubleDeuce
ESPN: Is Federer the Greatest Athlete?
2 3 4
Replies
187
Views
14K
Fabresque
Fabresque
Top