I have noticed that a lot of people in the forum rank Borg above Federer, even though Fed has won more GS and has been 4 straight years #1, so I guess it's because winning the channel slam weights heavily in the list of acomplishments. So, if Nadal wins it two years in a row, where would you rank him among the all time greats?
Where would Nadall rank among the greats if he wins RG-Wimb again this year?
- Thread starter Pirao
- Start date
Where do you rank him now? Is he in your top 10?
deltox
Hall of Fame
what people seem to forget is the GOAT list isnt made by pure achievments. It also requires Longevity with the reign. TIME TIME TIME is the only thing NADAL needs and to maintain his current status and rate for id guess, maybe this year plus 2 more then he can be named with the greats .
Why do you need longevity? If Nadal manages more in a short career, than say, Agassi in his long career, he would be undoubtedly above him. I fail to see how longevity is an issue.
deltox
Hall of Fame
being a "flash in the pants" does NOT give you all time great honors. it gives you the best of that year or those 2 years.
besides sampras and fed have how many slams? and how many does nadal have if he sweeps this year.. thats right, still not enough.
he had a good last year, looks like a great this year.. one more year and he would start climbing the list imo. and in anyones opinion cept nadal fans.
and comparing nadal to agassi is bad news.. agassi is the one player who undoubtably had more mental toughness than nadal. besides Agassi's career is the clear exception to any tennis rule of thumb known. Winning a Slam at 31 today is laughable. there is and will only ever be one agassi
he needs at least 5 more slams from now to be considered GOAT in my humble opinion. he cannot gain those in this calendar year.
Last edited:
I think Borg's achievement for winning the FO & Wimbledon titles are different.
Nowadays, I think it's harder to win the FO & USO titles because there are more polarised.
deltox
Hall of Fame
comparing players from different time periods is always hard. competition levels vary, surfaces change, and conditions vary. first thing to do for nadal to be considered for the GOAT is to beat his present day rival (Fed) not on court but in the record books. Til then, there is no use to compare past players because of inconsistancies.
Wow,wow,wow, I'm not even talking about Nadal being GOAT yet, just about his place among other greats that are not in contention for GOAT (Agassi, Edberg, MacEnroe and company).
However, since we're talking about it, if Nadal sweeps all the slams this year, undoubtedly he would have a strong case for GOAT even if he doesn't win anymore slams (unlikely since he will probably win a lot more FO). Even Laver himself said that winning a True Grand Slam today is more impressive than when he did it. Likewise, he would be ranked amongst the truely elite if he wins 10 or more slams, having a winning record against another great like Federer and all.
batz
G.O.A.T.
In my top 10 right now? For sure, I'd have him in there. He's behind His Rodness, Borg, Pete and Roger at the moment, but I'd probably have him in at 5 - given that he's now the only guy to have won slams on 3 surfaces and his channel slam. Yep, top 5 for me at the moment.
deltox
Hall of Fame
o well in that case nadal is a baller, hes in the top 10 for sure. try to understand on this forum NADAL for goat threads appear 3 times daily.
i would give him the #6-7 spot easily. i really liked what agassi did for tennis with his career longevity so he might sneak in ahead of him on my list until nadal pulls off another slam other than the french.
But, even the great Nadal is against strong odds for a grand slam completion this year.
deltox
Hall of Fame
that statement i can agree with.
oberyn
Professional
This is where you lost me. A hallmark of Agassi's early career was a perceived lack of mental toughness. This definitely improved in his later years, but he still wasn't ever regarded as one of tennis' mentally toughest players.
deltox
Hall of Fame
ten year career, pains and wear and tear on the body, ups and downs of winning and defeat. how many u know that could continue to compete at his level or play with all that?
A
AprilFool
Guest
Being newer than myself, you should know that a majority of people here do not consider Borg to be a greater player than Federer. I don't think that Borg believes that, either.
Welcome!
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
He'd be on par with Agassi imo. He'd have more memorable better records than agassi but agassi would have slightly more masters series and all 4 grand slams. One thing in rafa's favour considerably is he defeated his no.1 rival one of the greatest of all time in his era unlike Agassi.
CyBorg
Legend
I can tell you why I rate Borg above Federer:
- Borg as Federer was the top player in tennis for four years straight from 1977 to 1980 (I would say co-#1 in 1977); Roger had a more dominant stretch as #1, though
- but, Borg put together more years as as a top-three player
- Borg had no apparent surface weakness
- Borg did not have a losing record against a rival player
So, in terms of quality years, it comes down to:
Borg (8 )
#1 (4) - 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980 (1977 - three-way tie with Vilas and Connors)
#2 (2) - 1976, 1981
#3 (2) - 1974, 1975
Federer (6)
#1 (4) - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
#2 (2) - 2003, 2008
It's close, but Roger still has a bit of work to do to eclipse Borg, in my opinion.
Counting majors is of course a waste of time, because Borg didn't play the Australian.
As for Nadal, he just put together his first year as #1 in 2008. Another one this year would greatly bolster his stock. He's already proven on grass and clay - where he's lacking is on fast hardcourt surfaces, especially indoors.
Thanks.
Well, I assure you that there are quite a few people who rate Borg above Federer, in the threads about the GOAT in the former pro players section. But maybe they're the minority?
Yes, but it was his decision not to play AO, so I don't know, I think it should be counted against him, I guess you disagree.
Nadal I think doesn't really need to prove himself at the USO (he has already won other fast hardcourt tournaments) to be in GOAT contention if he ends up with 10+ slams. After all Borg never won the USO either, and he's in contention. But of course, it would be nice, and I hope he does win the USO, as I hope Fed wins the FO someday (but that's another story).
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Your post is a joke. Agassi's talent was always there. He could always get himself to the top if he could get himself together. It's not his mental toughness that allows him to be at the top. Andre is just an extremely talented player who wasn't mentally focus for about half of his career. I would NEVER compare his mental state to the great Nadal.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
:lol:
10 chars.
deltox
Hall of Fame
everyone is weak at times and agassi had his.. you think its not mentally tough to push yourself at 30 like you do at 18-20. or 22-24.. doesnt matter, the fact is that he overcame the troubled times. you are not giving him credit for his whole career and only focusing on a weak moment or two
welcome2petrkordaland
Professional
very interesting post.
i gotta disagree on federer having a weak surface and borg not having one. fed has multiple clay titles and more than a handful of clay finals, where he has lost to the beast that is rafael nadal on clay. borg, otoh, never won a us open, despite (like you point out) being at the top of the game-top 3- for 8 years. overall, fed is pretty dominant on clay except when he plays rafa.
i do agree, however, with your view of the Aussie Open back then; it just wasn't considered a huge slam, like today. borg would 've won a handful, presumably, not to mention the fact that bjorn retired at 25.
Cyborg, your emphasis on being at the top for long time (not just 3 or 4 years) has got me thinking. If Federer continues to lose points and falls to #3 or #4 or worse within the next 4 months, his GOAT status will become jeopardized to my mind, at least.
Like you say, Borg was top 3 for 8 years. Federer was throwing rackets and tantrums until 2003 and although still #2 in early 2008, looks to be headed downward, as he can't beat the de facto top 3. See 0-10 record against Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, in last 10 meetings.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
The only reason why Agassi still had the motivation to play after 30 is because he basically wasted half of his career chasing girls and stuff.
I knew that would get brought up too. It doesn't matter when he retired, it was his decision to do so, as was his decision not to play the AO. Maybe he would have won some AO and maybe he would have won more majors if he hadn't retired at 25, but the fact is, he did retire.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Interesting question. He would have 8 slams at the age of 23 and the FO, W double for 2 years in a row. I would say he's on track to being another Borg. It would only be a matter of time before he hits 10 slams then.
oberyn
Professional
Hmm. If the above is how you're defining "mental toughness", please consider this.
If you total up the number of years that Agassi was truly focused on the sport, I think you'll find plenty of guys who demonstrated it to that same degree without the same periods of interruption.
By his own admission, Agassi had more gas in the tank in his early 30s than a his peers because of the fact that he wasn't as focused early on. Agassi did reinvent himself in his late 20s. While I applaud him for this, the fact remains that most of his peers never had to do so.
I'm taking nothing away from Agassi's talent or his contribution to the game, but I think it's a distortion to describe him as the epitome of mental toughness.
M
Morrissey
Guest
I think you summed it up perfectly. If Agassi had given it his all and dedicated himself from the very beginning to the max he would not have lasted as long as he did. That late resurgence was in a way to make up for all the years he sort of coasted and didn't give it his true potential. Luckily he was healthy enough to see it last the way it did.
He would be way ahead of Agassi IMO. Agassi never dominated on any surface. Agassi never truly was the dominant player at any piont in time let alone two straight years (Agassi wasnt really the dominant player in 1999 with his horrible head to head with Sampras). Agassi never would have sustained the level of consistent performance over 5 years that Rafa has.
I would argue he could even be ahead of Federer if he pulled that off, and Federer is miles ahead of Agassi all time.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
1. Sampras
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Fed
5. Lendl
6. Connors
7. Nadal
2. Laver
3. Borg
4. Fed
5. Lendl
6. Connors
7. Nadal
This is true but you could at any given point evaluate a minimum point he has already reached even if he did nothing else the rest of his career couldnt you?
GameSampras
Banned
Top 20's somewheres of of all time. 8 slams will give him some consideration. But the USO would give much more consideration of placing him higher.
Why is Lendl so high? If Nadal won RG-Wimb again he would be over Lendl for sure.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Lendl has a much longer span of domination than Nadal at this moment, and he holds the record of reaching 19 Grand Slam finals! Nadal still needs more time to prove that he can be as dominant as Lendl even IF he actually wins RG-Wimby this year.
gj011
Banned
Yes you could, but I really don't see a point. You are comparing apples and oranges, i.e. someone full career with Nadal's part of career. Makes no sense to me.
Nice example is helloworld above who is talking about Lendl's "span of domination" as an argument of putting him before, which would be quite valid, but we actually have no idea what that span will be for Nadal.
Last edited:
Nadalfan89
Hall of Fame
GOAT is a relative term that can't be determined by any one thing. Nadal has won a GS on all 3 surfaces. He's won a channel slam and he's done it all a relatively young age. He's 13-6 against the current top GOAT contender and that's also something that needs to be taken into account.
Rod Laver is statistically the GOAT but I'de like to see Laver in his prime play Nadal right now. It would be a double bagel massacre because times have changed and so has the game.
I think if Nadal wins the USO, he'll be a definite contender for GOAT.
Rod Laver is statistically the GOAT but I'de like to see Laver in his prime play Nadal right now. It would be a double bagel massacre because times have changed and so has the game.
I think if Nadal wins the USO, he'll be a definite contender for GOAT.
Fair enough, but I actually think that winning finals means more than reaching more. Plus the 2 consecutive channel slams would weight heavily on Nadal's favour.
oberyn
Professional
I think the original question is a very good one.
I'd still place Nadal a rung below Borg, Federer, Laver, and Sampras (listed in purely alphabetical order).
I'd place him equal with Lendl and ahead of Agassi and Connors.
I think the tie-breaker(s) would depend upon some incredibly subjective factors (not that the whole idea of rankings these guys doesn't depend upon subjective preferences).
Particularly because Nadal's career isn't finished, I'd give Lendl an edge in terms of longevity.
I'd give Nadal the edge in terms of peak performance. Here's why:
Lendl made it to the finals of RG and Wimbledon in consecutive years and finished #1 in the world for 3 straight years (4 overall).
Nadal would have made it to the finals of RG and Wimbledon for 4 straight years, winning both in the same year for 2 straight years. Nadal would have finished #1 in the world for 2 straight years.
Nadal would be the only man in history to win 5 straight French Opens.
He'd be the only man to win slams on 3 different surfaces in the same calendar year (I do not count rebound ace as a separate surface, so no, I don't think that Wilander pulled off this feat in 1988 or that Federer did it in 2004, 2006, and/or 2007. There have been 2 slams played annually on hardcourts since 1988.)
If you're giving out points for precociousness, I think he'd also beat out Borg (by a few days) as the youngest man to reach 8 slams.
I'd still place Nadal a rung below Borg, Federer, Laver, and Sampras (listed in purely alphabetical order).
I'd place him equal with Lendl and ahead of Agassi and Connors.
I think the tie-breaker(s) would depend upon some incredibly subjective factors (not that the whole idea of rankings these guys doesn't depend upon subjective preferences).
Particularly because Nadal's career isn't finished, I'd give Lendl an edge in terms of longevity.
I'd give Nadal the edge in terms of peak performance. Here's why:
Lendl made it to the finals of RG and Wimbledon in consecutive years and finished #1 in the world for 3 straight years (4 overall).
Nadal would have made it to the finals of RG and Wimbledon for 4 straight years, winning both in the same year for 2 straight years. Nadal would have finished #1 in the world for 2 straight years.
Nadal would be the only man in history to win 5 straight French Opens.
He'd be the only man to win slams on 3 different surfaces in the same calendar year (I do not count rebound ace as a separate surface, so no, I don't think that Wilander pulled off this feat in 1988 or that Federer did it in 2004, 2006, and/or 2007. There have been 2 slams played annually on hardcourts since 1988.)
If you're giving out points for precociousness, I think he'd also beat out Borg (by a few days) as the youngest man to reach 8 slams.
thalivest
Banned
Borg would also crush Federer if they were in their primes together I believe. Federer could never play with Borg from the baseline, but Borg was better at the net and a better all court player too. He was also far tougher mentally, and a much smarter player. Federer would have the serving edge but that is it.
:shock: Of course winning finals means more than reaching them, but Nadal is still 2 slams and 11 finals short of matching Lendl's statistics.
oberyn
Professional
The original question is a hypothetical regarding Nadal's rank if he were to pull off another RG-Wimbledon double this year.
If that happened, Nadal and Lendl would have the same number of slams wins.
Oh, right. My bad. In that case, I'd have to put them on about equal footing.
GameSampras
Banned
Ehhhh.. Im not sure I would put Nadal with Andre.. just yet. Nadal still needs the USO IMO and some longevity. 22 years of age and less than a year at number 1 under his belt isnt enough to solidify Nadal now that Im thinking about it. Though he is on the right track. He definitely needs some longevity I think to complete the deal. 1-2 years just wont cut it IMO. Hes been more dominant than Andre but Andre won slams into his 30s, and has the career slam. Depending on what side of the fence you are on, you can argue either way. Its not set in stone where Nadal will be IMO, since he could just stop winning slams all together, and then people will renig on some of the things they say about him. Just as they did with Fed. Fed was on his way to being GOAT getting the slam record, and he was stopped dead in his tracks. Now look at him. 27 years old and he cant even win a tourney.
We should save this talk for a few years down the road with Nadal. Alot can change. I want to see some longevity at number 1 from Nadal. Not just 1-2 or 3 dominant years and then what could be mediocre ones after that
We should save this talk for a few years down the road with Nadal. Alot can change. I want to see some longevity at number 1 from Nadal. Not just 1-2 or 3 dominant years and then what could be mediocre ones after that
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
