Where would Nadall rank among the greats if he wins RG-Wimb again this year?

clayman2000 · Apr 8, 2009

GameSampras said:
No but... You have to figure Nadal will eventually lose sometime at RG if he continues to play. Borg still has more French's than Nadal. Thats kind of the point.. Its too early to tell. We would have to see how Nadal is going to be in the coming years when his peak ends and he is still trying to stay in the mix. Nadal wont stay at this level for ever. It will be interesting to see how he responds as he gets older and he isnt quite as good as he is now. How he can respond to that will say alot. Fed for instance, isnt responding very well and he was on his way to GOAT status just 2 years ago

For once I agree with you

Right now Borg > Nadal on clay. But if Nadal wins the French this year i think Nadal would take a slim edge.

Also, its hard to compare Federer on 2 years ago to Nadal on clay, as Federer had been pushed at Wimby, and guys like Djokovic were breaking through. To this day, no one has pushed Nadal at RG.

tudwell · Apr 8, 2009

JoshDragon said:
I also think Tilden doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the GOAT list since tennis has changed too much in 80 years. I was born in the 90s, so I wasn't around to see Tilden but I saw this video of Fred Perry and it quickly influenced my opinion of the players from that time period:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBeGjfCvCIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezUDvIzZmWg&NR=1

It's also strange to see no jump serves, in these videos. Apparently players from the distant past, mainly used toe serves, which usually results in a slight loss of power.

There used to be a rule that one foot had to remain on the ground at all times throughout the serve.

Bud · Apr 8, 2009

JoshDragon said:
I also think Tilden doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the GOAT list since tennis has changed too much in 80 years. I was born in the 90s, so I wasn't around to see Tilden but I saw this video of Fred Perry and it quickly influenced my opinion of the players from that time period:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBeGjfCvCIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezUDvIzZmWg&NR=1

It's also strange to see no jump serves, in these videos. Apparently players from the distant past, mainly used toe serves, which usually results in a slight loss of power.

IIRC, jump serves were illegal at a certain time in the past.

I'm sure someone will correct me on this, if I'm mistaken :twisted:

Just saw your post, Tudwell.

deltox · Apr 8, 2009

tudwell said:
There used to be a rule that one foot had to remain on the ground at all times throughout the serve.

that rule would have sucked.

watched tennis since early 80s and never knew bout it.. when did it come into effect?

JoshDragon · Apr 8, 2009

clayman2000 said:
For once I agree with you

Right now Borg > Nadal on clay. But if Nadal wins the French this year i think Nadal would take a slim edge.

Also, its hard to compare Federer on 2 years ago to Nadal on clay, as Federer had been pushed at Wimby, and guys like Djokovic were breaking through. To this day, no one has pushed Nadal at RG.

Not sure about Borg being greater than Nadal on clay right now. I think they're about even. Remember, Borg lost the 1976 US Open to Jimmy Connors (which was played) on clay. Connors defeated Borg in 4 sets. If Nadal had been able to play the 2006 US Open on clay there's no question he would have won (even if it was har-tru.)

deltox: I think that rule might have been from a long time ago. Possibly before Laver and Rosewall.

FEDERER>buttpicker. · Apr 8, 2009

nadal will never be a great.

pc1 · Apr 8, 2009

Guys, I just want to put the Fred Perry comment in perspective. I think anyone would agree that Serena or Venus Williams can belt the tennis ball extremely hard and with tremendous spin on both serve and groundstrokes. From what I gather I believe Fred Perry was at least 6 feet tall and was extremely fast and with a wood racket he could hit the ball very hard for the times.

I'll give you all this, in watching the video of Perry and I have seen other clips of him, he does look awful.

My question to all of you is this, do you think a male player in the 1930's over six feet tall, very fit and in shape couldn't hit the ball much much harder than either of the Williams sisters with today's rackets? I think Venus can serve over 120 mph so I have a hunch Perry just may be able to do that if he was young and alive. My point is that you have to take racket technology and rules into account before you look at old tennis clips. Perry would probably double bagel the Williams sisters and I wouldn't be surprised if he was extremely competitive with today's players because he would have used our rackets and the same training techniques of today.

Just something to think about.

egn · Apr 8, 2009

JoshDragon said:
Not sure about Borg being greater than Nadal on clay right now. I think they're about even. Remember, Borg lost the 1976 US Open to Jimmy Connors (which was played) on clay. Connors defeated Borg in 4 sets. If Nadal had been able to play the 2006 US Open on clay there's no question he would have won (even if it was har-tru.)

deltox: I think that rule might have been from a long time ago. Possibly before Laver and Rosewall.

Borg won 6 opens..and Connors was no crappy clay courter. Nadal has lost to a fair share of guys on clay also..he lost to Federer at Hamburg, Coria at Monte Carlo, and even lost to Gaudio at Hamburg. Har-tru is not red clay and you can't be so sure of that. It is faster than red clay and some even say it plays kind of like a slow hardcourt so it could be possible he be beaten on it. THough we will never know and that does not make Borg any less of a clay courter. The guy won 6 French Opens..He was an amazing clay court player it is hard to say which one is better, but lets let Nadal's career finish first.

helloworld · Apr 8, 2009

egn said:
Borg won 6 opens..and Connors was no crappy clay courter. Nadal has lost to a fair share of guys on clay also..he lost to Federer at Hamburg, Coria at Monte Carlo, and even lost to Gaudio at Hamburg. Har-tru is not red clay and you can't be so sure of that. It is faster than red clay and some even say it plays kind of like a slow hardcourt so it could be possible he be beaten on it. THough we will never know and that does not make Borg any less of a clay courter. The guy won 6 French Opens..He was an amazing clay court player it is hard to say which one is better, but lets let Nadal's career finish first.

Not to mention that he would have won a few more French Open if he didn't retire at 25. Unlike grass where McEnroe was a challenge, Borg was peerless on clay.

veroniquem · Apr 8, 2009

egn said:
Borg won 6 opens..and Connors was no crappy clay courter. Nadal has lost to a fair share of guys on clay also..he lost to Federer at Hamburg, Coria at Monte Carlo, and even lost to Gaudio at Hamburg. Har-tru is not red clay and you can't be so sure of that. It is faster than red clay and some even say it plays kind of like a slow hardcourt so it could be possible he be beaten on it. THough we will never know and that does not make Borg any less of a clay courter. The guy won 6 French Opens..He was an amazing clay court player it is hard to say which one is better, but lets let Nadal's career finish first.

Nadal's only loss to Coria was when he was 16 years old and his last loss to Gaudio was when he was 18!! Here is a list of all the players Borg lost to on clay when he was 17 and 18 years old (have fun with it): Guillermo Vilas, Barry Phillips-Moore, Jose Higueras, Manuel Orantes, Raul Ramirez, Stan Smith, Adriano Panatta, Paul Gerken, Tadeusz Nowicki, Ilie Nastase, Corrado Barazzutti, Jimmy Connors and Rod Laver. Still think Rafa is worse? Lol.
Also at 22 years old, Borg had won 3 RG and non consecutive. Rafa has won 4 consecutive RG.
The records show that Nadal is better on clay than Borg at least at this point in time.

grafselesfan · Apr 8, 2009

helloworld said:
Not to mention that he would have won a few more French Open if he didn't retire at 25. Unlike grass where McEnroe was a challenge, Borg was peerless on clay.

Well I sort of see what you are saying but isnt that more an argument against him than for him. It is not like he was stopped by stabbing, personal tragedy, or even injury. He stopped due to burnout. I dont see why he would get any extra consideration for that, if anything it is a mark against him to get burnt out and retire at only 25 when he could have won more if he had fought on.

Pirao · Apr 9, 2009

grafselesfan said:
Well I sort of see what you are saying but isnt that more an argument against him than for him. It is not like he was stopped by stabbing, personal tragedy, or even injury. He stopped due to burnout. I dont see why he would get any extra consideration for that, if anything it is a mark against him to get burnt out and retire at only 25 when he could have won more if he had fought on.

^^ Exactly. However, Borg still has more FO than Nadal, however, if Nadal wins FO this year, and then 1 FO more, it would be even more impressive than what Borg did IMO. And if Nadal wins 6 straight FO (or even more), there would be no question about who is the best claycourter.

Deleted member 21996 · Apr 9, 2009

deltox said:
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?

you are thinking Safin\Coria\Hewitt et. al. by any chance?

vtmike · Apr 9, 2009

JoshDragon said:
No. If you were to use that logic, it would mean that Nadal is an untested player because he wins slams against crappy players. That doesn't mean that Nadal is bad, it just means that players like Federer and Murray aren't capable of actually testing him.

Well that's my point...Nadal has been untested = Nadal so far has not proved he is a good player...because all Nadal has done so far is beat a crappy player like Federer to win all his grand slams...So that means he is a "untested" ala crappy player

Pirao · Apr 9, 2009

vtmike said:
Well that's my point...Nadal has been untested = Nadal so far has not proved he is a good player...because all Nadal has done so far is beat a crappy player like Federer to win all his grand slams...So that means he is a "untested" ala crappy player

Lol what? Nadal is untested? Are you trolling my friend?

vtmike · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
oh come on... the field at Fed's peak was "weaker" than it is now. You going to deny that? Are u going to tell me young pre puberty Nadal, Kiefer, Baghaditis, Blake, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Davy etc in the quarters, semis, of finals of slams equates to a tougher draw than Murray, Djoker, Prime Nadal? I DONT THINK SO!!!

Try you're best and convince me. Its glaring obvious that today's top players are on another level compared to 3-5 years ago

By implying he had a weak playing field, got rigged draws, you are implying that he was a pathetic player who just got "lucky". Ok then I agree that Federer was a pathetic player...but you cannot have it both ways...If Fed was and is a pathetic player then so is Nadal...because all he had to do was beat this pathetic player time after time in GS finals!

Oh and btw what have today's "strong field" i.e. players like Murray and Djokovic done that that is so far ahead in terms of accomplishment as compared to GS winners, multiple GS finalists & former number 1's like Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi (who played his best tennis in his 30's according to him), Safin, Philippoussis...etc.?

He has also defeated Djokovic twice in grand slams & Murray once...All Murray has done is win Masters 1000 tournaments and all of a sudden he is one of the best in history? Djokovic has won only one slam, has a hundred physical conditioning problems, who breaks down in 80 F temperatures after playing two sets, and finally Federer who is pathetic player according to you........So you are trying to say these players are the strongest competition for a ranked 1 player and comprise of what you call a "strong playing field"?

vtmike · Apr 9, 2009

Pirao said:
Lol what? Nadal is untested? Are you trolling my friend?

See post above ^^^

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

vtmike said:
By implying he had a weak playing field, got rigged draws, you are implying that he was a pathetic player who just got "lucky". Ok then I agree that Federer was a pathetic player...but you cannot have it both ways...If Fed was and is a pathetic player then so is Nadal...because all he had to do was beat this pathetic player time after time in GS finals!

Oh and btw what have today's "strong field" i.e. players like Murray and Djokovic done that that is so far ahead in terms of accomplishment as compared to GS winners, multiple GS finalists & former number 1's like Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi (who played his best tennis in his 30's according to him), Safin, Philippoussis...etc.?

He has also defeated Djokovic twice in grand slams & Murray once...All Murray has done is win Masters 1000 tournaments and all of a sudden he is one of the best in history? Djokovic has won only one slam, has a hundred physical conditioning problems, who breaks down in 80 F temperatures after playing two sets, and finally Federer who is pathetic player according to you........So you are trying to say these players are the strongest competition for a ranked 1 player and comprise of what you call a "strong playing field"?

While Murray has yet to win a slam, and Djoker is struggling now it still doesnt negate the fact IMO that both he and Murray, along with Nadal now are better competition and better players than ANY PLAYER Fed played for that 4 year time span. Murray's time has not yet come but its almost there, and Djoker is flat out better than Hewitt, Roddick, and the rest were. Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition and are just plain better players than those of a few years ago. Im not saying Fed's field was 04-07 was WEAK. Just not as strong as many different eras of the past. Most will never equate 04-07 to being some memorable field of great players and its not just because Fed made it mook so easy. Yes Im saying Murray, Djoker, Prime Nadal present better competition than the others. You havent convinced me yet Hewitt, Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Safin, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, etc provided any better competition.

pc1 · Apr 9, 2009

egn said:
Borg won 6 opens..and Connors was no crappy clay courter. Nadal has lost to a fair share of guys on clay also..he lost to Federer at Hamburg, Coria at Monte Carlo, and even lost to Gaudio at Hamburg. Har-tru is not red clay and you can't be so sure of that. It is faster than red clay and some even say it plays kind of like a slow hardcourt so it could be possible he be beaten on it. THough we will never know and that does not make Borg any less of a clay courter. The guy won 6 French Opens..He was an amazing clay court player it is hard to say which one is better, but lets let Nadal's career finish first.

I agree. Let's see what happens at the end of Nadal's career. Incidentally the thread is about how does Nadal rank if he wins the FO And Wimbledon this year. Nadal of course would move up the all time list but he's not close to Borg yet.

Here's Borg's resume-Five Wimbledons and Six French and he has won about 100 tournaments. The ATP tour records are inaccurate. About an 85 to 86 percent lifetime winning percentage which is the highest of all time, Nadal currently is at around 82 percent and 33 titles with six majors. Spin the numbers in any way you want, he's behind Borg as of now.

But Nadal is improving every year and I wouldn't rule out Nadal eventually catching and passing Borg. I greatly respect his game.

pc1 · Apr 9, 2009

Actually one approach to the question would be this, if Nadal won the French and Wimbledon, who would probably still rank above him?

I'll throw out a few names, Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Federer, Tilden. Now Nadal would jump ahead of a number of them in total majors like McEnroe but Mac has I believe 77 or more tournament victories, Year End Masters titles, WCT titles so I think Mac would still be ahead etc. Connors has over 100 tournament victories and eight majors so I believe Connors would still be ahead, same with Lendl. I don't want to go over the achievement of every player here but I think it's reasonable that these guys would still rank over Nadal.

Laver would be tough for anyone to catch, about 200 tournaments won, two Grand Slams plus a Pro Slam in 1967 and about 19 total majors. Possible but very hard but that's why Laver is called the GOAT by many. The resume is ridiculous.

cknobman · Apr 9, 2009

I like how Nadal fans like to diminish Feds achievements by saying hes played against a weak field and then have the nerve to boast about how great Nadal is on clay when the reality is Nadal has won all of his French Opens, Wimbledon, and AO(not to mention his masters titles) playing against the exact same field. LOL

Of course the argument from a Nadal fan would be that the field has gotten immensely stronger the last two years and that is why Fed has struggled. Well, Nadals first couple of French Opens were against a weak field still so we shouldnt count those when we speak of his greatness then, correct? If the logic applies to Fed how can it not apply to Nadal?

And true Nadal does have a huge lead in the h2h against Federer and that does not look good on Feds greatness but I dont think its an apples to apples comparison. Fed is Nadals elder of what 5-6 years? So while they have played each other and can be considered same generation I feel its more of a "similar" generation and not same. Same would be Nadal and Fed being close to same age much like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

vtmike · Apr 9, 2009

cknobman said:
I like how Nadal fans like to diminish Feds achievements by saying hes played against a weak field and then have the nerve to boast about how great Nadal is on clay when the reality is Nadal has won all of his French Opens, Wimbledon, and AO(not to mention his masters titles) playing against the exact same field. LOL

Of course the argument from a Nadal fan would be that the field has gotten immensely stronger the last two years and that is why Fed has struggled. Well, Nadals first couple of French Opens were against a weak field still so we shouldnt count those when we speak of his greatness then, correct? If the logic applies to Fed how can it not apply to Nadal?

And true Nadal does have a huge lead in the h2h against Federer and that does not look good on Feds greatness but I dont think its an apples to apples comparison. Fed is Nadals elder of what 5-6 years? So while they have played each other and can be considered same generation I feel its more of a "similar" generation and not same. Same would be Nadal and Fed being close to same age much like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

That was exactly my point in post below...Apparently the weak field logic only applies to Fed and not Nadal :roll:

vtmike said:
By implying he had a weak playing field, got rigged draws, you are implying that he was a pathetic player who just got "lucky". Ok then I agree that Federer was a pathetic player...but you cannot have it both ways...If Fed was and is a pathetic player then so is Nadal...because all he had to do was beat this pathetic player time after time in GS finals!

Oh and btw what have today's "strong field" i.e. players like Murray and Djokovic done that that is so far ahead in terms of accomplishment as compared to GS winners, multiple GS finalists & former number 1's like Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi (who played his best tennis in his 30's according to him), Safin, Philippoussis...etc.?

He has also defeated Djokovic twice in grand slams & Murray once...All Murray has done is win Masters 1000 tournaments and all of a sudden he is one of the best in history? Djokovic has won only one slam, has a hundred physical conditioning problems, who breaks down in 80 F temperatures after playing two sets, and finally Federer who is pathetic player according to you........So you are trying to say these players are the strongest competition for a ranked 1 player and comprise of what you call a "strong playing field"?

Cesc Fabregas · Apr 9, 2009

If Nadal wins another French-Wimby double this year to go along with his Australian he bursts into the top 10 for me.

vtmike · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
While Murray has yet to win a slam, and Djoker is struggling now it still doesnt negate the fact IMO that both he and Murray, along with Nadal now are better competition and better players than ANY PLAYER Fed played for that 4 year time span. Murray's time has not yet come but its almost there, and Djoker is flat out better than Hewitt, Roddick, and the rest were. Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition and are just plain better players than those of a few years ago. Im not saying Fed's field was 04-07 was WEAK. Just not as strong as many different eras of the past. Most will never equate 04-07 to being some memorable field of great players and its not just because Fed made it mook so easy. Yes Im saying Murray, Djoker, Prime Nadal present better competition than the others. You havent convinced me yet Hewitt, Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Safin, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, etc provided any better competition.

Why does it not negate the fact that they are better competition? You are only speculating that the field is better, and this argument is backed up by nothing!
YOU want the current field now be better because Fed is not winning, but in reality the field was as strong as the current one...Fed just made it look weak which is very difficult (almost impossible) for you to accept...

You proved my point with this statement below:-

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

So the same argument can be made for Fed just by replacing Nadal's name with Federer in your post,

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Federer has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

The field looks better now because Federer has declined...If he was in his prime form, he still would have been winning 3 slams a year...and If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

egn · Apr 9, 2009

veroniquem said:
Nadal's only loss to Coria was when he was 16 years old and his last loss to Gaudio was when he was 18!! Here is a list of all the players Borg lost to on clay when he was 17 and 18 years old (have fun with it): Guillermo Vilas, Barry Phillips-Moore, Jose Higueras, Manuel Orantes, Raul Ramirez, Stan Smith, Adriano Panatta, Paul Gerken, Tadeusz Nowicki, Ilie Nastase, Corrado Barazzutti, Jimmy Connors and Rod Laver. Still think Rafa is worse? Lol.
Also at 22 years old, Borg had won 3 RG and non consecutive. Rafa has won 4 consecutive RG.
The records show that Nadal is better on clay than Borg at least at this point in time.

You completly missed my point..it was saying that saying yadayada lost to this person on clay doesn't make an arguement since everyone loses on any given day. If you would have pay attention to the post I was countering he was trying to say Nadal is better because Borg lost to Connors on har-tur (not even red clay.)

tudwell · Apr 9, 2009

vtmike said:
Why does it not negate the fact that they are better competition? You are only speculating that the field is better, and this argument is backed up by nothing!
YOU want the current field now be better because Fed is not winning, but in reality the field was as strong as the current one...Fed just made it look weak which is very difficult (almost impossible) for you to accept...

You proved my point with this statement below:-

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

So the same argument can be made for Fed just by replacing Nadal's name with Federer in your post,

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Federer has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

The field looks better now because Federer has declined...If he was in his prime form, he still would have been winning 3 slams a year...and If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

Ahem...That's a nice bit of ownage right there, vt. Good work.

Nadalfan89 · Apr 9, 2009

What is it about Nadal that people find him so hard to give credit to? He's won 6 GS, on all surfaces, including being undefeated at RG by the age of 23. I can't even concieve how he can't be included in the top10 atleast. Based on pure talent, he's deffinitely top 5.

vtmike · Apr 9, 2009

tudwell said:
Ahem...That's a nice bit of ownage right there, vt. Good work.

Thank you!

Bud · Apr 9, 2009

Nadalfan89 said:
What is it about Nadal that people find him so hard to give credit to? He's won 6 GS, on all surfaces, including being undefeated at RG by the age of 23. I can't even concieve how he can't be included in the top10 atleast. Based on pure talent, he's deffinitely top 5.

You are correct.

egn · Apr 9, 2009

vtmike said:
Why does it not negate the fact that they are better competition? You are only speculating that the field is better, and this argument is backed up by nothing!
YOU want the current field now be better because Fed is not winning, but in reality the field was as strong as the current one...Fed just made it look weak which is very difficult (almost impossible) for you to accept...

You proved my point with this statement below:-

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

So the same argument can be made for Fed just by replacing Nadal's name with Federer in your post,

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Federer has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

The field looks better now because Federer has declined...If he was in his prime form, he still would have been winning 3 slams a year...and If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

Give this man a cigar that right there is pure ownage and one of the best things I have read in a while.

egn · Apr 9, 2009

Nadalfan89 said:
What is it about Nadal that people find him so hard to give credit to? He's won 6 GS, on all surfaces, including being undefeated at RG by the age of 23. I can't even concieve how he can't be included in the top10 atleast. Based on pure talent, he's deffinitely top 5.

Okay he is not the first man to be amazing and since when has the age you accomplished something made you great. THe problem is what Nadal has done is amazing but it has been done before and he has to now do more to be great.

Mats Wilander, Andre Agassi and Jimmy Connors have all won slams on all 3 surfaces and all have more slams than Nadal. It took them longer but they still did it, sure Nadal gets the hey you did it fast but if he fails to do anything more what is your case for ranking them above them?

Borg had just as many slams as Nadal at 23

I give him credit but he needs to do a bit more, he has a lot of potential and he will probably pass most of the guys mentioned but he has to do more. He is playing against history and he needs to accomplish more than what they did. Every slam he wins now he goes shooting up the ranks, by the time he hits 8 he is easily top 5 of open era and in the the top 10 of all time, but guys like Laver, Rosewell, Sampras, Federer, Borg, Pancho Gonzales, Budge, Tilden etc. etc. have done so much more than him and that is just a handful. As of now cases can also be made for ranking Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi and a handful of others ahead of him. Nadal has talent and potential but so did a lot of the other past tennis players and as of right now Nadal has the potential to be one of the greatest ever, but he is not there yet, but my guess is he will be there very very soon.

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

vtmike said:
Why does it not negate the fact that they are better competition? You are only speculating that the field is better, and this argument is backed up by nothing!
YOU want the current field now be better because Fed is not winning, but in reality the field was as strong as the current one...Fed just made it look weak which is very difficult (almost impossible) for you to accept...

You proved my point with this statement below:-

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Nadal has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

So the same argument can be made for Fed just by replacing Nadal's name with Federer in your post,

Just because they havent won a crapload of slams yet, since Federer has been grabbing them does not mean they dont present better competition

The field looks better now because Federer has declined...If he was in his prime form, he still would have been winning 3 slams a year...and If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

Do u even watch tennis at all? The field only looks better because Fed is declined? Thats completely idiotic to think that. So I guess Nadal hasnt got better. I guess , Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin, Blake, Ljubcic, Gonzales, Baghaditis are better than Djoker, Murray, and Nadal.

Then answer me this wise guy. Where are is Fed's 04-06 crowd then outside of Nadal if Fed has declined? Where are they at the slams? Where is Blake, Safin, Gonzales, Baghaditis, Nalbandian? Shouldnt they be winning slams? If Fed has declined why the hell hasnt Roddick won 1 ****ing slam or Masters? Ohh yea because he he gets tallywhacked by Djoker, Murray, or Nadal because he just isnt that good? Thats right. Roddick ISNT THAT GOOD and he was Fed's main competition for most of that time outside of pre pubescent Nadal.

Where is Safin? Where is Gonzales? Ljubicic? Nalbandian? Baghaditis? Davydenko and down the line? Where have these guys been since Fed has declined? I dont see any slams there.. Do you? Shouldnt they be winning slams since Fed has declined? They should be winning multiple titles right?

Yea major ownage huh? More like crappty crap. Why would I argue with someone who prolly doesnt even watch tennis and cant see the glaring truth in their face.

Djoker, Murray, Nadal are better players any day of the week and twice on Sunday than Fed's 04-06 competition.

Nadalfan89 · Apr 9, 2009

^^ We have to take into account the competition at the time. Nadal had to accomplish all these feats while Federer and Djokavic were around. Can you say the same for Sampras?

vtmike · Apr 9, 2009

egn said:
Give this man a cigar that right there is pure ownage and one of the best things I have read in a while.

Thank you!

I will repeat this statement again for GameSamp because he seems to be getting into a hissy fit right now...and I don't like repeating the same thing over and over again...

vtmike said:
If you still disagree then you just don't want to believe it no matter what because you think it makes Sampras look like second best in some way which is untrue IMO...because everyone has their own favourites and their own GOAT...So it shouldn't really matter what everyone else thinks does it?

Calm down buddy...Sampras is the best in the history of the universe...does that make you happy? you want a cookie now?

Oh and btw how do you know I don't watch tennis?

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

Nadalfan89 said:
^^ We have to take into account the competition at the time. Nadal had to accomplish all these feats while Federer and Djokavic were around. Can you say the same for Sampras?

Has Nadal had to play on a fast wimbeldon surface thats not sodded to the moon? Has Nadal had to play on the most polarized conditions of surfaces? has Nadal had to play against great Serve-volleyers like Becker, Sampras, Edberg? Has Nadal had to play on indoor carpet? Has Nadal had to play against a strong clay field? Has Nadal had to face anyone with the mental toughness, attack, serve, volley of Sampras. Has Nadal had to play anyone with the game of Andre's with the master of dictation from the baseline?.... NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.

We can play these games all day.

egn · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
Then answer me this wise guy. Where are is Fed's 04-06 crowd than outside of Nadal if Fed has declined? Where are they at the slams? Where is Blake, Safin, Gonzales, Baghaditis, Nalbandian? Shouldnt they be winning slams? If Fed has declined why the hell hasnt Roddick one 1 ****ing slam or Masters? Ohh yea because he he gets tallywhacked by Djoker, Murray, or Nadal because he just isnt that good? Thats right. Roddick ISNT THAT GOOD and he was Fed's main competition for most of that time outside of pre pubescent Nadal.

Yea major ownage huh? More like crappty crap. Why would I argue with someone who prolly doesnt even watch tennis and cant see the glaring truth in their face.

Djoker, Murray, Nadal are better players any day of the week and twice on Sunday than Fed's 04-06 competition.

Where are they, they are all pushing 30, they are old. They are not in top form anymore. They spent their prime getting their butts kicked. Roddick hasn't won a slam now because he can't compete with the youth. He is not as good as he was in 03-05 yet he is stably in the top 5 but not a slam threat because he is not at best form. Where are the rest of those guys most of them are what 26-30, guys whose primes started before most of the top 10 today even were close to professional level. Nalby made his slam final in 01 hit his prime in 03-06. In 2001 a lot of the top was probably between the ages of 13-17. How many guys even win slams past 25. It's called changing of the guard. The new young guys are replacing the old guns...that is why they are not winning slams.

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

egn said:
Where are they, they are all pushing 30, they are old. They are not in top form anymore. They spent their prime getting their butts kicked. Roddick hasn't won a slam now because he can't compete with the youth. He is not as good as he was in 03-05 yet he is stably in the top 5 but not a slam threat because he is not at best form. Where are the rest of those guys most of them are what 26-30, guys whose primes started before most of the top 10 today even were close to professional level. Nalby made his slam final in 01 hit his prime in 03-06. In 2001 a lot of the top was probably between the ages of 13-17. How many guys even win slams past 25. It's called changing of the guard. The new young guys are replacing the old guns...that is why they are not winning slams.

Oh stop making excuses. Players HAVE won slams at older ages. Youre telling me Roddick has gotten so decrepid he hasnt been in postitions to win titles and slams? Hell he still capable of beating most of the field today. Who does he usually lose to? Yea one of the 3. Murray, Djoker, or Fed. whats Nalbandian been doing? Hes been off the radar so long he should be ready to win slams. Hell Andre managed to even into his 30s. Its not like Nalbandian should be burned out. The guy hasnt done crap in his career to speak of

And yet this other idiot poster above me wants to tell me of how much better Roddick (among others) is better than Djoker, Murray or Prime Nadal.:? Or how Nalbandian is so much better. HogWASH. Roddick at ANY AGE is not better than Djoker, Murray, or Nadal

egn · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
Oh stop making excuses. Players HAVE won slams at older ages. Youre telling me Roddick has gotten so decrepid he hasnt been in postitions to win titles and slams? Hell he still capable of beating most of the field today. Who does he usually lose to? Yea one of the 3. Murray, Djoker, or Fed.

And yet this idiot above me wants to tell me of how much better Roddick is than Djoker, Murray or Prime Nadal.:?

Roddick has been winning titles and beats Murray. Nobody was saying ROddick is better than prime nadal, but most are challenging the claim that Djoker and Murray are better than all of them. You are talking about a bunch of guys who in their prime were not winning the slams but losing to the top guy in slams. They were the Djokovic and Murray types but Federer was that far ahead of them. Roddick loses to more than just those 3, he is on a comeback as of recently and actually might be in slam contention but last year he was not in that good form and was losing to a bunch of players. Nalby and most of the other guys you mentioned were hanging out in the top 10 making deep runs in slams losing to each other and Fed and Nadal. Similar to what Djokovic and Murray have done with the current top 10 bunch, no offense Murray on the court does not compare to Safin at his top of his game and is very similar to in prime Hewitt.

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

Im done arguing about this. Because definitely Fed fans do not want to accept the truth of the way it is. Competition has gotten much better (especially at the top) than it was 4 or 5 years ago and this no doubt has affected Roger is various ways. Lack of confidence the most of finally having opposition that have the talent and do not back down to Roger. Thus why he has turned into what he has. If Roger was 30 I would understand such a "decline" at 27 years old and only beginning his career really at least the meaningful part at 22 is not that long of a career really when u look at the other greats.

So keep on believing Blake, Davydenko, Ljubcic, Hewitt, Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Kiefer, etc are better than Prime Nadal Murray, Djoker and the only reason competition is better because Fed has declined.. and I will laugh

egn · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
Im done arguing about this. Because definitely Fed fans do not want to accept the truth of the way it is. Competition has gotten much better (especially at the top) than it was 4 or 5 years ago and this no doubt has affected Roger is various ways. Lack of confidence the most.

So keep on believing Blake, Davydenko, Ljubcic, Hewitt, Roddick, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Kiefer, etc are better than Prime Nadal, Murray, Djoker

You amazingly ignore all posts made nobody is saying anyone is better than Nadal...people are saying that guys like Murray and Djokovic have not proven to be any better than the others please leave the arguement you were not doing much of it anywhere you were whining and cursing and throwing out insults in attempts to prove your points. Only one player has truly affected Federer and it is Nadal as he is the only one that can consistently beat him at the biggest events and that has been the same way since 2005.

Also pre prime Nadal 2005-2007 is far better than Murray and Djokovic now.

Breaker · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
Oh stop making excuses. Players HAVE won slams at older ages. Youre telling me Roddick has gotten so decrepid he hasnt been in postitions to win titles and slams? Hell he still capable of beating most of the field today. Who does he usually lose to? Yea one of the 3. Murray, Djoker, or Fed. whats Nalbandian been doing? Hes been off the radar so long he should be ready to win slams. Hell Andre managed to even into his 30s. Its not like Nalbandian should be burned out. The guy hasnt done crap in his career to speak of

And yet this other idiot poster above me wants to tell me of how much better Roddick (among others) is better than Djoker, Murray or Prime Nadal.:? Or how Nalbandian is so much better. HogWASH. Roddick at ANY AGE is not better than Djoker, Murray, or Nadal

Roddick beat Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal all last year.

He has beaten Djokovic both times they have played this year, yet lost to Federer both times, he is weak competition when playing Federer but gets stronger when playing Djokovic I guess?

Djokovic has only been stopped by Nadal at Roland Garros, Murray stopped by him ONCE at Wimbledon. Explain what happened the last time these guys played Federer at a slam, were they weak competition then?

Blake has always been trouble for Nadal in their matchups, he just fits into the back pocket of Federer and Hewitt. EVEN THEN he beat Federer last year, is that because Blake has suddenly become better competition as he has fallen from the top 8?

Using Baghdatis as an example is weak, that's like saying one of Nadal's contemporary rivals is Verdasco, it's a stale comparison as Baghy had one good year and then had injury problems.

Out of form Safin DESTROYED Djokovic at Wimbledon last year and then lost to Federer in straight sets, Safin was weak when he played Federer but good competition when he played Djokovic I supposed.

Gonzalez has made ONE top 10 finish in his 2007 season where he crushed Nadal on the way to the Aussie Open final before losing to Federer, another case of Nadal facing a strong opponent whilst Federer faced a weak one I suppose.

Ljubicic was a good player, obviously not the best but a good one nonetheless, made his way to a Roland Garros semifinal and even then only was at number three for a short while, but was always a top quality player in his best year of 2006.

Hewitt was at the top of the game for 5 years, Roddick has been up there for8, Djokovic has spent TWO years at the top and Murray only one so far.

You are vastly underating Roddick, Hewitt, and others from his generation in a weak attempt to make a point.

veroniquem · Apr 9, 2009

egn said:
You completly missed my point..it was saying that saying yadayada lost to this person on clay doesn't make an arguement since everyone loses on any given day. If you would have pay attention to the post I was countering he was trying to say Nadal is better because Borg lost to Connors on har-tur (not even red clay.)

My response was to your sentence that said "Nadal has lost to his fair share of players on clay" and then went on to mention Coria and Gaudio, which is really ridiculous given how young Nadal was when he lost to those guys and that was my point.
My point was also to point out that Borg lost to more players on clay than Rafa ever has and worse players too (regardless of the kind of clay).

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

egn said:
You amazingly ignore all posts made nobody is saying anyone is better than Nadal...people are saying that guys like Murray and Djokovic have not proven to be any better than the others please leave the arguement you were not doing much of it anywhere you were whining and cursing and throwing out insults in attempts to prove your points. Only one player has truly affected Federer and it is Nadal as he is the only one that can consistently beat him at the biggest events and that has been the same way since 2005.

Also pre prime Nadal 2005-2007 is far better than Murray and Djokovic now.

Pre primed Nadal better than Djoker and Murray how? On what? Certainly not Hardcourts. Nadal was losing to stiffs like Ferrer and Youzhny on Hardcourts. Clay yes.. Grass maybe but Murray has yet to prove himself on those surfaces and I imagine he eventually will and Djoker isnt all that bad on grass. Hardcourts CERTAINLY NOT. Not even close. Both are light years ahead on Hardcourts NOW than Nadal was THEN.

vtmike · Apr 9, 2009

Breaker said:
Roddick beat Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal all last year.

He has beaten Djokovic both times they have played this year, yet lost to Federer both times, he is weak competition when playing Federer but gets stronger when playing Djokovic I guess?

Djokovic has only been stopped by Nadal at Roland Garros, Murray stopped by him ONCE at Wimbledon. Explain what happened the last time these guys played Federer at a slam, were they weak competition then?

Blake has always been trouble for Nadal in their matchups, he just fits into the back pocket of Federer and Hewitt. EVEN THEN he beat Federer last year, is that because Blake has suddenly become better competition as he has fallen from the top 8?

Using Baghdatis as an example is weak, that's like saying one of Nadal's contemporary rivals is Verdasco, it's a stale comparison as Baghy had one good year and then had injury problems.

Out of form Safin DESTROYED Djokovic at Wimbledon last year and then lost to Federer in straight sets, Safin was weak when he played Federer but good competition when he played Djokovic I supposed.

Gonzalez has made ONE top 10 finish in his 2007 season where he crushed Nadal on the way to the Aussie Open final before losing to Federer, another case of Nadal facing a strong opponent whilst Federer faced a weak one I suppose.

Ljubicic was a good player, obviously not the best but a good one nonetheless, made his way to a Roland Garros semifinal and even then only was at number three for a short while, but was always a top quality player in his best year of 2006.

Hewitt was at the top of the game for 5 years, Roddick has been up there for8, Djokovic has spent TWO years at the top and Murray only one so far.

You are vastly underating Roddick, Hewitt, and others from his generation in a weak attempt to make a point.

I agree! Good points!...I think someone just got owned AGAIN

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

And Djoker and Murray have affected Fed in someway. Dont kid yourself. Djoker was one of the few giving Fed problems way back in 07 and Djoker had yet to hit his stride. He whooped on Roger at the AO in 08.

Murray was the only player in 06 outside of Nadal who even got a match off Roger, while the rest of the field could barely even take a set.

The-Champ · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
Has Nadal had to play on a fast wimbeldon surface thats not sodded to the moon? Has Nadal had to play on the most polarized conditions of surfaces? has Nadal had to play against great Serve-volleyers like Becker, Sampras, Edberg? Has Nadal had to play on indoor carpet? Has Nadal had to play against a strong clay field? Has Nadal had to face anyone with the mental toughness, attack, serve, volley of Sampras. Has Nadal had to play anyone with the game of Andre's with the master of dictation from the baseline?.... NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.

We can play these games all day.

In five of Nadal's 6 slams he had to beat a GOAT contender in Federer. Sampras didn't have to beat anyone of Federer's level...oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention he beat a GOAT contender like Pioline twice in slams and Michael Chang (GOAT contender) who undoubtedly was in Laver's class right? Class dismissed!

Are you telling us, Agassi is better than Federer from the baseline?

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

The-Champ said:
In five of Nadal's 6 slams he had to beat a GOAT contender in Federer. Sampras didn't have to beat anyone of Federer's level...oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention he beat a GOAT contender like Pioline twice in slams and Michael Chang (GOAT contender) who undoubtedly was in Laver's class right? Class dismissed!

Are you telling us, Agassi is better than Federer from the baseline?

Nope not at all. But Andre's BH wouldnt competely deteriorate and breakdown against Nadal as Fed's always does. Andre at 35 took Nadal to 3 sets. Not to mention Andre could rattle Nadal's 2nd serve since Nadal is not that big of a server especially 2nd serve. Andre IMO would be a much deadlier matchup problem for Nadal than Fed has been.

GameSampras · Apr 9, 2009

The-Champ said:
In five of Nadal's 6 slams he had to beat a GOAT contender in Federer. Sampras didn't have to beat anyone of Federer's level...oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention he beat a GOAT contender like Pioline twice in slams and Michael Chang (GOAT contender) who undoubtedly was in Laver's class right? Class dismissed!

Are you telling us, Agassi is better than Federer from the baseline?

Tennis is alot about matchups in case u havent figured that out. Who is Nadal most likely going to have more problems with? A player like Edberg? A player like Becker? Goran? or Sampras? who could not only hurt players from the baseline but hold serve much easier and attack the net and put Nadal on the defensive. Or a style like Fed's game or Fed's mentality? Fed doesnt have much to rely on against Nadal. Fed's serve isnt as a big as Pete so he cant rely on free points like Pete could or hold serve as well. Fed's volley game is not all that impressive against Nadal since Fed is good but not great at the net. Certainly not a serve-volley marvel. If Fed's baseline game isnt clicking on all fronts, he doesnt have the Serve-volley attacking capablity to put Nadal on his toes. That should be apparent by now after all this time I thought.

If you listen to some of the analysts they tell how Fed should approach certain matches against Nadal. Serve big, attack. Who could do these things to their utmost? Yep Sampras. Obviously its more of an uphill to beat Nadal from the baseline as it is Attacking and serving big.

egn · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
Pre primed Nadal better than Djoker and Murray how? On what? Certainly not Hardcourts. Nadal was losing to stiffs like Ferrer and Youzhny on Hardcourts. Clay yes.. Grass maybe but Murray has yet to prove himself on those surfaces and I imagine he eventually will and Djoker isnt all that bad on grass. Hardcourts CERTAINLY NOT. Not even close. Both are light years ahead on Hardcourts NOW than Nadal was THEN.

Outside of slams 2005 and 2006 Nadal was making deep runs and winning titles. He won 4 Master Series in 2005 and one was on hardcourts and one was on indoor courts. He made the wimbledon finals in 2006 and 2007. He was number 2 in the world and his 2005-2007 season are better than any season Murray has put up to date, and 2006 is probably just as good as Djokovic 2008. Just because he is not better than them on hardcourts does not mean he was not better competition, he challenged Fed for a good portion of the year. Nadal in 2006 is better than Murray and Djokovic on clay and grass now. Nadal was not a piece of crap on hardcourts either he wasn't at his peak like he is now, but in the master series he was winning a couple hardcourt ones. I would rather have in my field if I was Fed Djoker and Murray now than pre prime Nadal because at least I would be crushing clay and grass.

edberg505 · Apr 9, 2009

GameSampras said:
Nope not at all. But Andre's BH wouldnt competely deteriorate and breakdown against Nadal as Fed's always does. Andre at 35 took Nadal to 3 sets. Not to mention Andre could rattle Nadal's 2nd serve since Nadal is not that big of a server especially 2nd serve. Andre IMO would be a much deadlier matchup problem for Nadal than Fed has been.

I'm gonna guess that you either a.) didn't see the matches between Agassi and Nadal or b.) didn't hear Agassi's interview after the matches. He basically said it was hard for him to get a read on Nadal's serve. He thought going in he would be able to take advantage of a weak second serve but that obviously didn't happen.

Where would Nadall rank among the greats if he wins RG-Wimb again this year?

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

New User

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Banned

Semi-Pro

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Banned

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Legend

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Similar threads