Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Feather · Dec 13, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
Nadal is 18-10 vs Federer, 8-2 in slams, 3-2 in slams off of clay (while 5-0 overall), 5-2 lifetime on outdoor hard courts, including 2-1 when peak Federer played 17-19 year old Nadal (and the only loss being a huge choke by 18 year old Nadal from 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 up). Head to head play is the absolute last place you want to go when comparing Federer to Nadal.

As for Federer in Djokovic if we declare Fedreer's prime as 2004-2007, and presume Djokovic's will end up being 2011-2014 or so, Federer was having mighty problems with and often losing to Djokovic in 08/09 when he was closer to his prime than Djokovic was. In fact their H2H from late 2007-end of 2009 was 4-4.

Don't start mentioning about choke. If we are to go that way, then Federer lost many matches due to that. In Rafa's biography, he himself said that Roger played well in 2006 or 2007 FO final but the pressure of winning all four majors got to him and he lost. NOTE : I was just quoting Rafa and I don't subscribe to that opinion.

Djokovic and Nadal benefitted a lot from the slowing down of surfaces and it hurt Roger the most. In Pete - Agassi rivalry Pete had the benefit of fast courts while Roger didn't have that. US Open and Wimbledon were slowed down. You saw what happened this year in Cincinnati when he bagelled the hard court king..

The thing is Roger lost two hard court matches each at Miami and AO, the slowest hard courts. Martina even said the AO is slower than clay courts. ATP is slowing down all surfaces, these homogenization helps Rafa and Djokovic a lot while playing Roger.

So Mr. Natural born Roger Federer hater, be objective for a change. I know its tough for you to do that. Just try !

abmk · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
abmk, I mentioned those players because all of them (and many more greats) were opponents of Laver. Laver had tougher competition than Federer had in his prime

except gonzalez was really wayyyyy past his best by the time he played laver at his prime ...... laver was also nearing the end of his prime when he played newk/roche ......

and rosewall had one of his worst years in 69 ( to a lesser extent in 67 ) , coincidence that laver had two of his best years then , I think not ....

so no, that argument of yours is a fail ....

roche is similar to safin in many aspects, both talented but massive underachievers and hampered by injuries ....

abmk · Dec 13, 2012

Feather said:
Don't start mentioning about choke. If we are to go that way, then Federer lost many matches due to that. In Rafa's biography, he himself said that Roger played well in 2006 or 2007 FO final but the pressure of winning all four majors got to him and he lost. NOTE : I was just quoting Rafa and I don't subscribe to that opinion.

Djokovic and Nadal benefitted a lot from the slowing down of surfaces and it hurt Roger the most. In Pete - Agassi rivalry Pete had the benefit of fast courts while Roger didn't have that. US Open and Wimbledon were slowed down. You saw what happened this year in Cincinnati when he bagelled the hard court king..

The thing is Roger lost two hard court matches each at Miami and AO, the slowest hard courts. Martina even said the AO is slower than clay courts. ATP is slowing down all surfaces, these homogenization helps Rafa and Djokovic a lot while playing Roger.

So Mr. Natural born Roger Federer hater, be objective for a change. I know its tough for you to do that. Just try !

yeah, this ...... enough said !

abmk · Dec 13, 2012

BobbyOne said:
Many of their matches were played when Federer was in his prime and Nadal and Djokovic not.

lol, the same goes the other way round ........

BobbyOne said:
I doubt that a peak Federer was stronger or at least equal than 2011 Djoker.

based on what exactly ?

he lost to federer @ 2011 FO while playing darn well ..has only one FO final to federer's 5 (including a win )

federer's best on grass is easily better than djoker's ..... you are seriously nuts if you think otherwise ...

and even @ his very best, he had to save MPs vs federer who was playing very good, but not great tennis @ the USO .....

federer at his peak was clearly better than that ...( 5 titles to 1 title for djoker there is just another factor supporting that )

so on clay, fast HC and obviously grass, prime-prime federer is better ...

the only place where you could realistically argue, djoker is better prime to prime is slow HC ....

abmk · Dec 13, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
Not to be contradictory, but just whom did Federer beat in all these slams? The best players money could buy?
Rosewall and Hoad had to beat giants from round 1, no easy matches like in the early rounds of a modern slam.

yes, but there is this tiny little matter that federer did the very same @ the YECs , beating the best players from the starting, 6 times, and 5 of those occasions he was unbeaten .......

abmk · Dec 13, 2012

pc1 said:
Federer may very well be better than Nadal indoors but I do also wonder if a partial reason is that Nadal is worn out by the end of the year.

It's really not an excuse because Federer's style is so smooth that he's less worn out but I would be curious what would happen if they played an important indoor match let's say around May or June. Anyone check the record for Nadal and Federer indoors around the middle of the year? I doubt if they have played any matches around that time since few indoor matches are played nowadays. I can't check now because I have some work to take care of.

the part in bold seriously annoys me ......... is there an iota of doubt in your mind that federer is a better player indoors than nadal ??????? seriously ?

nadal in 2011 took a month off to rest before the YEC .. Result >> a tasty bagel and a whopping 3 games won in a match that finished in nearly an hour ...

at most, if held in the middle of the season, nadal may be somewhat more competitive, but he still wouldn't win any of those 4 matches ....... federer is plainly much better indoors ... it isn't close ....

Feather · Dec 13, 2012

abmk said:
the part in bold seriously annoys me ......... is there an iota of doubt in your mind that federer is a better player indoors than nadal ??????? seriously ?

nadal in 2011 took a month off to rest before the YEC .. Result >> a tasty bagel and a whopping 3 games won in a match that finished in nearly an hour ...

at most, if held in the middle of the season, nadal may be somewhat more competitive, but he still wouldn't win any of those 4 matches ....... federer is plainly much better indoors ... it isn't close ....

This is also I don't like abmk

Imagine if you or I post like this:

Nadal may very well be better than Federer on clay but I do also wonder if that was because Federer was XYZ. XYZ could be any reason

Then you can have posters saying " Only in Planet TT Warehouse that ****s/*******s claim this. Fed fans are delusional. Fed fans are lovesick"

BobbyOne · Dec 14, 2012

Feather said:
If I hurt you, I am sorry about that..

Feather, Fine. Okay.

BobbyOne · Dec 14, 2012

TMF said:
No he doesn't. Rosewall won 8 slams(4 were from the amateur) while Federer won 17 modern slams. Rosewall won 15 pro majors but Federer won 6 WTFs. Overall, Fed's slams/WTFs have more value than all of Rosewall's 23 slams/pro majors combined.

TMF, If you count WTF, you also should count Rosewall's two WCT finals!

Thus Rosewall is still leading 25:23...

pc1 · Dec 14, 2012

pc1 said:
Federer may very well be better than Nadal indoors but I do also wonder if a partial reason is that Nadal is worn out by the end of the year. It's really not an excuse because Federer's style is so smooth that he's less worn out but I would be curious what would happen if they played an important indoor match let's say around May or June. Anyone check the record for Nadal and Federer indoors around the middle of the year? I doubt if they have played any matches around that time since few indoor matches are played nowadays. I can't check now because I have some work to take care of.

One think Federer does have in common with Rosewall is that both were ultra smooth strokers and moved very well with great footwork. I think that helps tremendously in prolonging a career because of the lesser wear and tear. Gonzalez was along those lines also. And all of these guys played a long time and accomplished a lot. I worry if Nadal can last with his style. Djokovic, while smoother imo than Nadal also plays a very grinding game and you also wonder if that will wear him down early.

abmk said:
the part in bold seriously annoys me ......... is there an iota of doubt in your mind that federer is a better player indoors than nadal ??????? seriously ?

nadal in 2011 took a month off to rest before the YEC .. Result >> a tasty bagel and a whopping 3 games won in a match that finished in nearly an hour ...

at most, if held in the middle of the season, nadal may be somewhat more competitive, but he still wouldn't win any of those 4 matches ....... federer is plainly much better indoors ... it isn't close ....

Feather said:
This is also I don't like abmk

Imagine if you or I post like this:

Nadal may very well be better than Federer on clay but I do also wonder if that was because Federer was XYZ. XYZ could be any reason

Then you can have posters saying " Only in Planet TT Warehouse that ****s/*******s claim this. Fed fans are delusional. Fed fans are lovesick"

But the thing is Feather I haven't really seen Nadal play Federer indoors except at the end of the year when he is worn. So that's why I put it that way. I assume Federer is better but I'm wondering if he's overwhelmingly better. This is just my thoughts on this and I really don't see why anyone should be annoyed. Can you deny Nadal's not at 100% often at the end of the year?

Nadal's record is 8-8 at the end of the year indoors. Is that really 100% Nadal? That's why I checked the stats. That's why I asked the question. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask. Was that a legit question to ask? I think so because of the record at the end of the year for Nadal. He was 0-3 one year at the WTF. The question was just asking what the actual difference in level of play indoors if both are healthy.

I also pointed out that Federer's style is so smooth that it takes very little out of him and that was good for him.

You guys are making too much out of nothing. I can't get over that you're annoyed by minor thing. Do I have to walk on eggshells every time I write anything about Federer?

Flash O'Groove · Dec 14, 2012

pc1 said:
But the thing is Feather I haven't really seen Nadal play Federer indoors except at the end of the year when he is worn. So that's why I put it that way. I assume Federer is better but I'm wondering if he's overwhelmingly better. This is just my thoughts on this and I really don't see why anyone should be annoyed. Can you deny Nadal's not at 100% often at the end of the year?

Nadal's record is 8-8 at the end of the year indoors. Is that really 100% Nadal? That's why I checked the stats. That's why I asked the question. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask. Was that a legit question to ask? I think so because of the record at the end of the year for Nadal. He was 0-3 one year at the WTF. The question was just asking what the actual difference in level of play indoors if both are healthy.

I also pointed out that Federer's style is so smooth that it takes very little out of him and that was good for him.

You guys are making too much out of nothing. I can't get over that you're annoyed by minor thing. Do I have to walk on eggshells every time I write anything about Federer?

The H2H is not the only thing which can help us assess who is better indoor. Federer seems to have more chance to win against his main rivals indoor than outdoor, while it is the contrary for Nadal (although he has a good resume too - 1 master 1000 titles, 2 master 1000 finals, 1 WTF finals, along two high quality semi against Fed).

pc1 · Dec 14, 2012

Flash O'Groove said:
The H2H is not the only thing which can help us assess who is better indoor. Federer seems to have more chance to win against his main rivals indoor than outdoor, while it is the contrary for Nadal (although he has a good resume too - 1 master 1000 titles, 2 master 1000 finals, 1 WTF finals, along two high quality semi against Fed).

Well I'm glad you told me. What are the exact stats for both when we compare both players indoors?

Edit-Just checked. It's very clear Federer has a far superior indoor record. And incidentally that's all I was asking. Who has the better record indoors and who is the better player when healthy? It's clear from the info that Federer is the clearly superior indoor player.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=mr

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=mr

So instead of getting so upset someone could have given me these facts and I would have accepted it and learned something. Yes I now believe Federer is the clearly better indoor player.

abmk · Dec 14, 2012

pc1 said:
Well I'm glad you told me. What are the exact stats for both when we compare both players indoors?

Edit-Just checked. It's very clear Federer has a far superior indoor record. And incidentally that's all I was asking. Who has the better record indoors and who is the better player when healthy? It's clear from the info that Federer is the clearly superior indoor player.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=mr

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=mr

So instead of getting so upset someone could have given me these facts and I would have accepted it and learned something. Yes I now believe Federer is the clearly better indoor player.

you follow tennis these days, right ?

anyone who follows tennis these days would/should have some idea about the records of the top 2 players of the generation on all surfaces ... I am not saying they should know all the details, just that they should have some idea .....

federer has been winning YEC after YEC and nadal has made only one final there ...

as you have now seen - and as those who've watched closely know, federer has won plenty more titles indoors - 20 to nadal's 1

federer's winning % is wayyy better - 80% to nadal's 64% ...its not in the same stratosphere .....

leaving aside the stats for a moment, isn't it wayyyy too obvious from their styles of play that federer's style of play translates far better onto indoor surfaces than nadal's ?

If you were someone whom I wasn't sure watched tennis these days or not, I would have given the stats .....but that isn't the case here ...

zagor · Dec 14, 2012

@Abmk

To be fair though, indoor season is not nearly what it used to be, they eliminated carpet and the only indoor masters tourney Paris is not taken seriously by the top players given how close it is to YEC, they mostly tank it in order to give their best effort at WTF.

That said, yeah Fed being better than Nadal indoors is as clear to me as Nadal being better on clay.

abmk · Dec 14, 2012

yeah, indoor season used to better earlier with more tournaments and faster surfaces....

regardless my point stands, anyone who follows tennis in recent times should be able to tell that federer is clearly superior to nadal indoors ....

pc1 · Dec 14, 2012

abmk said:
you follow tennis these days, right ?

anyone who follows tennis these days would/should have some idea about the records of the top 2 players of the generation on all surfaces ... I am not saying they should know all the details, just that they should have some idea .....

federer has been winning YEC after YEC and nadal has made only one final there ...

as you have now seen - and as those who've watched closely know, federer has won plenty more titles indoors - 20 to nadal's 1

federer's winning % is wayyy better - 80% to nadal's 64% ...its not in the same stratosphere .....

leaving aside the stats for a moment, isn't it wayyyy too obvious from their styles of play that federer's style of play translates far better onto indoor surfaces than nadal's ?

If you were someone whom I wasn't sure watched tennis these days or not, I would have given the stats .....but that isn't the case here ...

zagor said:
@Abmk

To be fair though, indoor season is not nearly what it used to be, they eliminated carpet and the only indoor masters tourney Paris is not taken seriously by the top players given how close it is to YEC, they mostly tank it in order to give their best effort at WTF.

That said, yeah Fed being better than Nadal indoors is as clear to me as Nadal being better on clay.

abmk said:
yeah, indoor season used to better earlier with more tournaments and faster surfaces....

regardless my point stands, anyone who follows tennis in recent times should be able to tell that federer is clearly superior to nadal indoors ....

Thanks Zagor.

And for goodness sake abmk, do I have to memorize every stat? First of all not all things said are necessarily true. I like to often check out the facts to say if what people write and say are true. People say Federer is better than Nadal indoors, fine and I've seen Federer crush Nadal indoors. But I haven't seen every Federer-Nadal match and perhaps there were a few I missed. I don't remember offhand the winning percentages on every surface of every player and if someone does I would suggest they get a life.

I really don't get why I have to answer for a simple thing I was wondering about.

I've seen sports enough to know what they say isn't always true.

urban · Dec 14, 2012

I think, Pc1 made a valuable point with pointing to the end season. The indoor season isn't, what is has been before in the 90s, many players don't focus on the Year end final, or skip the most important Bercy tournament alltogether or play both only because of bonus money. This year Djokovic was out to prove his Nr. 1 status, last year he seemed without real interest in the late season. Also it seemed that Nadal focussed more on the Davis Cup finals, and often played the last season flat, uninspired and listless. When he was motivated as in Madrid indoors, when he beat Ljubicic in 2005 or 2006, he could do some good things indoors. I remember some indoor exhibitions with Federer i think in 2009, when there certainly was no gulf between those players. I think Nadal won an indoor exo series 2-1.

abmk · Dec 14, 2012

pc1 said:
Thanks Zagor.

And for goodness sake abmk, do I have to memorize every stat? First of all not all things said are necessarily true. I like to often check out the facts to say if what people write and say are true. People say Federer is better than Nadal indoors, fine and I've seen Federer crush Nadal indoors. But I haven't seen every Federer-Nadal match and perhaps there were a few I missed. I don't remember offhand the winning percentages on every surface of every player and if someone does I would suggest they get a life.

I really don't get why I have to answer for a simple thing I was wondering about.

I've seen sports enough to know what they say isn't always true.

see again, what I said ... no one is expected to have seen every match b/w them or remember their details or stats ...

but as a broad detail, if you've seen them play indoors several times , you should know their general level of play there ....

again this is what I said :

abmk said:
anyone who follows tennis these days would/should have some idea about the records of the top 2 players of the generation on all surfaces ... I am not saying they should know all the details, just that they should have some idea .....

abmk · Dec 14, 2012

urban said:
I think, Pc1 made a valuable point with pointing to the end season. The indoor season isn't, what is has been before in the 90s, many players don't focus on the Year end final, or skip the most important Bercy tournament alltogether or play both only because of bonus money. This year Djokovic was out to prove his Nr. 1 status, last year he seemed without real interest in the late season. Also it seemed that Nadal focussed more on the Davis Cup finals, and often played the last season flat, uninspired and listless. When he was motivated as in Madrid indoors, when he beat Ljubicic in 2005 or 2006, he could do some good things indoors. I remember some indoor exhibitions with Federer i think in 2009, when there certainly was no gulf between those players. I think Nadal won an indoor exo series 2-1.

ljubicic in madrid was in 2005 and that remains nadal's only title indoors .....and it required a mighty struggle from rafa and a dip in level from ljubicic after being two sets to love up in the finals ...

I don't know what exactly you are trying to prove by bringing in the exo matches ..... they are just for fun/charity ..... that's it ....

these aren't the exos of the 70s or 80s where there was quite a lot of money on the line and players played them competitively ....

zagor · Dec 14, 2012

urban said:
The indoor season isn't, what is has been before in the 90s

That is a fair point.

urban said:
This year Djokovic was out to prove his Nr. 1 status, last year he seemed without real interest in the late season.

Novak also won YEC in 2008, was he out to prove his #3 status then? Last year he burned out physically after USO.

urban said:
Also it seemed that Nadal focussed more on the Davis Cup finals, and often played the last season flat, uninspired and listless.

The only year in which Fed beat Nadal and Spain was in the final was 2011 and that year Nadal took a month off before YEC (which should have been enough for him to rest up, he's not a fragile flower).

In 2010 Nadal seemed especially motivated to finally win WTF, still wasn't enough to beat Fed.

urban said:
When he was motivated as in Madrid indoors, when he beat Ljubicic in 2005 or 2006, he could do some good things indoors.

He barely scraped by Ljubicic (he had to come back from 0-2 down), if that's the best example of what "motivated" Nadal can do indoors it's still far from impressive (especially compared to Fed).

urban said:
I remember some indoor exhibitions with Federer i think in 2009, when there certainly was no gulf between those players. I think Nadal won an indoor exo series 2-1.

Exos? Seriously? You're gonna completely dismiss their official indoor meetings but use exos as proof that there isn't a gulf between those players indoors?

Roddick recently beat Murray in exo, I guess that proves he should come back on tour?

urban · Dec 14, 2012

So what?...

zagor · Dec 14, 2012

abmk said:
ljubicic in madrid was in 2005 and that remains nadal's only title indoors .....and it required a mighty struggle from rafa and a dip in level from ljubicic after being two sets to love up in the finals ...

I don't know what exactly you are trying to prove by bringing in the exo matches ..... they are just for fun/charity ..... that's it ....

these aren't the exos of the 70s or 80s where there was quite a lot of money on the line and players played them competitively ....

Well you know, I think Nadal's H2H with Fed on clay and his 7 FO titles are misleading when comparing him to Fed on clay, I think Fed was only really motivated to win FO in 2009, other years he gave a half arsed effort in the final in order to not waste energy for Wimbledon.

And boy, You could see how great Fed is on clay when motivated, he beat Soderling in 2009 FO final much easier than Rafa beat Ljubicic in 2005 Madrid F.

Regarding Nadal numerous victories over Fed in CC masters, the only time when Fed seemed to give a **** was in their 2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid finals and I didn't see no gulf between their CC abilities in those matches.

TMF · Dec 14, 2012

BobbyOne said:
TMF, If you count WTF, you also should count Rosewall's two WCT finals!

Thus Rosewall is still leading 25:23...

If you count WCT, then let's count Master Shields.

TMF · Dec 14, 2012

pc1 said:
But the thing is Feather I haven't really seen Nadal play Federer indoors except at the end of the year when he is worn. So that's why I put it that way. I assume Federer is better but I'm wondering if he's overwhelmingly better. This is just my thoughts on this and I really don't see why anyone should be annoyed. Can you deny Nadal's not at 100% often at the end of the year?

Nadal's record is 8-8 at the end of the year indoors. Is that really 100% Nadal? That's why I checked the stats. That's why I asked the question. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask. Was that a legit question to ask? I think so because of the record at the end of the year for Nadal. He was 0-3 one year at the WTF. The question was just asking what the actual difference in level of play indoors if both are healthy.

I also pointed out that Federer's style is so smooth that it takes very little out of him and that was good for him.

You guys are making too much out of nothing. I can't get over that you're annoyed by minor thing. Do I have to walk on eggshells every time I write anything about Federer?

Tennis doesn't last only half a year but a FULL year. If Nadal can't keep up becuase if he's tired or not 100%, that's his fault. I can assumed Federer is better than Nadal on clay had the clay season started in November. Maybe some other players could have some success against him In fact, had the clay season and the indoor season schedule were swapped, you can argue that would improved Fed's h2h against Nadal.

Bolded part. Fed won over 10+ indoors, 6 WTFs. Compare to Fed, Nadal is almost non-existent, added he's 0-4 against Fed. Like another poster have mentioned...questioning if Fed is better player on indoor is like questioning if Fed is better than Nadal on clay. LOL

forzamilan90 · Dec 14, 2012

^^^well said

pc1 · Dec 14, 2012

abmk said:
see again, what I said ... no one is expected to have seen every match b/w them or remember their details or stats ...

but as a broad detail, if you've seen them play indoors several times , you should know their general level of play there ....

again this is what I said :

Several times and every time at the end of the year so I can't necessarily judge normal 100% in shape level of year.

Also when you judge several times that still a very small sample. Let's say I saw two Nadal/Federer red clay matches and one was the 2008 French final. If that's the case Federer wouldn't look too good. But I also in a larger sample size know Federer's more competitive on red clay than that.

You know what's amazing about all this. All of this "to do" is about the fact I just wondered what Nadal's general level of play indoors if he's totally healthy. After all he is Nadal and you would figure he would play at a high level indoor.

Amazing. I think some people are a little sensitive.

Let's give another example, we all know Federer won Wimbledon last year over Murray on grass. We also know one month later Murray beat Federer easily to win the Olympics also at Wimbledon. If someone just watched that latter match you would think Federer wasn't nearly at the level of Murray on grass. However I also know that Federer may have been worn out by his long match against del Potro previously so you give Federer the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was off a bit.

I'll repeat myself, I was basically asking a question. It's really ridiculous to my mind that this causes such a reaction. I see reactions from TMF (of course), abmk and others when one of them could have just given me a link with some information posted by them. That would be end of story.

And TMF, did you read that I did write that Federer's smooth style allows him to play well at the end of the year? Read it again.

My thought was this, Nadal's a great player, one of the all time greats. With his great strokes you figure he should give anyone on any surface a tough battle even Federer. So I was wondering why he didn't give Federer much of a fight at the WTF. Everyone makes it sounds as though I'm attacking Federer. Read the post again. There were no attacks, simply wondering.

Overreaction here on a minor statement.:shock:

It's not worth writing about that nonsense anymore.

I've seen some of you ask some questions that I've answered in the past. Do I question why the person who asks the question doesn't know the answer? Of course not and yet someone assumes that by watching two matches indoors that I know the average level of play indoors between the two. Players are human and level of play varies.

Phoenix1983 · Dec 14, 2012

BobbyOne said:
You "don't care". Very ignorant.

Rosewall's four finals are not a blame. They underline how great this player is...

I put him at 6th all time, it's not that I discount his achievements in the amateur, pro or Open eras.

But come on, a man who never won Wimbledon, the game's biggest prize, in four final attempts, being GOAT?

That is a step too far, sir!

zagor · Dec 14, 2012

pc1 said:
Several times and every time at the end of the year so I can't necessarily judge normal 100% in shape level of year.

Also when you judge several times that still a very small sample. Let's say I saw two Nadal/Federer red clay matches and one was the 2008 French final. If that's the case Federer wouldn't look too good. But I also in a larger sample size know Federer's more competitive on red clay than that.

You know what's amazing about all this. All of this "to do" is that I just wondered what Nadal's general level of play indoors if he's totally healthy. After all he is Nadal and you would figure he would play at a high level indoor.

Amazing. I think some people are a little sensitive.

Let's give another example, we all know Federer won Wimbledon last year over Murray on grass. We also know one month later Murray beat Federer easily to win the Olympics also at Wimbledon. If someone just watched that latter match you would think Federer wasn't nearly at the level of Murray on grass. However I also know that Federer may have been worn out by his long match against del Potro previously so you give Federer the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was off a bit.

I'll repeat myself, I was basically asking a question. It's really ridiculous to my mind that this causes such a reaction. I see reactions from TMF (of course), abmk and others when one of them could have just given me a link with some information posted by them. That would be end of story.

And TMF, did you read that I did write that Federer's smooth style allows him to play well at the end of the year? Read it again.

My thought was this, Nadal's a great player, one of the all time greats. With his great strokes you figure he should give anyone on any surface a tough batte even Federer. So I was wondering why he didn't give Federer much of a fight at the WTF. Everyone makes it sounds as though I'm attacking Federer. Read the post again. There were no attacks, simply wondering.

Overreaction here on a minor statement.:shock:

It's not worth writing about that nonsense anymore.

I've seen some of you ask some questions that I've answered in the past. Do I question why the person who asks the question doesn't know the answer? Of course not and yet someone assumes that by watching two matches indoors that I know the average level of play indoors between the two. Players are human and level of play varies.

I have no beef with your post(s) on the issue, as I said indoor season isn't what it used to be, tennis season is structured differently these days and that might be one of the reasons Nadal's numbers aren't somewhat better indoors and/or that you weren't informed enough about his performance indoors in general and against Fed.

Urban's post on the other hand was one of the most biased posts I've ever read on TW, Rafa didn't try hard at WTF because of DC (even though Spain wasn't even in the final in 3 out of 4 losses against Fed), Novak only tried this year (even though he also won it in 2008 ), Fed won because all other top pros showed up solely to collect their paychecks, Nadal is Fed's equal indoors because he barely scraped past Ljubicic in Madrid and won some exos against Fed indoors (not even the kind of exos in which the winner is paid more but basically hit and giggle stuff) etc.

Seriously, I doubt even the most die hard Nadal fans would argue he's Fed's equal indoors (obviously considering they posses all the relevant data), I'm not talking about saying Nadal's better on slow outdoor HC (because he leads their H2H on that surface) or on grass (because he beat him in 2008 Wimbledon final and Fed won his Wimbledons in supposedly weak era), those are biased viewpoints but they atleast have something going for them (even if I disagree with logic behind those assertions) but once you have all the data comparing Nadal and Fed indoors is as straightforward as it can possibly be (short of Fed double bageling Nadal in their every indoor meeting or something and I doubt even that would have been enough).

You all look down upon TMF but seriously, I've yet to see him argue that Fed is Nadal's equal on clay or something.

zagor · Dec 14, 2012

TMF said:
Tennis doesn't last only half a year but a FULL year. If Nadal can't keep up becuase if he's tired or not 100%, that's his fault. I can assumed Federer is better than Nadal on clay had the clay season started in November. Maybe some other players could have some success against him In fact, had the clay season and the indoor season schedule were swapped, you can argue that would improved Fed's h2h against Nadal.

Bolded part. Fed won over 10+ indoors, 6 WTFs. Compare to Fed, Nadal is almost non-existent, added he's 0-4 against Fed. Like another poster have mentioned...questioning if Fed is better player on indoor is like questioning if Fed is better than Nadal on clay. LOL

I agree with the post overall but "only" 4 of Fed's YEC were won indoors though, IIRC 2003 and 2004 (in Houston) when he beat Agassi and Hewitt in the final respectively were played on outdoor HC.

Phoenix1983 · Dec 14, 2012

BobbyOne said:
It's interesting: You make concessions for Gonzalez (and I agree) but NOT for Rosewall who succeeded much more at W. than Pancho...

You have inadvertently revealed why I have given Gonzales more concessions than Rosewall for not winning W: because he wa clearly far from his best when he played there (hence his sub-par performances by his great standards).

Rosewall on the other hand won FOUR major titles between 1953-1956 and FOUR again between 1968-1972, so he was undoubtedly one of the world's very best at the time. Yet in those same years he could not win the Wimbledon finals in four attempts. This doesn't mean he is not a great player but it does mean he is not GOAT. Please understand that.

BobbyOne said:
The age issue works for Pancho but not for Muscles? Interesting view.

May I remember you that Rosewall reached his peak not at 21 but at about 25, 26? And he was about 6 (six) years past his prime when he beat Roche and lost to Newcombe in five after gruelling singles and doubles matches!

Is this so difficult to understand?

There is a tiny difference between Borg and Rosewall: Borg played US Open in his prime while Rosewall not...

Rosewall actually maintained a consistently high level for many years as you know. The definition of when his 'prime' was is debatable for me. Certainly there were only a few years when he was the top pro. In all likelihood he would have been beaten by Gonzales, Hoad (as he was in 1956) and later Laver at Wimbledon (as he was in the 1967 pro tournament). The fact is that Rosewall could not psychologically cope with winning at Wimbledon, whether an amateur or pro, so he never did.

You should content yourself with Rosewall beig the best never to win Wimbledon, rather than the GOAT. It would be better for your health.

PS. Calling him Muscles displays your fanboyism.

urban · Dec 14, 2012

I have no interest to discuss things with tennis gurus and fanboys here, but i am interested to talk some tennis issues with people who care a bit about tennis history. Now if some misrepresent and distort my statements, they should go on. I hope that some intelligent people here can read.

pc1 · Dec 14, 2012

zagor said:
I have no beef with your post(s) on the issue, as I said indoor season isn't what it used to be, tennis season is structured differently these days and that might be one of the reasons Nadal's numbers aren't somewhat better indoors and/or that you weren't informed enough about his performance indoors in general and against Fed.

Seriously, I doubt even the most die hard Nadal fans would argue he's Fed's equal indoors (obviously considering they posses all the relevant data), I'm not talking about saying Nadal's better on slow outdoor HC (because he leads their H2H on that surface) or on grass (because he beat him in 2008 Wimbledon final and Fed won his Wimbledons in supposedly weak era), those are biased viewpoints but they atleast have something going for them (even if I disagree with logic behind those assertions) but once you have all the data comparing Nadal and Fed indoors is as straightforward as it can possibly be (short of Fed double bageling Nadal in their every indoor meeting or something and I doubt even that would have been enough).

You all look down upon TMF but seriously, I've yet to see him argue that Fed is Nadal's equal on clay or something.

But I never thought Nadal was equal to Federer indoors. I just express surprise he really hasn't been that competitive and I was wondering what the reason was if there was any reason.

zagor · Dec 14, 2012

pc1 said:
But I never thought Nadal was equal to Federer indoors. I just express surprise he really hasn't been that competitive and I was wondering what the reason was if there was any reason.

Never said you do/did, I have no issue with your posts on the subject.

zagor · Dec 14, 2012

urban said:
I have no interest to discuss things with tennis gurus and fanboys here...

That's great to hear, revered historian and authority on all things concerning tennis but don't worry, I'll try my best to keep away from former pro inner sanctum from now on.

urban said:
Now if some misrepresent and distort my statements, they should go on. I hope that some intelligent people here can read.

There's nothing to misrepresent or distort, nor is my reading comprehension lacking, your post was very clear and drawing conclusions from it requires little to no effort:

-Federer beat Nadal at WTF because Nadal's mind was already in DC final even though Spain wasn't even in the final in 2006, 2007 and 2010.

-Federer wins at YEC where due to top players merely showing up to collect their paychecks and not giving any effort.

-Shining example of Nadal's tennis ability indoors when he's motivated is him barely scraping past Ljubicic in Madrid.

-Nadal winning indoor hit and giggle exos against Fed show there's no gulf in their tennis abilities indoors because Nadal presumably takes exos more seriously than their encounters at WTF with ranking points and prize money at stake.

-Novak gave full effort at WTF this year because he wanted to show who's #1, him giving full effort and winning WTF back 2008 being due to mysterious reasons we've yet to discern.

I think that about covers the points you made in your splendid post.

BobbyOne · Dec 14, 2012

zagor said:
Well you know, I think Nadal's H2H with Fed on clay and his 7 FO titles are misleading when comparing him to Fed on clay, I think Fed was only really motivated to win FO in 2009, other years he gave a half arsed effort in the final in order to not waste energy for Wimbledon.

And boy, You could see how great Fed is on clay when motivated, he beat Soderling in 2009 FO final much easier than Rafa beat Ljubicic in 2005 Madrid F.

Regarding Nadal numerous victories over Fed in CC masters, the only time when Fed seemed to give a **** was in their 2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid finals and I didn't see no gulf between their CC abilities in those matches.

zagor, I cannot accept the thesis that Federer gave a "half arsed effort" in French Open finals in order to not waste energy for Wimbledon.

Firstly Federer always tried to win the FO because he knew that a a win at Paris (especially against Nadal!) is important for his record and status as the possible GOAT.

Secondly you of course know that there is a gap of one month between Paris and London. So trying in ONE match does not waste energy for a tournament held one month later...

BobbyOne · Dec 14, 2012

TMF said:
If you count WCT, then let's count Master Shields.

WCT final had the status of a major. Master series tournaments not. That's the difference.

BobbyOne · Dec 14, 2012

Phoenix1983 said:
I put him at 6th all time, it's not that I discount his achievements in the amateur, pro or Open eras.

But come on, a man who never won Wimbledon, the game's biggest prize, in four final attempts, being GOAT?

That is a step too far, sir!

Phoenix1983,

I'm glad that you put Rosewall at 6th place.

Rosewall could have lost 50 W. finals and yet would not be out of the GOAT issue if he lost 13 (thirteen!) years, especially his prime years! Jack Kramer, never a Rosewall admirer, wrote that Rosewall would have won FOUR Wimbledons in an always open era.

You can't expect a Wimbledon win from a player who lost his best years and 13 altogether to the pros (and to WCT quarrels in 1972 and 1973).

If you take away the missing Rosewall prime (or about prime) years (from 23 to 33)from Federer, Roger would not have a single Wimbledon win in his record!! The same with Sampras and Laver...

I just ask you to be fair to Muscles.

BobbyOne · Dec 14, 2012

Phoenix1983 said:
You have inadvertently revealed why I have given Gonzales more concessions than Rosewall for not winning W: because he wa clearly far from his best when he played there (hence his sub-par performances by his great standards).

Rosewall on the other hand won FOUR major titles between 1953-1956 and FOUR again between 1968-1972, so he was undoubtedly one of the world's very best at the time. Yet in those same years he could not win the Wimbledon finals in four attempts. This doesn't mean he is not a great player but it does mean he is not GOAT. Please understand that.

Rosewall actually maintained a consistently high level for many years as you know. The definition of when his 'prime' was is debatable for me. Certainly there were only a few years when he was the top pro. In all likelihood he would have been beaten by Gonzales, Hoad (as he was in 1956) and later Laver at Wimbledon (as he was in the 1967 pro tournament). The fact is that Rosewall could not psychologically cope with winning at Wimbledon, whether an amateur or pro, so he never did.

You should content yourself with Rosewall beig the best never to win Wimbledon, rather than the GOAT. It would be better for your health.

PS. Calling him Muscles displays your fanboyism.

Phoenix1983,

I hate it to call a colleague "ignorant" but you give me so many reasons to yet do it!

Calling Rosewall "Muscles" blames me? I must laugh...

People here use to call Federer Fed or Roger, they call Nadal Rafa or even Ralph.

Muscles is the well known nickname of Rosewall. Yes, I am a Rosewall admirer. No wonder looking at his fabulous record second to no other player's in my opinion. What's the problem in a forum where hundreds of posters are Federer fanatics (some of them in no reasonable way)?

You are wrong: Rosewall's four Wimbledon finals are among his greatest successes! No other player has reached W. finals 20 years apart.

Rosewall's prime is debatable? Are you Dan Lobb? All real tennis fans and experts do know that Rosewall was far away from his prime when he reached the W. finals! The fact that The Little Master (maybe more convenient for you than Muscles) also succeded in non-prime years makes him thus the more great but cannot abolish the fact that Rosewall's prime was about 1959 to 1965.

It's debatable if Rosewall is really the greatest not to win W. He is has tough opponent in Pancho, pardon, Gonzalez...

Better for my health would be if you could be more reasonable and less biased against Muscles...

If you call the actual Rosewall Wimbledon years as not far away from his best, why then do you exculp Gonzalez from not winning W. in 1949 when Pancho was NOT FAR away from his prime?

Rosewall would have been beaten in his prime by Gonzalez, Hoad (are you Dan's brother or lover??) and Laver?? In German language we would say:"I mean I dream" hearing such stuff...

Are you aware that Rosewall dominated Hoad from 1960 onwards? Are you aware that Rosewal dominated Gonzalez in the big ones in the 1960s? Are you aware that Rosewall crushed Laver in 1963 and 1965 on grass in the US Pro? I doubt that you are aware...

The psychological issue is your own invention. You cannot prove it!

qindarka · Dec 14, 2012

BobbyOne said:
zagor, I cannot accept the thesis that Federer gave a "half arsed effort" in French Open finals in order to not waste energy for Wimbledon.

Firstly Federer always tried to win the FO because he knew that a a win at Paris (especially against Nadal!) is important for his record and status as the possible GOAT.

Secondly you of course know that there is a gap of one month between Paris and London. So trying in ONE match does not waste energy for a tournament held one month later...

For goodness sake, he was being sarcastic and showing the ridiculousness of urban's post.

BobbyOne · Dec 14, 2012

qindarka said:
For goodness sake, he was being sarcastic and showing the ridiculousness of urban's post.

qindarka, I'm sorry for misunderstanding the post. I had not read urban's post prior to it.

Even though I appreciate urban very much I must say that he was wrong with his arguments...

abmk · Dec 14, 2012

urban said:
I have no interest to discuss things with tennis gurus and fanboys here, but i am interested to talk some tennis issues with people who care a bit about tennis history. Now if some misrepresent and distort my statements, they should go on. I hope that some intelligent people here can read.

jeez, get over yourself ..... you are still in some sense "living" in those old times where exos where fiercely fought and one-on-one battles mattered very much (like in the pros in 50s and 60s ) and applying the same to the present times as per your convenience ....

quite a few of us have some knowledge of the past, but they don't apply the same standards to today, because today's play is different .... and vice versa ...

and one final word : no one is misinterpreting your statements. They are flat out biased and written with an agenda..... Me and zagor are both good enough to read & understand the statements as well as read between the lines. Give me a break !

abmk · Dec 14, 2012

Phoenix1983 :

It is a credit to Rosewall that he reached those wimbledon finals pre-prime and post-prime and not a negative ....

he'd have a won a Wimbledon at the very least IMO, if not more ...yes the grass @ the AO and USO suited his game more than @ wimbledon, but he was still good enough to win @ wimbledon if he played at his prime .....

abmk · Dec 14, 2012

pc1 said:
Several times and every time at the end of the year so I can't necessarily judge normal 100% in shape level of year.

Also when you judge several times that still a very small sample. Let's say I saw two Nadal/Federer red clay matches and one was the 2008 French final. If that's the case Federer wouldn't look too good. But I also in a larger sample size know Federer's more competitive on red clay than that.

You know what's amazing about all this. All of this "to do" is that I just wondered what Nadal's general level of play indoors if he's totally healthy. After all he is Nadal and you would figure he would play at a high level indoor.

Amazing. I think some people are a little sensitive.

Let's give another example, we all know Federer won Wimbledon last year over Murray on grass. We also know one month later Murray beat Federer easily to win the Olympics also at Wimbledon. If someone just watched that latter match you would think Federer wasn't nearly at the level of Murray on grass. However I also know that Federer may have been worn out by his long match against del Potro previously so you give Federer the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was off a bit.

I'll repeat myself, I was basically asking a question. It's really ridiculous to my mind that this causes such a reaction. I see reactions from TMF (of course), abmk and others when one of them could have just given me a link with some information posted by them. That would be end of story.

And TMF, did you read that I did write that Federer's smooth style allows him to play well at the end of the year? Read it again.

My thought was this, Nadal's a great player, one of the all time greats. With his great strokes you figure he should give anyone on any surface a tough batte even Federer. So I was wondering why he didn't give Federer much of a fight at the WTF. Everyone makes it sounds as though I'm attacking Federer. Read the post again. There were no attacks, simply wondering.

Overreaction here on a minor statement.:shock:

It's not worth writing about that nonsense anymore.

I've seen some of you ask some questions that I've answered in the past. Do I question why the person who asks the question doesn't know the answer? Of course not and yet someone assumes that by watching two matches indoors that I know the average level of play indoors between the two. Players are human and level of play varies.

here the sample size h2h is 4 matches spread over multiple years and nadal wasn't close to winning any one of them ...

not like the one match examples which you are choosing

bigger thing is the actual sample size which is the indoor tournaments played by them over the years , which is much more ...

if you were just wondering why their matches indoors weren't close, I wouldn't have said much at all ....

its just that you raised the possibility of them being on an even footing indoors ...

as far as the part of being of being a great player and giving tough matches to a player on any surface goes, that's not always true ..

wilander wasn't tough for becker/lendl indoors
sampras wasn't tough for anyone decent on clay
ditto for becker ....

again, this is where I think you over-rate the adaptability part of nadal ...... yes, he's good at it, very good , but not that good .....and the conditions today have helped him quite a bit at adapting from surface to surface .... unlike for a certain bjorn borg

and nadal isn't as versatile as federer ...

finally @ the end of the year part, it may be true to an extent on some occasions, but that can't be an excuse all the time .....put clay at the end of the year and you can be rest assured nadal would still dominate

as a matter of fact, at the YECs,

he was injured in 2005, 2008 and didn't play ...

in 2006, 2007, he was playing well and federer defeated him convincingly ...

in 2009, he was in pretty poor form, probably his worst form there, but he didn't even face federer then ..

in 2010, he was well-prepared and got through to the finals without losing a RR match ... yet federer got him 6-1 in the 3rd ...

in 2011, he took a month off before the YEC, and federer blitzed him in their RR match ...

pc1 · Dec 15, 2012

abmk said:
here the sample size h2h is 4 matches spread over multiple years and nadal wasn't close to winning any one of them ...

not like the one match examples which you are choosing

bigger thing is the actual sample size which is the indoor tournaments played by them over the years , which is much more ...

if you were just wondering why their matches indoors weren't close, I wouldn't have said much at all ....

its just that you raised the possibility of them being on an even footing indoors ...

as far as the part of being of being a great player and giving tough matches to a player on any surface goes, that's not always true ..

wilander wasn't tough for becker/lendl indoors
sampras wasn't tough for anyone decent on clay
ditto for becker ....

again, this is where I think you over-rate the adaptability part of nadal ...... yes, he's good at it, very good , but not that good .....and the conditions today have helped him quite a bit at adapting from surface to surface .... unlike for a certain bjorn borg

and nadal isn't as versatile as federer ...

finally @ the end of the year part, it may be true to an extent on some occasions, but that can't be an excuse all the time .....put clay at the end of the year and you can be rest assured nadal would still dominate

as a matter of fact, at the YECs,

he was injured in 2005, 2008 and didn't play ...

in 2006, 2007, he was playing well and federer defeated him convincingly ...

in 2009, he was in pretty poor form, probably his worst form there, but he didn't even face federer then ..

in 2010, he was well-prepared and got through to the finals without losing a RR match ... yet federer got him 6-1 in the 3rd ...

in 2011, he took a month off before the YEC, and federer blitzed him in their RR match ...

Like I wrote, I'm not getting involved with this anymore. Why do you care SOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH over something so insignificant? Especially since I wrote that I believe you are correct. If we going to worry about something, maybe we should worry about global warming instead of this.

I often don't accept things people say in sports as fact when I first hear it. I decide to QUESTION and try to research things to see if it's true and WHY it is true. So I wondered about something concerning Federer and Nadal. It seemed like a reasonable thing to think about. People for some reason got annoyed instead of simply answering the question to my satisfaction. I researched the question myself and got the answer. I wrote that the people were correct and STILL PEOPLE ARE UPSET. Why?? Because I dared to check the "why" behind the given. Are we suppose to accept everything that is a sports axiom? I've done research in a number of sports over the years and one thing I've thing is that things that are supposed to be givens in sports are not always true. One of my good friends is perhaps the foremost sports researcher in the United States and he has changed records that have been idolized by sports fans. Why? Because the so called records were incorrect. People were actually upset that he changed the records which to my mind made no sense.

Dan Lobb · Dec 15, 2012

abmk said:
Phoenix1983 :

It is a credit to Rosewall that he reached those wimbledon finals pre-prime and post-prime and not a negative ....

he'd have a won a Wimbledon at the very least IMO, if not more ...yes the grass @ the AO and USO suited his game more than @ wimbledon, but he was still good enough to win @ wimbledon if he played at his prime .....

Rosewall was a five-time finalist (including 1967), but faced five awesome opponents in the finals. His peak years, 1957 to 1965, found him ineligible to compete at Wimbledon.

BobbyOne · Dec 15, 2012

abmk said:
Phoenix1983 :

It is a credit to Rosewall that he reached those wimbledon finals pre-prime and post-prime and not a negative ....

he'd have a won a Wimbledon at the very least IMO, if not more ...yes the grass @ the AO and USO suited his game more than @ wimbledon, but he was still good enough to win @ wimbledon if he played at his prime .....

abmk, Thanks for writing down your opinion.

In this matter Phoenix is surely wrong. It's even debatable if the Wimbledon grass did not suit Rosewall's game.

Rosewall did beat at Wimbledon players like Trabert, Seixas, Newcombe, Roche and Smith when being very young and very till extremely old.

BobbyOne · Dec 15, 2012

Dan Lobb said:
Rosewall was a five-time finalist (including 1967), but faced five awesome opponents in the finals. His peak years, 1957 to 1965, found him ineligible to compete at Wimbledon.

Dan, I'm glad that I can agree with you finally!

NadalAgassi · Dec 15, 2012

Rosewall is the one I have the hardest time ranking. I think he could be easily as high as #1 or #2 or as low as #6 or #7. I do think he easily had the best longevity of any great player ever. He was one of the 3 or 4 best players in the World for about 20 years, that is insane. It is also incredible he was the Worlds best clay courter for most of that time, in some ways he might be the real Clay GOAT even more than Nadal, and certainly above Borg atleast. Yet despite that as old as 36 and 37 in 71 and 72 he was also beating Laver who many still considered the best at that point in big matches on faster courts like the two WTF finals, which Laver desperately wanted to win, and at 39 or 40 besting the likes of John Newcombe on grass at Wimbledon and the U.S Open in 1974. My only issue with him in comparision to some of the others, especialy Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, and Federer, is he wasnt the Worlds best player nearly as long. Only about 2 or 3 years (Mustard even estimates it down at 2), which is much shorter than all those others. The others he was always generally 2nd or 3rd.

Mustard · Dec 15, 2012

NadalAgassi said:
I do think he easily had the best longevity of any great player ever.

I think that's Bill Tilden. He played his first amateur match in 1912, and his last professional match in 1952.

NadalAgassi · Dec 15, 2012

Mustard said:
I think that's Bill Tilden. He played his first amateur match in 1912, and his last professional match in 1952.

but was he one of the best in the World and a potential contender for slams had there been Open Era slams for that whole time, or 20 years plus? If not I still think it is Rosewall.

Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

NadalAgassi

Guest

Bionic Poster

NadalAgassi

Guest

Similar threads