kiki
Banned
She should look a bit to the west, to France...
Nadal on your All-Time List?
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
She should look a bit to the west, to France...
Are you sure he got banned?
I think that he was researching the 1968 end of year event for WCT.
Maybe he's still looking for it.
Kenshin
Semi-Pro
ttwarrior1
Hall of Fame
2..............
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
5th.
5thrightnow
5thrightnow
Rest assured, he will be back soon.
I hope that next time he appears he will have better supporting evidence for his unusual opinions.
As i wrote in post 39 of this thread, some 4 years ago, Nadal seems to be firmly on the verge of becoming the Player of his era, at least alongside Federer. He is lasting much longer than many had expected, and he is able to overcome adversity, not to talk about bad matchups, on the highest levels of the game. All talking about declining was premature, he seems to pace himself better than in the past. Last year he won verything on clay, and was overplayed and tired coming into Wimbledon. Now he peaked better during RG - i think his win over Ferrer was pivotal - and seems to be fit and eager enough for the magic double again.
TahoeTennis
Legend
Numero Uno, no?
si!!
si!!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
And last year, Nadal had a terrific hard-court season.
90's Clay
Banned
The guy has the career slam as well, masters record (which should count for something, and domination over ALL main rivals when it matters most (Something Fed can't say). To me that makes up for not having an extra AO title or Wimbledon and has posted domination on a surface that will probably never be matched again like Laver's 200 tourney titles.
Nadal's "resume" is balanced enough.
Its almost as though Fed fans will continue to make up "Nadal needs this" and find loopholes as to why Nadal isn't great despite DESTROYING Fed for the better part of a decade.
Like they won't be happy unless Nadal wins 5 AO's, 6 Wimbledons, 10 RGs, 5 USOs
The guy has posted many tittles among all surface, has the career slam (something only a few guys have managed in the open era). Again.. Balanced enough
Nadal's "resume" is balanced enough.
Its almost as though Fed fans will continue to make up "Nadal needs this" and find loopholes as to why Nadal isn't great despite DESTROYING Fed for the better part of a decade.
Like they won't be happy unless Nadal wins 5 AO's, 6 Wimbledons, 10 RGs, 5 USOs
The guy has posted many tittles among all surface, has the career slam (something only a few guys have managed in the open era). Again.. Balanced enough
Last edited:
90's Clay
Banned
Heres the problem though..
There are two hardcourt slams. Nadal only gets a crack at one clay slam. So the AO-USO is considered distributed well despite both being hard courts.
If they had two clay slams and Nadal dominated both would that be considered "Distrbuted well".
Its unfair to Nadal in this regard. Fed only has 1 French Open title as well.
There are two hardcourt slams. Nadal only gets a crack at one clay slam. So the AO-USO is considered distributed well despite both being hard courts.
If they had two clay slams and Nadal dominated both would that be considered "Distrbuted well".
Its unfair to Nadal in this regard. Fed only has 1 French Open title as well.
NatF
Bionic Poster
There's only one grass slam too. It's just the way the tour is.
I wasn't really arguing about distribution anyway, but if you want to down that root he has 4x the amount of slams at the French than he has at any other one slam. He has 2/3 of his titles on a surface that is generally played on for 1/3 of the year.
So there is a big and definite skew in his results. Pretending it doesn't exist is silly. Now Nadal to his credit has beaten the best on every surface and has had spurts of dominance everywhere.
If someone feels like his titles are too biased towards one surfaces for him to be the ultimate GOAT right now. I see nothing wrong with that. Likewise if someone things Federer got beaten by Nadal to many times to be the ultimate GOAT then that is fine as well.
Right now the GOAT talk for Nadal is premature though. He's on track to surpass Fed though IMO.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I agree. When (or if) it happens, then we'll have lots to discuss.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You're correct of course but that's always what the tennis writers always do. It happens not just in tennis but in every sport. There will be others that will be called the GOAT unless one player gets so overwhelming a resume that he or she cannot be cannot but questioned as the GOAT. That rarely happens in any sport.
I've seen so many so called GOATs in tennis that it seems like most of the population of the world is a tennis GOAT. lol.
What it does is fuel debate and that's what the media wants also.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Well Nadal certainly good in direct comparison with Federer because he beat him so many times in important matches, but the ranking of all time great isn't done by comparing with Federer only.
He is still behind Sampras to me: Less Master Cups (which are a lot more valuable than Masters 1000), less time at the top of the ranking (both weeks and years). I doubt Nadal will end the year number 1 and I find it disturbing that he seemingly cannot hold the top sport.
Of course Nadal will pass Sampras this year or the next (or the next). He might tie or pass Federer, but now he still miss things in comparison with Federer, Sampras, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, maybe other greats of the past I'm less familiar with (Tilden). His superiority over Borg is narrow too.
Ridiculous. You are not doing favors to Federer fans.
Real list:
1) Federer
2) Nadal = Sampras
3) Borg
4) Laver
5) Rosewall
6) Agassi
7) Lendl
8) McEnroe
9) Connors
10) Wilander
There is simply no way Sampras or Borg are above Laver. Nadal being above Laver is questionable at this point as well.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Agreed on Sampras and Borg, but Nadal is in the same category as them. There's no way he is above Laver either.
PS. I spy another NadalAgassi username. :twisted:
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
Laver career is not fully open era... How many of his 11 slams come from the open era ?
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
This for open era seems about right. But seriously people Lendl deserves to be over agassi he has 19 slam finals, more 30 more atp titles, much more weeks at 1#,etc. It seems about right except I switch Lendl with Agassi and connors with Mcenroe. In fact its always for me hard to determine who should be above.. If agassi or connors..Id even inclined to say jimmy, despite of andre versatility.. But it could go the other way around too.. Rosewall in open era list? Come on...
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
Rafa is above borg, just like fed is above sampras. Now the comparison between sampras and rafa is quite interesting... Imo its as close as It gets, same amount of slams, but rafa has calendar slam, golden slam, 16 extra m1000, golden medal, the most slams ever in a tournament, 3+ gs finals on every slam, the second man with more slam finals..(14-6 > 14-4)
10 years in a row winning 1+ slams , 8 calendar years playing at least 2 gs finals, 3 slam winning session, the only man to win 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a single year. The only man (besides wilander) to win at least 2 slams on every surface. Even in his worst tournament (wtf) he has been twice runner up.
Sampras: no rg finals,no calendar slam, no golden medal, no 3 slam winning season, slamless in a slam ina surface, only 11 m1000, 20 out of 64 atp titles came out from atp 250 tournaments (compared to only 7 from rafa) lest atp finals and less grand slam finals played compared to rafa.
He has the lead on weeks at 1# and YE#1.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I rank them as follow: 1) Lendl 2) Connors 3) McEnroe 4) Agassi
Lendl won 8 slams, was in 11 other finals, 9 SF. He won also 7 WCT or Master Cup, and was in 4 other finals. He was in 9 straights master cup finals! He was ranked number 1 for 270 weeks. He was very consistent for a long time. He was also very good on all surfaces, from quick indoor to slow clay. He didn't won Wimbledon, but going through Edberg and Becker isn't a walk in the park.
Connors won 8 slams too (including 1 AO in a weaker field) and reached 7 other finals and 16 SF. He did that while playing the AO only twice and missed several RG in his prime years! He never won RG and frankly when your peak coincide with Borg, it's not your fault! But, like Agassi, he did win slams on hard, grass and clay (USO).
His longevity and consistency are incredible too. He is recorded as number 1 for 268 weeks, but their are several issue with this. Many believe that Vilas and Borg should have been ranked number 1 in his stead at some point.
McEnroe won 7 slams, reached 4 other finals and 8 SF, and like Connors without playing much of the AO, who wasn't a true major at the time. But he did perform quiet well in the fourth most important tournament of the season: He won 8 Master cups or WCT! He was number 1 for 170 weeks.
Agassi won 8 slams, reached 7 other finals, 10 SF, also while skipping several AO. But the tournament was huge at the time and all the best players where competing, which wasn't the case during Connors and McEnroe best years. He also one the Master cup once, the olympics, and of course has the calendar slam, which I feel is a bit overrated. Winning RG and Wimbledon once doesn't prove that he is more polyvalent than Lendl or Connors to me, who had harder competition on their weakest surface. Lendl had peak Edberg and Becker, Agassi won it just after their best years, and before Sampras best. His RG draw isn't the most impressive either. McEnroe and Connors had Borg, then Lendl and Wilander.
At last Agassi was ranked number 1 for 101 weeks, but was never as consistent as the other at the top: he should have been a fixture in the top 4 at least for all the 90's, but instead ended several years number 6, 7 or 8ish.
His longevity is very impressive tough, and while this post is a bit severe with him, it's mostly to give weight to an uncommon opinion that put him below McEnroe (despite him having less slams) and Lendl (despite him being a cold commie).
Agassi is the underachiever of the four and is ranked accordingly.
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
I agree with you, but agassi for me is above mcenroe, he won every slam on every surfsce, the golden slal, plus one more slam. For me agassi shoulnt be under johnny mac.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Once again, if McEnroe could enter Roland Garros and meet players of the same calliber than Agassi met when he won it, he would have too. Oh I forgot that the AO wasn't a legit slam at the time so had he played and won it, we wouldn't give him proper credit for it.
Borg, McEnroe and Connors are all time great who played in an age where they were de facto only 3 slams available each years. A difference of one, to me, is not enough to be held against them. The gap between Borg and Sampras is high enough, but between McEnroe and Agassi, Just no. And McEnroe WCT and Master Cups were really huge tournaments.
That is some epic trolling.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I can't figure out why Agassi is ahead of Connors and Lendl.
clout
Hall of Fame
If we're talking open era, he's only behind Federer at this point, and he's ahead of everyone not named the Swiss Maestro by a pretty decent margin. It's hard to compare players in the pre-open era to players in the open era as the two leagues were simply too different to measure and/or rank players
Last edited:
People can harp on his success being too clay oriented, that he is probably weaker than Federer and Djokovic and Sampras on every surface but clay, etc...but that just shows how amazing on clay he is. By the end of his career his clay career alone might arguably top Sampras or Djokovic's or Borg's entire careers period, that is how amazing he is on clay. And wins at each of the other slams on top of that.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes I think Gonzalez is ahead of Rosewall also. Lot of Rosewall fans would debate that.
clout
Hall of Fame
Nadal's current resume includes:
17 slams (1 AO, 11 RG, 2 WI, 3 USO) - 2nd in open era
32 Masters - most all time
24 Slam Finals - 2nd in open era
17-7 finals record (71%) - 2nd in open era
50 "big titles" - 2nd in open era
Olympic Gold in Singles and Doubles - only player to do so
Career Golden Slam - youngest to ever do so
Won 2+ slams on all three surfaces and the Career Slam - only player to do so
183 weeks at number one - sixth in open era
4 Year End Number Ones - T4th all time (would be T2nd with another year end number one this year)
79 Overall Titles - 4th in open era
908-188 overall record (83%) – 5th all time in wins; 2nd all time in win percentage
242-35 record at majors (88%) – 3rd all time in wins; 2nd all time in win percentage
160-84 (66%) vs top 10 players – 3rd all time in wins; 4th all time in win percentage
467-140 (77%) vs players who’ve been in the top 10 – 2nd all time in wins; 1st in win percentage
2 Channel Slams - 2nd in open era
Won 3 consecutive majors in a calendar year (on three different surfaces) - only player to do so in open era
Clay Season Sweep, NA HC Sweep, and Queens-Wimbledon Sweep - only player to sweep all three
48-42 (53%) vs Fed and Novak (two other GOAT candidates); he was even 45-27 (63%) against the two as recent as early 2014
81-match win streak on clay – longest of all time on any surface (2005-07)
32-match unbeaten streak on hard – 5th longest all time (4th among players) (2012-13) - behind only Federer, Djokovic and Sampras
20-match win streak at Wimbledon – 5th longest all time (4th among players) (2008-11) - behind only Federer, Sampras and Borg
And these are just a handful of his many notable achievements. Also, in many open era categories, Rafa is up there in the top 1-4 in several of them and really only Roger Federer can truly make a valid claim saying his resume is better.
17 slams (1 AO, 11 RG, 2 WI, 3 USO) - 2nd in open era
32 Masters - most all time
24 Slam Finals - 2nd in open era
17-7 finals record (71%) - 2nd in open era
50 "big titles" - 2nd in open era
Olympic Gold in Singles and Doubles - only player to do so
Career Golden Slam - youngest to ever do so
Won 2+ slams on all three surfaces and the Career Slam - only player to do so
183 weeks at number one - sixth in open era
4 Year End Number Ones - T4th all time (would be T2nd with another year end number one this year)
79 Overall Titles - 4th in open era
908-188 overall record (83%) – 5th all time in wins; 2nd all time in win percentage
242-35 record at majors (88%) – 3rd all time in wins; 2nd all time in win percentage
160-84 (66%) vs top 10 players – 3rd all time in wins; 4th all time in win percentage
467-140 (77%) vs players who’ve been in the top 10 – 2nd all time in wins; 1st in win percentage
2 Channel Slams - 2nd in open era
Won 3 consecutive majors in a calendar year (on three different surfaces) - only player to do so in open era
Clay Season Sweep, NA HC Sweep, and Queens-Wimbledon Sweep - only player to sweep all three
48-42 (53%) vs Fed and Novak (two other GOAT candidates); he was even 45-27 (63%) against the two as recent as early 2014
81-match win streak on clay – longest of all time on any surface (2005-07)
32-match unbeaten streak on hard – 5th longest all time (4th among players) (2012-13) - behind only Federer, Djokovic and Sampras
20-match win streak at Wimbledon – 5th longest all time (4th among players) (2008-11) - behind only Federer, Sampras and Borg
And these are just a handful of his many notable achievements. Also, in many open era categories, Rafa is up there in the top 1-4 in several of them and really only Roger Federer can truly make a valid claim saying his resume is better.
Last edited:
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
I can see a case for Agassi over McEnroe. I personally would have McEnroe higher though since he was far more dominant, his 2 best years (1981 and 1984) are both far better than Agassi's best year, and far more consistent in his prime. McEnroe was #1 or #2 in the world for 7 straight years which clearly puts him far above Agassi in both dominance and consistency, even if he is behind in longevity. He has 4 YE#1s, even if 1 of the 3 (1982) was undeserved, the other 3 were fully deserved and he swept the Player of Year awards. Agassi has only ONE YE#1, less than Hewitt. He has 3 YECs to 1 for Agassi. And in his day Wimbledon and the U.S Open were the 2 most important events by far, and even today they are the two most prestigious and McEnroe won those a combined 7 times vs only 3 for Agassi.
I think 3 extra YE#1s (or even the 2 legit ones), 2 more YECs, and much superior record at Wimbledon/U.S Open make up for 1 fewer slam and the career slam easily, and McEnroe then comes out ahead with higher peak playing level, higher dominance, and higher consistency.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Nadal now ranks 3rd all time for me, behind Federer and Laver.
Aye.
Aye.
I am already going to take a not so wild guess you are a Sampras fanboy.
This is a clay-heavy resume, with 11 RG singles titles, BUT only 1 Aussie, 2 Wimb., 3 US.......not enough non-clay majors.
As simple as one (Aussie) two (Wimb.) three (US).
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Dan,
Even without the French, the resume is extremely impressive for Nadal. Most would love just to have Nadal's resume without the French Open titles.
clout
Hall of Fame
Even if you were to remove all his French Open's he'd still have the same number of slams as Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg (two indisputable ATG's). Additionally, he's made a ton of finals at the other three majors as well, with 4 in Australia, 11 in Paris, 5 in Wimbledon and 4 at the US Open. And all but one of his losses at slam finals came against fellow GOAT candidates who were playing lights out tennis.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Similar threads
