Noelan
Legend
Yeah, it's a little bit harsh, but that kid is overboard for sure.
Biggest hole in All-time Great Resumes
- Thread starter drm025
- Start date
Yeah, it's a little bit harsh, but that kid is overboard for sure.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
:lol:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
One could argue that it's only because of his breaks from the tour that he's able to have those periods of concentrated brilliance in the first place.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Jg's actually 34. :wink:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Explain April to August 2008, then. No break. We're talking 54 wins in 56 matches (59 wins in 61 matches if you stretch it to the point of going into the US Open semis), and 8 tournament victories in 4 months. This included 4 wins over Federer and 4 wins over Djokovic. For me, that remains the best period of Nadal's career.
What about 2010? Nadal won Monte Carlo that year for the 6th year in a row, and that was his first tournament victory in 11 months (since winning 2009 Rome). Nadal went on to win all 3 clay-court masters events, as well as the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He didn't play Sampras in a slam for 4 years during Pete's prime: 1994,1996,1997,1998.
So in a way he was a non factor
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Rod Laver failed to win the WCT Dallas event, losing the 1971 and 1972 finals to Ken Rosewall.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
True enough but I wonder if this is really a hole since the event started late in Laver's career. It's reasonable to believe Laver would have won at least one WCT Championship if it was started when Laver was in his early twenties.
Anyway this stuff about holes in the resume always seemed a bit much to me. To me if a player is terrific on all surfaces that is the sign of greatness. For example Tilden did not win the French but he did win the World Hardcourt which was the clay court major at the time. Tilden was great on all surfaces. He has no holes in his resume imo.
Rosewall didn't win Wimbledon but that doesn't take away that he was excellent on all surfaces.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
How can you consider Djokovic a main rival of Federer when he's nearly 7 years younger than him? That would be like me calling Hewitt one of Sampras' main rivals.. I can understand Nadal because he was actually there from 2004-2007, but not Djokovic until right at the end and most of his fans say he was a "baby" then.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And Federer is doing better than Sampras in that regard anyway, he's leading Djokovic in the H2H and Sampras retired with a losing H2H to Hewitt and Safin..
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Not even close Saby.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Six years is still a sizable difference in tennis when it comes to age..
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
5 years, 9 months to be exact. :razz:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Tilden also won the French Pro twice, in 1933 and 1934.
There are a few holes in Tilden's career, if you can call them that. He didn't win the French Championships as an amateur, as you mention. As a professional, he failed to win the Wembley Pro after being runner-up 3 times. Tilden was also runner-up in both years that the World Pro in Berlin was a major, in 1932 and 1933.
Talker
Hall of Fame
Not having one of the top years, the whole year playing at a high level is a hole for all time greats and really separates them.
There's very few players who have had more than one great year in the top 10 best years, at least in the open ERA.
Even in Laver's CYGS year he had 16 losses IIRC.
Holding on to #1, the longer the better, is another area that shows dominance over time.
All time greats are expected to be able to show dominance over a long period by doing well against the whole field and on all surfaces.
There's very few players who have had more than one great year in the top 10 best years, at least in the open ERA.
Even in Laver's CYGS year he had 16 losses IIRC.
Holding on to #1, the longer the better, is another area that shows dominance over time.
All time greats are expected to be able to show dominance over a long period by doing well against the whole field and on all surfaces.
How is this comparison even valid?? Hewitt and Sampras have played only 9 times and only twice in slams....
Fed and Djokovic have played 35 times, and 12 times in slams. Djokovic is the player he's played the most overall and the most at slams, even more than Nadal, but he's not a main rival? Don't you understand that means that their good form has overlapped the most? Both being top players, they can only meet in later rounds. If they are both making the later rounds in the same tournaments that many times, then yes, they are rivals.
Hewitt and Roddick even being similar in age with Federer haven't played him as many times as Nadal or Djokovic. So, Nadal and Djokovic are his biggest rivals.
Last edited:
Fed "leads" Djokovic in the H2H by 1 match. Hewitt and Safin "lead" Sampras in the H2H by 1 match. These are all toss-ups. If they played an odd number of matches, 1 player has to be ahead by at least one. Not significant at all.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Because Djokovic, like Hewitt, has mainly played against Federer/Sampras after his best days.. It doesn't matter how many times they have played, you can put it down to Federer being very consistent even after his prime and him also being the better overall player when compared to Djokovic..
If you judge how deep a player gets by their form and don't include age, wear and tear and how long they've been competing then you are incredibly biased and the only reason you've made this thread is to talk up Nadal and his competition and talk down Federer's.. (see: You putting down Roddick and Hewitt, even though the latter dominated Agassi and Sampras and was very unlucky he did not build on his 2 slam success; should have ended up a Courier level player..).
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Not significant, even though Sampras took advantage of Hewitt (at least) as a 17 year old and an 18 year old for his wins over him and lost every match against Hewitt after the 2000 USO? Not significant, given Federer has nearly beaten a PRIME Djokovic as many times as he's been beaten by him this year, at the age of 33? Stop being biased and give credit where it's due, don't be like SpicyCurry.
Picking holes in Fed's CV is like finding fault in Michaelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel...his CV is likely to be the best we'll see for quite some time (possibly in all our lifetimes).
However as a Fed fan I guess there are 3 things I would love to see him win/achieve before he retires
Davis Cup (not impossible)
Olympic Singles Gold Medal (Have to think highly unlikely)
Calendar Year Grand Slam (Went so close on a couple of occasions - now virtually impossible)
However as a Fed fan I guess there are 3 things I would love to see him win/achieve before he retires
Davis Cup (not impossible)
Olympic Singles Gold Medal (Have to think highly unlikely)
Calendar Year Grand Slam (Went so close on a couple of occasions - now virtually impossible)
Nadal's achievements are also heavily dependent on his favorite surface, clay. Just over a third of all ATP tournaments are played on clay, but 9 of Nadal's 14 majors, 19 of his 27 Masters titles and 45 of his 64 career titles were won on clay. As pointed out above, he has never defended a title on any other surface.
All of the other Open era greats excelled (in the sense of ranking in the Open era top five) on at least two surfaces. For Borg it was clay and grass, for McEnroe grass, hard courts and carpet, for Lendl clay, hard courts and carpet, for Sampras grass, hard courts and carpet, for Federer grass and hard courts. This does not mean that Nadal is a one-dimensional clay court specialist like Muster or Kuerten. He has, after all, won five majors and eight Masters titles on other surfaces. Nevertheless, to the extent that versatility counts he is clearly a notch below several other GOAT contenders.
Anti-Fedal
Professional
OP: All those guys you mentioned failed to win the Grand Slam, that's a mighty hole.
Similar threads
- Poll
