Brad Gilbert "Rafa's 10 RG's better than Roger's 18"

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
http://www.**************.org/news/news/ATP_Tennis/44378/brad-gilbert-rafael-nadals-10-roland-garros-better-than-federers-18-gs/

Rafa's 'La Decima' is no doubt an astonishing achievement, definitely one of the most extraordinary feats in all sports, but to say its 'better' than Roger's '18' grand slams is ridiculously stupid. I mean just because its at one slam how does that make it better? Not to mention the fact that its on one surface and his strongest by far at that. He really thinks 10 slams on clay, is 'better' than 7 slams on grass, 10 slams on hard and 1 slam on clay? How does he work that one out.
 

VladBurn

Rookie
10 RG Slams shows utter dominance. 18 Slams spread over other surfaces shows good ability, but not dominance. It is like Federer of all trades but Nadal of none.
10 RG titles shows dominance on one surface, 18 slams on multiple surfaces means dominance and a good ability to adapt and play well on multiple surfaces and not just one.

Tennis is a sport played on 4 surfaces, not just on 1.
 

Get A Grip

Hall of Fame
http://www.**************.org/news/news/ATP_Tennis/44378/brad-gilbert-rafael-nadals-10-roland-garros-better-than-federers-18-gs/

Rafa's 'La Decima' is no doubt an astonishing achievement, definitely one of the most extraordinary feats in all sports, but to say its 'better' than Roger's '18' grand slams is ridiculously stupid. I mean just because its at one slam how does that make it better? Not to mention the fact that its on one surface and his strongest by far at that. He really thinks 10 slams on clay, is 'better' than 7 slams on grass, 10 slams on hard and 1 slam on clay? How does he work that one out.
No-one has ever had 10 GSs at one event. Federer's 18 is not as good as Laver's 22. Both Evert and martina have 18.
You'll choose which stats you like and which ones you don't, to favour your player.
But BG is not a Rafa fan boy at all.

Suck it up.
But thanks for telling me, feels good!
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
http://www.**************.org/news/news/ATP_Tennis/44378/brad-gilbert-rafael-nadals-10-roland-garros-better-than-federers-18-gs/

Rafa's 'La Decima' is no doubt an astonishing achievement, definitely one of the most extraordinary feats in all sports, but to say its 'better' than Roger's '18' grand slams is ridiculously stupid. I mean just because its at one slam how does that make it better? Not to mention the fact that its on one surface and his strongest by far at that. He really thinks 10 slams on clay, is 'better' than 7 slams on grass, 10 slams on hard and 1 slam on clay? How does he work that one out.
"Both outrageous but probably 10 @rolandgarros titles"

"Probably" doesn't sound like a really strong opinion, and it's Twitter...

But I don't agree. I might say equal. BG is no diplomat.
 

Get A Grip

Hall of Fame
10 RG titles shows dominance on one surface, 18 slams on multiple surfaces means dominance and a good ability to adapt and play well on multiple surfaces and not just one.

Tennis is a sport played on 4 surfaces, not just on 1.
You blind or stupid? Rafa has 2 USOs, 2 Wimbs, and one AO.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
I'm not agreeing with him, before any of the crazies go for the throat, but his point of view could be that Rafa is within 3 of Roger's 18, Novak within 6. There is nobody right now within 9 of what Nadal has accomplished.
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
10 RG titles shows dominance on one surface, 18 slams on multiple surfaces means dominance and a good ability to adapt and play well on multiple surfaces and not just one.

Tennis is a sport played on 4 surfaces, not just on 1.
I guess you did not reach at least the 3rd round in all 4 Slams? Gilbert did.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
10 RGs shows complete mastery of the game. Wins spread out thinly over many surfaces can also be a result of fluke, favorable draws, etc. But 10 Slams on the same surface rules out any element of luck or chance and proves that Rafa is the best player of all time.
 

VladBurn

Rookie
10 RGs shows complete mastery of the game. Wins spread out thinly over many surfaces can also be a result of fluke, favorable draws, etc. But 10 Slams on the same surface rules out any element of luck or chance and proves that Rafa is the best player of all time.
There is no doubt that Rafa is the clay GOAT, I never said he is not.
However, again, tennis is not just played on clay, which is why I dont agree with Gilbert's opinion.

I am a recreative player and I mostly play on clay, it's my favourite surface by far, but come on, they're professionals and they are competing on 4 different surfaces and not just on 1.

There's a big difference between being the GOAT on one specific surface and then being the GOAT of multiple/ all surfaces.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
There is no doubt that Rafa is the clay GOAT, I never said he is not.
However, again, tennis is not just played on clay, which is why I dont agree with Gilbert's opinion.

I am a recreative player and I mostly play on clay, it's my favourite surface by far, but come on, they're professionals and they are competing on 4 different surfaces and not just on 1.

There's a big difference between being the GOAT on one specific surface and then being the GOAT of multiple/ all surfaces.
I guess a former #4 in the world who beat Pete Sampras would not know this
 

VladBurn

Rookie
I guess a former #4 in the world who beat Pete Sampras would not know this
It's not about knowing it or not knowing it, it's more likely about personal preference when it comes to Slams' value.
For some it's a much bigger success to win Wimbledon and for some it'd be RG, depending on what their favourite playing surface is.
We all know Nadal enjoys playing on clay and if you ask him, well he might also answer that he values his 10 RG titles more than Roger's 18 titles on different surfaces and there's nothing wrong with it, it's his opinion, it's not a fact.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
For some it's a much bigger success to win Wimbledon and for some it'd be RG, depending on what their favourite playing surface is.
Precisely. And 10 on one's favorite surface is better than 7. That is what BG is saying here.
 

VladBurn

Rookie
Precisely. And 10 on one's favorite surface is better than 7. That is what BG is saying here.
Not really, that would have been the case if Gilbert said " Rafa's 10 RG titles are better than Roger's 7 Wimbledon titles ", wouldnt it ?
He is comparing Nadal's 10 clay slams versus Federer's 18 slams on all surfaces.

Honestly, it'd make more sense to compare all of Nadal's slams versus all of Federer's slams
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
The 10 FO's will probably end up being more unique.
Nat, unique is unique. Nothing can be more than unique. ;)

18 is unique right now, and so is wining three majors in a year three times.

As to which record will be broken first, 18 majors or 10 at the same place, I would guess 10 at RG may stand longer, but we all know how well predictions usually hold up.

I'm sure that when Laver won the first CYGS in the OE, most people figured it would be done again. So it could be that Fed's 18 (if he is done) will last a few years or many decades.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Nat, unique is unique. Nothing can be more than unique. ;)

18 is unique right now, and so is wining three majors in a year three times.

As to which record will be broken first, 18 majors or 10 at the same place, I would guess 10 at RG may stand longer, but we all know how well predictions usually hold up.

I'm sure that when Laver won the first CYGS in the OE, most people figured it would be done again. So it could be that Fed's 18 (if he is done) will last a few years or many decades.
Nadal's 18 is coming up fast!
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Nat, unique is unique. Nothing can be more than unique. ;)

18 is unique right now, and so is wining three majors in a year three times.

As to which record will be broken first, 18 majors or 10 at the same place, I would guess 10 at RG may stand longer, but we all know how well predictions usually hold up.

I'm sure that when Laver won the first CYGS in the OE, most people figured it would be done again. So it could be that Fed's 18 (if he is done) will last a few years or many decades.
Novak holding all four across three different surfaces is unique too. Interesting to see if we will see it again soon or not.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
If winning both Wimbledon and the USO for 5 straight years, as well as 3 AO during those 5 years + 237 consecutive weeks as #1 during that time doesn't qualify as dominant, I'm wondering what does?
There's no doubt that 10 RG titles is an out of this world achievement. Rafa dominated clay even more than Federer dominated grass, 10 RG titles > 7 Wimbledon titles. However, 18 is still greater than 10 or 15, no matter how you spin it.

We all know where this is going. The Rafa bandwagon is blowing full steam right now, much like post USO 2013, which feels like déjà vu to me. The only thing missing is JMac changing sides again and saying Rafa is greater than Roger unless he already has? Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, too much of Rafa's dominance is tied to clay and his reign as #1 simply doesn't measure up to Federer's. He still has a lot of work ahead, outside of clay, if he wants to be ahead of Roger in the eternal GOAT debate.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Novak holding all four across three different surfaces is unique too. Interesting to see if we will see it again soon or not.
Exactly, but I think there is probably a great deal greater chance of the NCYGS being duplicated.

Even so, I think his feat is underestimated.

Will we ever see 5 in a row? That has not yet happened in the OE. I believe Budge was the only one...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Nat, unique is unique. Nothing can be more than unique. ;)

18 is unique right now, and so is wining three majors in a year three times.

As to which record will be broken first, 18 majors or 10 at the same place, I would guess 10 at RG may stand longer, but we all know how well predictions usually hold up.

I'm sure that when Laver won the first CYGS in the OE, most people figured it would be done again. So it could be that Fed's 18 (if he is done) will last a few years or many decades.
Well by that I meant harder to break. You're also aware some believe the real major tally is higher too ;)
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
he never said it was "better", he said it was more impressive.. and he has a point..its probably harder to win 10GS titles from the same tournament than win 18GS titles when you have 4 chances every year..
 

pame

Hall of Fame
I'm not agreeing with him, before any of the crazies go for the throat, but his point of view could be that Rafa is within 3 of Roger's 18, Novak within 6. There is nobody right now within 9 of what Nadal has accomplished.
Am I understanding you correctly? Nobody within 9 of what Nadal has accomplished? I thought Fed has 7 Wimbledons, which, according to my math, would make him within 3 of what Nadal has at RG, no?
 
Top