Do you consider Nadal a Tier 1 great?

Do you consider Nadal a Tier 1 great?

  • Total voters
    342
It all comes down to your definition of "tiers".

If a tier is a group of players whose levels of greatness are hard, almost impossible to distinguish (so no sorting within a tier is possible), then Agassi is a tier below Sampras, because Sampras is clearly, undeniably greater.

This logic also means that Nadal is a tier or two below Federer, by the way.

If by a "tier" you mean a group of players with very comparable achievements (but still sortable) then I would put Agassi and Sampras to the same tier, since they were, indeed, comparable. Nadal, Lendl and Laver would also be in their tier.
 
Netspirit said:
It all comes down to your definition of "tiers".

If a tier is a group of players whose levels of greatness are hard, almost impossible to distinguish (so no sorting within a tier is possible), then Agassi is a tier below Sampras, because Sampras is clearly, undeniably greater.

This logic also means that Nadal is a tier or two below Federer, by the way.

If by a "tier" you mean a group of players with very comparable achievements (but still sortable) then I would put Agassi and Sampras to the same tier, since they were, indeed, comparable. Nadal, Lendl and Laver would also be in their tier.
Click to expand...

Laver denigrated again
 
granddog29 said:
I liked Agassi somewhat back in the day, and wasnt that big a Sampras fan back in his day, but on no planet is he anywhere near Sampras. There is no question in anyones mind Sampras was the best player of that era by a country mile. Agassi arguably didnt even have a single year he was truly the best player, even 1999 many would say Sampras was still best since he owned Agassi so thoroughly and since his U.S Open is marred a bit by Sampras's late WD when given his form that summer he was a complete lock. 1999 is the only year you could even argue though while Sampras was the Worlds best player for 6 straight years. That alone puts them in different time zones completely. Along with Sampras having about double the slams, never losing to Agassi at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, having a more far more consistent and stable career, being a far more dominant player.

Agassi has the Career Slam over Sampras and nothing else. Sampras is way above Agassi in about 20 other ways.
Click to expand...

Your posting style resembles the poster rosewallGOAT, is that you?
 
Easy counts on Borg vs Nadal
Use your common sense
Borg has a better record on indoor carpet&grass
Nadal on clay and hard
But Borg is soooo much close on clay than Nadal is on grass
Borg is so much close on hard than Nadal is on carpet
That just proves how Borg is a far more complete player
 
Smasher08 said:
Sorry, but these are largely bogus accomplishments. First, the "streak" isn't a true consecutive streak. No one has ever won 44 matches consecutively, let alone 80+. All it really illustrates is that Nads is a surface specialist since it was compiled during years where he was YE#2.

Second, Master's Shields totals is an overhyped and historically irrelevant accomplishment since these didn't actually exist until 2000.

That's the main reason that the guy who won more tournaments than anyone else, Jimmy Connors, isn't even in the top 5, and the top two shield holders are currently active players.

Pre-2000, the top players turned up to tournaments based upon one thing: appearance payola. That's why events like the Sybase Open and Volvo International featured top players in the 80s and 90s. Cash was king.

They're also inordinately skewed in favour of slow court players: Clay has 3 events, grass has none, and there's only one indoor event.

Winning a bunch of these is no small deal, but it's a second tier accomplishment which pales in comparison to slams.
Click to expand...

Clay is an official ATP surface, believe it or not, and accomplishments reached on it are not negated by posters on an internet board.

Master's Shields are overhyped where you play against the entire field, darkhorses and all? But WTF is legitimate with its round robin format and many times alternates who are not even in the Top 8. Anyway, how many players ranked 5-8 have majors from this "tough" field. I can only name one, del Potro, which proves that the WTF has no superiority. Not to mention being able to lose and still win a tournament. Just gives it an exhibition effect to me.
 
kiki said:
Olimpics is a minor and Borg couldn' t play it anyway
Borg was faaar better on grass ( real grass) and was far better indoors
In fact Borg HC record is sooo much better than Nadal on carpet
The only thing is Nadal better RG record but it is not that much and Borg did not play in 77 and he most likely would win it
Borg never played Australia since it was a second string event
So what is the deal with TMS? There were equivalents in Borg time, in fact the only new are Key Biscaine and Bercy
In Borg era the equivalents are Vegas and Tokyo or Stoxkholm that no longer exist and he won them several times
Right now Borg is just in another league
Plus he played the toughest era as opposed to Nadal weak era and At 25 his record is better than Nadal at 27 / or at least equal if Nadal wins the UAO
Click to expand...

Thanks. I just saw where you didn't list some of Nadal's exploits which made the analogy flawed. I don't care if Nadal is better than Borg or anyone else. I root for Nadal for me.
 
I dont believe that he is Tier 1 ... yet
First we have to consider how many players they can be in TIER 1 , in my opinion maximum 3 and they are probably Borg , Federer and Sampras/Connors.We have to asc ourselfs can Nadal replace any of them ?
Take in consideration the fact that the ATP is doing everything possible to make Djokovic,Murray and especialy Nadal way better than the others.Since Nadal every posible surface is bouncing higher and slower and this is not a Thread about the reasons so I would skip them.The fact is that we have on paper three different surface but they are closer than ever.

The most important factor are weeks as number 1 because that shows how domininat is a curent player over his felow ones.Yes Nadal can have positive H2H against anyone but his 102 weeks are just under number 6 or 7 and Djokovic would probably pass him.
Grand Slam titles are subjective because Connors and Borg didnt played AO.Outside RG Nadal have 2 AO F ,5W F, 2 US F and 1 YET F compared to a TIER 1 player Federer 4 AO F ,8 W F ,5 US F and 8 YET F and this is a big difference.

So Borg and Federer are indisputed tier 1 players , right now Sampras has more weeks , more Slams and more YET than Nadal so ... I just dont see Rafa there .. yet and we dont even compare him to Connors
 
TheTruth said:
Thanks. I just saw where you didn't list some of Nadal's exploits which made the analogy flawed. I don't care if Nadal is better than Borg or anyone else. I root for Nadal for me.
Click to expand...

That is good
I never changed my rooting no matter how good or bad the player was
One things are opinions and the other are feelings
 
TheTruth said:
Clay is an official ATP surface, believe it or not, and accomplishments reached on it are not negated by posters on an internet board.

Master's Shields are overhyped where you play against the entire field, darkhorses and all? But WTF is legitimate with its round robin format and many times alternates who are not even in the Top 8. Anyway, how many players ranked 5-8 have majors from this "tough" field. I can only name one, del Potro, which proves that the WTF has no superiority. Not to mention being able to lose and still win a tournament. Just gives it an exhibition effect to me.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you're off building straw men all over again.

Holding a MS1000 "record" is of little merit historically. The events in their modern form didn't exist until 13 years ago. And it pales in comparison to a slams. To watch the Nadochists overhype this should probably be unsurprising, but it's still revisionism based upon a falsification.

The WTF has been around for decades and is regarded as being virtually as prestigious as a slam, since the winner truly is the best of the year's best.

But obviously a teenager or a "weak era" fantasist wouldn't care much for these facts.
 
Bukmeikara said:
Even it is an exhibition tournament but the players are giving their best doesnt this make it a quality one ?Everyone from the players is taking it seriosly except Nadal and thats its not because he didnt want it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Nads has never treated it as the "exhibition" that his trolls and internet fantasists pretend it to be.

Neither has any top touring pro during the last 40 years.
 
The Dark Knight said:
Pathetic
Click to expand...

Why on earth would a Nadochist be fuming about this event?

Oh, right.

nadal%2Bfederer%2Bwtf.JPG


f2e9a74af9dbc5271107f5a9ef57b012_zpsc91a2cab.jpg
 
Smasher08 said:
Sorry, but these are largely bogus accomplishments. First, the "streak" isn't a true consecutive streak. No one has ever won 44 matches consecutively, let alone 80+. All it really illustrates is that Nads is a surface specialist since it was compiled during years where he was YE#2.

Second, Master's Shields totals is an overhyped and historically irrelevant accomplishment since these didn't actually exist until 2000.

That's the main reason that the guy who won more tournaments than anyone else, Jimmy Connors, isn't even in the top 5, and the top two shield holders are currently active players.

Pre-2000, the top players turned up to tournaments based upon one thing: appearance payola. That's why events like the Sybase Open and Volvo International featured top players in the 80s and 90s. Cash was king.

They're also inordinately skewed in favour of slow court players: Clay has 3 events, grass has none, and there's only one indoor event.

Winning a bunch of these is no small deal, but it's a second tier accomplishment which pales in comparison to slams.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You only believe this because the majors + WTF are skewed in favor of fast court players. Take a look at the surface of all the ATP events 250 and up. I'd bet the number of clay events is between 30-40% of the total, and yet it is only 20% of the majors + WTF. So, since people tend to look at the majors most of all, clay players are UNDERRATED if anything.
 
Smasher08 said:
Oh dear, you're off building straw men all over again.

Holding a MS1000 "record" is of little merit historically. The events in their modern form didn't exist until 13 years ago. And it pales in comparison to a slams. To watch the Nadochists overhype this should probably be unsurprising, but it's still revisionism based upon a falsification.

The WTF has been around for decades and is regarded as being virtually as prestigious as a slam, since the winner truly is the best of the year's best.

But obviously a teenager or a "weak era" fantasist wouldn't care much for these facts.
Click to expand...

Explain this statement.
 
I think so, but he's below Federer, Sampras and Laver imo. He could of course surpass all of them by the time he's done with his career. But not yet. He's a tier 1 though
 
FrontHeadlock said:
Incorrect. You only believe this because the majors + WTF are skewed in favor of fast court players. Take a look at the surface of all the ATP events 250 and up. I'd bet the number of clay events is between 30-40% of the total, and yet it is only 20% of the majors + WTF. So, since people tend to look at the majors most of all, clay players are UNDERRATED if anything.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Further specious reasoning from Nadochists.

"I'd bet. . . ." means you actually don't know. Which means you've failed the burden of proof from the outset.
 
MS titles aren't a tennis player's ambition/dream to win unless it's a home event and even that is somewhat debateable. The top guys use the MS tournaments as tuneups for slams. Ralph would consider his entire USO campaign a failure if he didn't win the USO even after winning the 2 consecutive HC MS titles as rare an accomplishment as it maybe.

To summarise: An MS event is never the end goal for a top player like Federer/Murray/Nadal/Djokovic etc. These guys wanna win slams and try being the #1 player in the world in the process. So having the MS record is not an important achievement and just because a player has this record it doesn't somehow catapult him to a GOAT candidate.
 
FrontHeadlock said:
Incorrect. You only believe this because the majors + WTF are skewed in favor of fast court players. Take a look at the surface of all the ATP events 250 and up. I'd bet the number of clay events is between 30-40% of the total, and yet it is only 20% of the majors + WTF. So, since people tend to look at the majors most of all, clay players are UNDERRATED if anything.
Click to expand...

The AO and the FO are slow courts, Wimbledon and the USO are faster but neither are lightning quick or as fast as they used to be.
 
Smasher08 said:
Irrelevant in any event. Tennis is played on four surfaces, and clay is just one of them.

All you've proven is that there's an imbalance.
Click to expand...

There is an imbalance.

Really we should have 6 top level tournaments. 2 clay, 2 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard and 1 grass. That more accurately reflects the makeup of the tour.

Add a grass masters and make it 3 clay masters, 4 outdoor hard masters, 1 indoor hard masters, and 1 grass masters.
 
 
FrontHeadlock said:
There is an imbalance.

Really we should have 6 top level tournaments. 2 clay, 2 outdoor hard, 1 indoor hard and 1 grass. That more accurately reflects the makeup of the tour.

Add a grass masters and make it 3 clay masters, 4 outdoor hard masters, 1 indoor hard masters, and 1 grass masters.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd argue for 2 MS1000s on each of the 4 surfaces, with an additional one on HC only because 2 slams are on the surface.

But then the current slam calendar would have to be completely redrawn.
 
Last edited:
Smasher08 said:
Personally I'd argue for 2 MS1000s on each of the 4 surfaces, with an additional one on HC only because 2 slams are on the surface.
Click to expand...

I think that would be fine if you also adjusted the 250s and 500s to the same ratio.

Ultimately I think the tours biggest events should mirror the importance the tour places on each of the surfaces.
 
kiki said:
That is good
I never changed my rooting no matter how good or bad the player was
One things are opinions and the other are feelings
Click to expand...

Right. I saw an article which supported Borg as being the "GOAT" based on the time that he accomplished his feats, but more than that, there were many other factors to support his GOATHOOD. Who am I to argue? I really don't care. Tennis players come and go. That is the nature of the sport. Like you, I just root for who I like. I don't care who is better.
 
Bukmeikara said:
Even it is an exhibition tournament but the players are giving their best doesnt this make it a quality one ?Everyone from the players is taking it seriosly except Nadal and thats its not because he didnt want it.
Click to expand...

It just isn't as important as some people try to make it around here, to me. I have yet to see anyone outside of this board elevating it to rarefied air.
 
Sure, why not? If he were a hurricane, I'd consider him a Category 4 on grass and hardcourts and on clay a Category 5.

Federer a Category 5 on grass and hardcourts and a Category 4 on clay.

And this thread a tropical depression (j/k)
 
ONLY OPEN ERA
Tier 0 : Laver
Tier 1: Borg,Sampras and Federer
Tier 2: Mac,Connors,Lendl,Nadal
Tier3: Agassi,Rosewall,Wilander,Becker
Tier4: Newcombe,Becker,Djokovic,Vilas
Tier 5:Nastase,Ashe,Kodes,Smith.Courier and Kuerten
Tier6:Bruguera,Rafter,Hewitt.Safin,Murray and Cash
Tier 7: Orantes,Gerulaitis,Chang,Stich,Ivanisevic and Roddick
Tier 8: Panatta,Tanner,Gimeno,Krajicek,Ferrero and Moya
Tier9: Kriek,Roche,Noah, Del Potro,Kafelnikov and Gomez
Tier 10: Korda, Teacher,Costa ,Corretja,Nalbandian and Gaudio
 
kiki said:
ONLY OPEN ERA
Tier 0 : Laver
Tier 1: Borg,Sampras and Federer
Tier 2: Mac,Connors,Lendl,Nadal
Tier3: Agassi,Rosewall,Wilander,Becker
Tier4: Newcombe,Becker,Djokovic,Vilas
Tier 5:Nastase,Ashe,Kodes,Smith.Courier and Kuerten
Tier6:Bruguera,Rafter,Hewitt.Safin,Murray and Cash
Tier 7: Orantes,Gerulaitis,Chang,Stich,Ivanisevic and Roddick
Tier 8: Panatta,Tanner,Gimeno,Krajicek,Ferrero and Moya
Tier9: Kriek,Roche,Noah, Del Potro,Kafelnikov and Gomez
Tier 10: Korda, Teacher,Costa ,Corretja,Nalbandian and Gaudio
Click to expand...

RIDICULOUS Edberg bashing.
 
kiki said:
ONLY OPEN ERA
Tier 0 : Laver
Tier 1: Borg,Sampras and Federer
Tier 2: Mac,Connors,Lendl,Nadal
Tier3: Agassi,Rosewall,Wilander,Becker
Tier4: Newcombe,Becker,Djokovic,Vilas
Tier 5:Nastase,Ashe,Kodes,Smith.Courier and Kuerten
Tier6:Bruguera,Rafter,Hewitt.Safin,Murray and Cash
Tier 7: Orantes,Gerulaitis,Chang,Stich,Ivanisevic and Roddick
Tier 8: Panatta,Tanner,Gimeno,Krajicek,Ferrero and Moya
Tier9: Kriek,Roche,Noah, Del Potro,Kafelnikov and Gomez
Tier 10: Korda, Teacher,Costa ,Corretja,Nalbandian and Gaudio
Click to expand...

I disagree because Federer and Laver should swap places.

Rosewall at tier 3 and Hoad is nowhere to be found. You know BobbyOne and Dan aren't going to like it.
 
Laver is there only because of the Calendar Slam. Is it a legit 'Open Era' Calendar Slam though? I'd argue strongly against that with many semi-pro players and a 48 man draw at the AO in '69.
 
Preopen
Tier0: Tilden,Laver,Budge
Tier 1: Rosewall,Gonzales,Hoad
Tier 2: Perry,Kramer,Cochet
Tier 3: Lacoste,Sedgman,Trabert
Tier4:Wilding,Doherty,Vines
Tier 5:Emmo,Crawford,Santana
Tier6:Borotra,Riggs,Drobny
Tier7:Patty,Parker,Fraser
Tier 8:Seixas,Cooper,Schroeder
Tier9:Brookes,Richards,Johnston
Tier 10:Pietrangeli,Stolle,Olmedo
 
TMF said:
I disagree because Federer and Laver should swap places.

Rosewall at tier 3 and Hoad is nowhere to be found. You know BobbyOne and Dan aren't going to like it.
Click to expand...

This only open era
I finished a new one for preopen
Put Newk just in open even if he had a great 67
 
kiki said:
ONLY OPEN ERA
Tier 0 : Laver
Tier 1: Borg,Sampras and Federer
Tier 2: Mac,Connors,Lendl,Nadal
Tier3: Agassi,Rosewall,Wilander,Becker
Tier4: Newcombe,Becker,Djokovic,Vilas
Tier 5:Nastase,Ashe,Kodes,Smith.Courier and Kuerten
Tier6:Bruguera,Rafter,Hewitt.Safin,Murray and Cash
Tier 7: Orantes,Gerulaitis,Chang,Stich,Ivanisevic and Roddick
Tier 8: Panatta,Tanner,Gimeno,Krajicek,Ferrero and Moya
Tier9: Kriek,Roche,Noah, Del Potro,Kafelnikov and Gomez
Tier 10: Korda, Teacher,Costa ,Corretja,Nalbandian and Gaudio
Click to expand...

Those are good rankings. I assume the 2nd Becker you meant Edberg though (or the other way around).

I am glad to see you have Kodes as high as you do. A very underrated player.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
It's universally agreed that Federer and Laver are Tier 1, and the vast majority also put Sampras and Borg in that category.

Nadal's place seems to be more debatable though. Personally, I think he is definitely in Tier 1 (has a slightly greater resume than Borg in my opinion), but others point to his skew towards clay, and relatively low number of Wimbledon titles, as a reason why he should be excluded from Tier 1.

What are your thoughts?

:twisted:
Click to expand...

Nadal would beat prime Laver, Sampras or Borg.
 
I really do. I'm admittedly not a huge fan (though I have nothing against him), but I see myself as pretty fair and reasonable. Can see either side of the debates about Nadal's GOAT status, or whether he's in front of or behind certain other players in the GOAT rankings.

But, I have no doubt that he belongs in the first tier of "greats".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kragster
Could Djokovic hypothetically become a Tier 1 great?
2 3
Replies
125
Views
13K
TMF
T
THE FIGHTER
Tier 1 players from Sampras' Era
2 3
Replies
112
Views
8K
THUNDERVOLLEY
THUNDERVOLLEY
R
Do you consider Federer a Tier 1 great? Did Nadal devalue Federer too much?
2 3
Replies
116
Views
7K
coloskier
C
pds999
For me Djokovic is a Tier 1 great - what do you all think?
2
Replies
74
Views
5K
kiki
kiki
Amitabh_Tennis
Is Concentrated Dominance Overrated ? Are weeks at 1 really a significant stat ?
Replies
12
Views
494
travlerajm
travlerajm
Back
Top