ESPN voters choose Nadal as most dominant athlete (individual or team) of the 21st century

octogon said:
You don't need to win by a big margin to be dominant. You just need to win, and win a lot.

People can use whatever loosely defined definition of domination they choose. That is why it is all arguable. Nadal has career stats (winning percentage etc) over Djokovic and Fed that can be argued as overall domination. If you don't buy it, that is up to you, but it certainly won't stop or anyone else from claiming it as a legitimate argument.
Click to expand...
I never said your definition was wrong - you said mine was. You can feel free to believe that Rafa was most dominant, but I'm telling you that most on the tennis boards and most that follow tennis will know Rafa was always more of a clay champion first and an anything else champion second.

Rafa was far and away dominant on clay, but he was never super dominant on the tour as a whole. He had periods of dominance, but he never shut out all competition like Federer and Djokovic managed to do. 2003-2007 are defined by Roger Federer. 2011 and 2015 are defined by Djokovic. 2013 & 2019 were defined by Nadal and Djokovic, 2017 was defined by Nadal and Federer.

Winning percentage will never qualify as dominance because a player can retire after winning a single slam and claim they were the most dominant in history with 100% slam win rate, 100% win rate - all of that. If Wilander stopped playing after his RG win, he would have had 100% at RG. Would that be better than Nadal? Of course not. Would it be more dominant? Easily no. This is why win% cannot decide dominance.
 
TripleATeam said:
I never said your definition was wrong - you said mine was. You can feel free to believe that Rafa was most dominant, but I'm telling you that most on the tennis boards and most that know anything about tennis will know Rafa was always more of a clay champion first and an anything else champion second.

Rafa was far and away dominant on clay, but he was never super dominant on the tour as a whole. He had periods of dominance, but he never shut out all competition like Federer and Djokovic managed to do. 2003-2007 are defined by Roger Federer. 2011 and 2015 are defined by Djokovic. 2013 & 2019 were defined by Nadal and Djokovic, 2017 was defined by Nadal and Federer.

Winning percentage will never qualify as dominance because a player can retire after winning a single slam and claim they were the most dominant in history with 100% slam win rate, 100% win rate - all of that. If Wilander stopped playing after his RG win, he would have had 100% at RG. Would that be better than Nadal? Of course not. Would it be more dominant? Easily no. This is why win% cannot decide dominance.
Click to expand...


Most on tennis boards thought Nadal would be finished at 27, and would never win 1 US Open.

If that argument is meant to hold any water, then it doesn't. Tennis board gremlins and tennis "experts" have been wrong about Nadal at every step of his career. I say he'll be known as the overall tennis GOAT (because he's done more than enough outside clay), and he is already the clay GOAT.

We can argue who is right in 10 years time. But Tennis board types have a horrible track record of predicting what Nadal will or won't accomplish or be percieved as.
 
octogon said:
Most on tennis boards thought Nadal would be finished at 27, and would never win 1 US Open.

If that argument is meant to hold any water, then it doesn't. Tennis board gremlins and tennis "experts" have been wrong about Nadal at every step of his career. I say he'll be known as the overall tennis GOAT (because he's done more than enough outside clay), and he is already the clay GOAT.

We can argue who is right in 10 years time. But Tennis board types have a horrible track record of predicting what Nadal will or won't accomplish or be percieved as.
Click to expand...
This isn't a prediction about their perception, it's about their perception. Most think Djokovic and Federer were more dominant on the tour as a whole, and the numbers back it up.

Listen, I've said my piece, it's clear you disagree - but you're working with a different criterion than I would say most people I've talked to on this forum or in real life. I think if you assert that Nadal was more dominant than Djokovic and Federer on the tour, you're going to start a lot of arguments. I'd advise you to use something different than win %, that's it.

I'd use the fact that Nadal's better at 34 than Federer was and was better at 33 than Djokovic is. He has the most M1000s, he won all the slams and a gold medal, he fought through the greatest years for Federer and the greatest years for Djokovic and still has 19 grand slams.

Use those arguments. Win % has a big hole with it, and that's what I was trying to say. I'd like it if we could leave the discussion here, I don't think we're gaining much from it. Go ahead and respond once more, but I'd like it if we could agree to leave it at whatever you say.
 
TripleATeam said:
This isn't a prediction about their perception, it's about their perception. Most think Djokovic and Federer were more dominant on the tour as a whole, and the numbers back it up.

Listen, I've said my piece, it's clear you disagree - but you're working with a different criterion than I would say most people I've talked to on this forum or in real life. I think if you assert that Nadal was more dominant than Djokovic and Federer on the tour, you're going to start a lot of arguments. I'd advise you to use something different than win %, that's it.

I'd use the fact that Nadal's better at 34 than Federer was and was better at 33 than Djokovic is. He has the most M1000s, he won all the slams and a gold medal, he fought through the greatest years for Federer and the greatest years for Djokovic and still has 19 grand slams.

Use those arguments. Win % has a big hole with it, and that's what I was trying to say. I'd like it if we could leave the discussion here, I don't think we're gaining much from it. Go ahead and respond once more, but I'd like it if we could agree to leave it at whatever you say.
Click to expand...

Life would be very dull if everyone had the same perspective wouldn't it? I'm very sure you are right, and many people think exactly what you said about Fed and Djoker in regards to dominance arguments.

It's of zero interest to me to follow a crowd, and agree with what "most" are saying for fear of being wrong or looking foolish, or maintaining a status quo of thought.

I'm throwing a different criterion into the mix (win/loss%). I don't think it has a big a hole in it as you claim, because all the Big 3 are ending up with similarly long careers, so it feels a fair metric in their case. Whether "most" want to agree with it is up to them. But it gets people thinking and starts conversations. And some people reading my arguments may think, "gee, maybe he has a point", and change their own view somewhat, while others may be unmoved. That is the beauty of debate. You do it well enough, some perspectives will be altered. Yours wasn't, but I got enough likes to suggest that maybe some others were (or at least they felt what I said sounded fair and made sense).

And that's all I have to say about that.
 
Last edited:
Nadal is 1-4 in last 5 GS intramural matches of Big 3, falls behind even 5 year older Federer! That's objective facts!
 
octogon said:
In terms of career win/loss percentages across all surfaces, Nadal actually is the most dominant player out of the Big 3.

You can break it down different ways...individual seasons, career win/loss % etc to give it to a different member of the Big 3....but Nadal has his own legitimate case to be regarded as the most dominant player across all surfaces on aggregate.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but win/loss percentage is misleading without context. In this case, Nadal consistently chose to play on his pet surface(clay) every year. And yet he skipped a boat load of tournaments off-clay. Sheer number of wins are accumulated on clay is the reason that his percentage is high. Another example is Borg who has a very high win/loss percentage, but everyone knows that's due to him retired early during the peak of his career.



Win/loss percentage can be objectively measured annually with no deception. Because every player has his peak years, annual winning percentage can be measure how he dominate the tour.

Below is the list of player who has over 90+ winning percentage.

Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Novak Djokovic(2015) .932 82-6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
= Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
9. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
10. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
11. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
13. Ivan Lendl (1989) .919 79-7
= Jimmy Connors(1975) .919 79-7
15. Jimmy Connors(1976) .918 90-8
16. Jimmy Connors(1978) .917 66-6
17. Björn Borg(1977) .916 76-7
18. Rafael Nadal (2013) .915 75-7
19. Ivan Lendl (1987) .914 74-7

Lendl did it 5 times
Connors 4
Federer/Borg 3
Nole 2
Nadal/Mcenroe 1
 
TMF said:
I'm sorry but win/loss percentage is misleading without context. In this case, Nadal consistently chose to play on his pet surface(clay) every year. And yet he skipped a boat load of tournaments off-clay. Sheer number of wins are accumulated on clay is the reason that his percentage is high. Another example is Borg who has a very high win/loss percentage, but everyone knows that's due to him retired early during the peak of his career.



Win/loss percentage can be objectively measured annually with no deception. Because every player has his peak years, annual winning percentage can be measure how he dominate the tour.

Below is the list of player who has over 90+ winning percentage.

Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Novak Djokovic(2015) .932 82-6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
= Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
9. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
10. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
11. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
13. Ivan Lendl (1989) .919 79-7
= Jimmy Connors(1975) .919 79-7
15. Jimmy Connors(1976) .918 90-8
16. Jimmy Connors(1978) .917 66-6
17. Björn Borg(1977) .916 76-7
18. Rafael Nadal (2013) .915 75-7
19. Ivan Lendl (1987) .914 74-7

Lendl did it 5 times
Connors 4
Federer/Borg 3
Nole 2
Nadal/Mcenroe 1
Click to expand...


I've already acknowledged several times that Federer and Djokovic had more dominant individual seasons. That's one way of measuring dominance, and if that's your measuring stick more power to you. You are not neccesarily wrong. There's other ways of measuring dominance which favor Nadal, which I'm just pointing out.

Nadal missed some tournaments and parts of the season due to injury. It's a trade-off. He has no WTF title, because he lost so many opportunities to play it. Fans of rival players show no sympathy for him and don't say we should look at context. It's just used as a stick to beat him with. So fair is fair....Nadal's superior win/loss career % overall, at slams and at Masters 1000s, is a pretty useful stick.

Federer, when he was HEALTHY, made the deliberate decision to skip several clay seasons, so as to avoid making his H2H with Nadal even worse, and allow him to regain confidence against Nadal on other surfaces (and it worked). Federer managed to artificially reset his H2H dynamic with Nadal with this tactic, yet do you see Nadal fans crying that Federer's last 5 wins against Nadal shouldn't count or are "out of context" or "misleading" because he skipped clay to regain confidence? Of course not. It's all part of the game, and everything naturally evens out.

So I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "b-b-but muh muh clay, clay, Nadal played too much clay" argument, when Federer was out here on these streets skipping whole clay seasons just because he could.

At least Nadal always cited injury. Federer tried to skew his win/loss % out of blatant fear. Anyway, these guys all have long careers. The career win/loss % balances itself out and is legitimate metric for the Big 3.
 
Last edited:
octogon said:
At least Nadal always cited injury. Federer tried to skew his win/loss % out of blatant fear. Anyway, these guys all have long careers. The career win/loss % balances itself out and is legitimate metric for the Big 3.
Click to expand...

It's not really though, because Nadal only has a marginally higher winning percentage overall due to his utter dominance of clay. Federer and Novak Djokovic have much more balanced high percentages across all surfaces. So the win % doesn't prove Nadal is the greatest.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
It's not really though, because Nadal only has a marginally higher winning percentage overall due to his utter dominance of clay. Federer and Novak Djokovic have much more balanced high percentages across all surfaces. So the win % doesn't prove Nadal is the greatest.
Click to expand...


Thems the breaks.

The other two should have been more dominant on one of the other surfaces to allow them to overtake in the overall win % like Rafa.

See how that works.
 
octogon said:
Thems the breaks.

The other two should have been more dominant on one of the other surfaces to allow them to overtake in the overall win % like Rafa.

See how that works.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'd prefer to be great at three things, rather than very great at one, and somewhat good at the other two.
 
Lew II said:
Nah you're just a Ned fan.

All Big3 have a claim at GOAT. I think Djokovic with the slam record, #1 weeks, big titles and h2h vs ATG opponents will be acknowledged as the GOAT when their careers are over
Click to expand...
Rafa has 19 slam titles and 8 runner ups
Novak has 17 slams titles and 9 runner-ups
Roger has 20 slam titles and 11 runner ups.

Nadal H2H leads Djokovic 9–6 in slam finals
Nadal, H2H leads Federer 6–3 in slam finals
Djokovic H2H leads Federer 4–1 in slam finals
Federer leads no GOAT in slam finals, (except Murray, not a GOAT)

This is all that counts in the mainstream' media's eyes.
Nobody will look into one surface as much since Rafa still has 2-3 other slam grass and hard court championships.

Djokovic & Roger would need to equal or surpass Rafa H2H in slam finals to be considered GOAT.

weeks at #1, big titles is all blah, blah, blah because they are not always H2H, the other potential GOAT guy getting hurt, upset early on, only best of 3 sets, etc. Players can dominate a hard court tour or clay tour for a season or two and fail in slams.
it's like one team beating the other in the regular season but in the championship, the other true dominant team wins. The same applies here.

~~ Slams trophies are what count the most and always will. ~~ I think Dinara Safina & Jelena Jancovic would agree. Wozniacki at least got one.
 
Last edited:
a10best said:
Djokovic & Roger would need to equal or surpass Rafa H2H in slam finals to be considered GOAT.
Click to expand...
Why would they need to do that? No one talks about slam H2H nearly as much as they talk about overall H2H. If Djokovic got a slam lead over Nadal and Federer and a maintained or grew his H2H lead, I doubt the media would say "well, remember that Nadal beat him more often in slams...", the obvious retort being "then why doesn't he still lead in slams?"
 
TripleATeam said:
Why would they need to do that? No one talks about slam H2H nearly as much as they talk about overall H2H. If Djokovic got a slam lead over Nadal and Federer and a maintained or grew his H2H lead, I doubt the media would say "well, remember that Nadal beat him more often in slams...", the obvious retort being "then why doesn't he still lead in slams?"
Click to expand...


When Nadal won the US Open in 2019, the two most heavily circulated infographics on social media by media outlets were the Big 3 slam totals and the Big 3 slam H2H. You couldn't move on twitter without those two stats being thrown in your face in the stream of "Is Rafa the GOAT articles". Now obviously, Nadal had just won his 19th slam and media outlets were interested in hyping up his own GOAT credentials, so they chose to lead with the slam H2H against the other two, which is makes Rafa look more dominant over Novak and Roger than the overall H2H.

Basically, the media will spin whichever H2H stat they want to as being more important, depending on which player they want to hype up in the moment. If Novak wins a slam, we hear more about the overall H2H. If Rafa wins a slam, the media can't stop telling us how he dominates Novak and Roger in slams.

So I would definitely say that when the media wants to hype the slam H2H, they can and will. If they want to pump up Rafa especially.

It's all a game. Do not expect the media to stick to any rules.
 
octogon said:
When Nadal won the US Open in 2019, the two most heavily circulated infographics on social media by media outlets were the Big 3 slam totals and the Big 3 slam H2H. You couldn't move on twitter without those two stats being thrown in your face in the stream of "Is Rafa the GOAT articles". Now obviously, Nadal had just won his 19th slam and media outlets were interested in hyping up his own GOAT credentials, so they chose to lead with the slam H2H against the other two, which is makes Rafa look more dominant over Novak and Roger than the overall H2H.

Basically, the media will spin whichever H2H stat they want to as being more important, depending on which player they want to hype up in the moment. If Novak wins a slam, we hear more about the overall H2H. If Rafa wins a slam, the media can't stop telling us how he dominates Novak and Roger in slams.

So I would definitely say that when the media wants to hype the slam H2H, they can and will. If they want to pump up Rafa especially.

It's all a game. Do not expect the media to stick to any rules.
Click to expand...
Sure, of course they can use it, but I was referring to when the greats are asked, they always point at overall H2H, much less slam H2H.
 
TripleATeam said:
Sure, of course they can use it, but I was referring to when the greats are asked, they always point at overall H2H, much less slam H2H.
Click to expand...

They "greats" chop and change their GOAT opinions every 5 minutes, depending on which way the wind is blowing. It's hard to take the likes John McEnroe or Mats Wilander all that seriously after their umpteenth switcheroo.

Also, the fact that so many "greats" still choose Federer as GOAT when asked (and probably won't budge till the slam record is out of his hands), suggest they can ignore or disregard H2H whenever it suits them. If H2H factored that strongly with the "greats", Fed would not even still be in the GOAT conversation with them
 
octogon said:
They "greats" chop and change their GOAT opinions every 5 minutes, depending on which way the wind is blowing. It's hard to take the likes John McEnroe or Mats Wilander all that seriously after their umpteenth switcheroo.

Also, the fact that so many "greats" still choose Federer as GOAT when asked (and probably won't budge till the slam record is out of his hands), suggest they can ignore or disregard H2H whenever it suits them. If H2H factored that strongly with the "greats", Fed would not be in the GOAT conversation with them
Click to expand...
Which is why they don't need to equal or beat Nadal in slam final H2H to be considered GOAT. In any case, that isn't the be-all-end-all and it's not even that high on the list of accomplishments. Slams, Weeks at #1, YE#1, ATP Finals, Masters, and overall H2H are and will be more important.
 
TripleATeam said:
Which is why they don't need to equal or beat Nadal in slam final H2H to be considered GOAT. In any case, that isn't the be-all-end-all and it's not even that high on the list of accomplishments. Slams, Weeks at #1, YE#1, ATP Finals, Masters, and overall H2H are and will be more important.
Click to expand...

I think slam H2H is a lot more important for players at the level of the Big 3. Rafa's bragging rights for being the best big match player of his era are substantial because of that.

Look how much mileage Wawrinka gets out of beating Djokovic in slams, despite being far behind in their overall H2H. People almost overlook how much more dominant Novak is in that match-up overall, because Stan beats him in slams. The smaller matches carry less weight.

And when you put Rafa's combined slam H2H against Djokovic and Federer together (21-10) it makes his case for GOAT even more substantial.

But that's just my own view. You obviously feel different, and that's fine.
 
TripleATeam said:
Why would they need to do that? No one talks about slam H2H nearly as much as they talk about overall H2H. If Djokovic got a slam lead over Nadal and Federer and a maintained or grew his H2H lead, I doubt the media would say "well, remember that Nadal beat him more often in slams...", the obvious retort being "then why doesn't he still lead in slams?"
Click to expand...
The media actually would do that. You remember the comedy skit Trevor Noah did about Americans and their extremely detailed knowledge about sports. Sports talks shows are up the wazoo.
The media will certainly do this in one-on-one sports. They do it a lot with Boxing, MMA, Golf, Swimming, and team sports.
Nobody puts emphasis on beating opponents who are not top 5 or top 10 in a final.
When you beat the best of your era, a player who is a consistent performing champ liek Fed or Djokovic, it speaks volumes.
Djokovic certainly had the hardest road but he and everyone knows it is far more satisfying beating Fed or Nadal in a semi GS or final than somebody else. You win the slam and H2H in a slam. A two-fer. He is on that path if he stays healthy because Fed is kind of done and Nadal is losing squeakers to Djokovic in the last few h2h slams.

Nadal has dominated the FO and won 93 of 95 matches for 12 titles.
while Bolt has dominated and won 20 Olympic and world championship gold medals in the 21 events
I give it to Nadal although the Olympics sprints races, and Bolt, are far more popular than tennis.
 
Last edited:
TMF said:
Another example is Borg who has a very high win/loss percentage, but everyone knows that's due to him retired early during the peak of his career.
Click to expand...
btw, win/loss percentage at slams overall.. borg-89%, nadal-88
 
a10best said:
Rafa has 19 slam titles and 8 runner ups
Novak has 17 slams titles and 9 runner-ups
Roger has 20 slam titles and 11 runner ups.

Nadal H2H leads Djokovic 9–6 in slam finals
Nadal, H2H leads Federer 6–3 in slam finals
Djokovic H2H leads Federer 4–1 in slam finals
Federer leads no GOAT in slam finals, (except Murray, not a GOAT)

This is all that counts in the mainstream' media's eyes.
Nobody will look into one surface as much since Rafa still has 2-3 other slam grass and hard court championships.

Djokovic & Roger would need to equal or surpass Rafa H2H in slam finals to be considered GOAT.

weeks at #1, big titles is all blah, blah, blah because they are not always H2H, the other potential GOAT guy getting hurt, upset early on, only best of 3 sets, etc. Players can dominate a hard court tour or clay tour for a season or two and fail in slams.
it's like one team beating the other in the regular season but in the championship, the other true dominant team wins. The same applies here.

~~ Slams trophies are what count the most and always will. ~~ I think Dinara Safina & Jelena Jancovic would agree. Wozniacki at least got one.
Click to expand...

Nadal vs Djokovic - 4-4 in Slam finals.
 
a10best said:
^ ^ wikipedia and other online resources don't agree with your post.
Click to expand...
AO: They've played 2 finals. Djokovic won both.
RG: They've played 2 finals. Nadal won both.
Wimbledon: They've played 1 final, Djokovic won.
USO: They've played 3 finals. Djokovic won 1, Nadal won 2.

Total: Djokovic 4, Nadal 4.

They've played in 2 AO matches, 7 Roland Garros, 3 Wimbledon, and 3 US Opens. That's a sum of 15 matches across all round of the slams. I can name them off the top of my head and the rounds in which they happened.

AO 12 and 19 F, Wimbledon 07 and 18 SF, Wimbledon 11 F, USO 10, 11, 13 F. RG 06 15 QF, 07 08 13 SF, 12 14 F.
 
NoleFam said:
If you actually need Wikipedia to know what their Slam final head to head is, then......

It's 4-4.
Click to expand...
LOL.. yeah it didn't seem like he was leading 9-6 finals and I didn't think they played that many.
Maybe they included semis?
Ask Wikipedia to change it.. look under H2H Nadal-Djokovic rivalry. that source has some other incorrect facts on other things too.
 
TripleATeam said:
AO: They've played 2 finals. Djokovic won both.
RG: They've played 2 finals. Nadal won both.
Wimbledon: They've played 1 final, Djokovic won.
USO: They've played 3 finals. Djokovic won 1, Nadal won 2.

Total: Djokovic 4, Nadal 4.

They've played in 2 AO matches, 7 Roland Garros, 3 Wimbledon, and 3 US Opens. That's a sum of 15 matches across all round of the slams. I can name them off the top of my head and the rounds in which they happened.

AO 12 and 19 F, Wimbledon 07 and 18 SF, Wimbledon 11 F, USO 10, 11, 13 F. RG 06 15 QF, 07 08 13 SF, 12 14 F.
Click to expand...
that's scary you know it that well. security !!!!
 
a10best said:
~~ Slams trophies are what count the most and always will. ~~ I think Dinara Safina & Jelena Jancovic would agree. Wozniacki at least got one.
Click to expand...
I agree with your comment but not this bit. I fail to see why slams are all that count. Slams are run by the ITF, they are not ATP events. Are we to believe that the ATP events don't matter? How can only 4 tournaments out of the 18 counted towards rankings in a season be the only ones that count? It's like saying only the World Cup counts in football or only FA Cup matches count. Or in sprinting, say only the 400 meters race counts.
 
Because there is no agreed criteria, fans keep moving the goalpost to give their favourite player the advantage. Now that the Big 3 are virtually neck and neck in slam count, some people are beginning factor in nebulous things like being a good ambassador for the sport, elegant style, fans' favourite etc.

It's impossible to say someone is the GOAT based solely of number of slam titles won. That's as good as saying the tournaments held by the main body of tennis i.e the ATP don't matter in the grand scheme of things. That's laughable.
 
clayqueen said:
Because there is no agreed criteria, fans keep moving the goalpost to give their favourite player the advantage. Now that the Big 3 are virtually neck and neck in slam count, some people are beginning factor in nebulous things like being a good ambassador for the sport, elegant style, fans' favourite etc.

It's impossible to say someone is the GOAT based solely of number of slam titles won. That's as good as saying the tournaments held by the main body of tennis i.e the ATP don't matter in the grand scheme of things. That's laughable.
Click to expand...

You make some good points here. I guess the slam count was the easiest agreed upon GOAT "metric" that most people could agree on (and it's been used in other sports like Golf, to determine who is their GOAT). So it truly became the central metric in the Pete Sampras era, and the sport and the media fell in line with that belief

But yeah, now that you have 3 guys neck and neck in slams for the record, goalposts are being shifted all over the place. I still think the slam record "works" as the best metric for the general public, because they mainly care about the majors, and they see it done with other things like Golf. To casuals, the Miami Masters or the WTF means very little to them. But they know what Wimbledon is. They know what the French Open is. They know what the US Open is etc etc.
 
octogon said:
But yeah, now that you have 3 guys neck and neck in slams for the record, goalposts are being shifted all over the place. I still think the slam record "works" as the best metric for the general public, because they mainly care about the majors, and they see it done with other things like Golf. To casuals, the Miami Masters or the WTF means very little to them. But they know what Wimbledon is. They know what the French Open is. They know what the US Open is etc etc.
Click to expand...
A lot of this is down to how the sport is sold to the public. I know a lot of Brits think tennis is only about Wimbledon because that is what is most talked about and that's all many people have ever watched. In the days before satellite communication, we only watched Wimbledon in the UK. It was agony to have to wait for a whole year to watch tennis. I remember events like the USO, AO and RG being mentioned in passing on the radio. It wasn't even possible to show us clips of matches. There is far far more going on in tennis than slams and it's for the powers that be to educate the public.

When Roger had more than twice the number of slams than his current rivals, it was much easier to sell him as the GOAT, now, it just sounds hollow as Rafa and Novak have, virtually, caught up with him. It was such a big deal when Roger beat Roddick to win his 15th slam at Wimbledon. Many thought that record would never be broken. That was 11 years ago and it's already been passed by two of his active rivals.

 
clayqueen said:
I agree with your comment but not this bit. I fail to see why slams are all that count. Slams are run by the ITF, they are not ATP events. Are we to believe that the ATP events don't matter? How can only 4 tournaments out of the 18 counted towards rankings in a season be the only ones that count? It's like saying only the World Cup counts in football or only FA Cup matches count. Or in sprinting, say only the 400 meters race counts.
Click to expand...
How could anyone think a 32 or 64 player draw event is equal or equally important as a 128-player draw best of five event held in major stadiums?
Why not throw in satellite events in your arguments?

I am not saying those others don't count. I am saying the actual players would gladly trade their Masters title 100 times out of 100 for 1 slam any day, any month, any year. The exclamation point on an ATP players career and the ultimate achievement is winning a slam. Be it only 1 slam, it is the highest achievement besides being ranked No. 1. After that, the goal is multiple slams, then masters, consecutive weeks at No. 1, etc.

Tip: Most people only care about the World Cup. Copa das Americas, Ouro de Mexico are fine but it is not the best in "the world". With one or multiple World Cup wins - your country is revered in history; Brasil, France, Italy.

What has Messi done in the WC? nada. Maradona has. Messi is nothing more than a great regular season player like Steve Nash or Karl Malone was in the NBA.
Zidane may give you a head butt. :)
Success in the clutchest of moments on the highest stage is where legends are born and cemented. Romario, Neymar, Tiger Woods, Jordan, Bolt, Phelps, Mariano Rivera, Jeter, Brady and in tennis; Borg, Sampras, Agassi, and our 3 GOATS.

Winning a 1st tier event gets you noticed. But the biggest pressure is in slams and the ATP year end event. It is closer to slams than a masters yet it still falls short since it is not the best of 5. Ask yourself why are only slam wins mentioned on sports highlight talks shows like ESPN or Fox Sports. I never hear about Cincy, Toronto, or Italian Open on those networks but I do hear about the boring Golf champs who won an event.
 
Last edited:
a10best said:
How could anyone think a 32 or 64 player draw event is equal or equally important as a 128-player draw best of five event held in major stadiums?
Why not throw in satellite events in your arguments?
Click to expand...
The answer is in the size of the draws. With a draw of 128, top players can win a slam without playing a top 15 player until the 4th round but in an M1000 they could play a top 15/20 player in the 3rd round. The first few rounds in a slam for a top player are, basically, gimmes. Usually some WC ranked below 1000 who is given a chance in his home tournament but not expected to win anything. Yes, top players do lose in early rounds to nobodies but the fact still remains that they can go up to 4 rounds playing people who shouldn't cause them any problems.
 
Last edited:
a10best said:
I am not saying those others don't count. I am saying the actual players would gladly trade their Masters title 100 times out of 100 for 1 slam any day, any month, any year. The exclamation point on an ATP players career and the ultimate achievement is winning a slam. Be it only 1 slam, it is the highest achievement besides being ranked No. 1. After that, the goal is multiple slams, then masters, consecutive weeks at No. 1, etc.
Click to expand...
That's because of the prestige attached to slams that they are the only things that matter with regard to greatness.
 
Last edited:
a10best said:
Winning a 1st tier event gets you noticed. But the biggest pressure is in slams and the ATP year end event. It is closer to slams than a masters yet it still falls short since it is not the best of 5. Ask yourself why are only slam wins mentioned on sports highlight talks shows like ESPN or Fox Sports. I never hear about Cincy, Toronto, or Italian Open on those networks but I do hear about the boring Golf champs who won an event.
Click to expand...
That's because slams are held to be the Holy Grail. It's all a matter of perception. I don't want to get into WTF debate but it's not a knockout contest. You do not have to win all your matches to win the title. So, in my eyes, the WTF is not a serious contest. In all other tournaments, it's one strike and you're out. You could have a bad day in the 1st round of a slam or M1000 etc. and lose. That's the end of the tournament for you.
 
clayqueen said:
The answer is in the size of the draws. With a draw of 128, top players can win a slam without playing a top 15 player until the 4th round but in an M1000 they could play a top 15/20 player in the 3rd round. The first few rounds in a slam for a top player are, basically, gimmes. Usually some WC ranked below 1000 who is given a chance in his home tournament but not expected to win anything. Yes, top players do lose in early rounds to nobodies but the fact still remains that they can go up to 4 rounds playing people who shouldn't cause them any problems.
Click to expand...
No. the answer is not in the size of the draw for the men it is a "BEST of FIVE" !!!
7 rounds best of 5 vs. 3 rounds best of 3.
*** Young gen do well but have failed miserably against old gen GOATS in best of fives. GOATS know what counts more.
Mansion vs. a $500k home
Billionaire vs. millionaire
high end private jets vs. a charter jet or comm'l 1st class or sadly taking coach.
amigo, no hay comparación.

Serena was always chasing Graf, now Court. Fed was chasing Sampras.

Please tell us what player is chasing Masters titles won?
When they do play it is only to get points for No. 1 race or maintain top 4 ranking for seeding at the "majors". All three GOATS, Rafa, Fed & Nole skip certain master events now because they are of little importance to them. You have to give up this argument and as Gilbert would say, the loser drops and does 50 pushups.
 
a10best said:
No. the answer is not in the size of the draw for the men it is a "BEST of FIVE" !!!
7 rounds best of 5 vs. 3 rounds best of 3.
*** Young gen do well but have failed miserably against old gen GOATS in best of fives. GOATS know what counts more.
Mansion vs. a $500k home
Billionaire vs. millionaire
high end private jets vs. a charter jet or comm'l 1st class or sadly taking coach.
amigo, no hay comparación.

Serena was always chasing Graf, now Court. Fed was chasing Sampras.

Please tell us what player is chasing Masters titles won?
When they do play it is only to get points for No. 1 race or maintain top 4 ranking for seeding at the "majors". All three GOATS, Rafa, Fed & Nole skip certain master events now because they are of little importance to them. You have to give up this argument and as Gilbert would say, the loser drops and does 50 pushups.
Click to expand...
No one is chasing M1000 titles because people say only slams matter. I am saying slams shouldn't be the only titles that matter. Serena is chasing slam count because everyone says she's got to beat Court's haul of slams.
 
clayqueen said:
No one is chasing M1000 titles because people say only slams matter. I am saying slams shouldn't be the only titles that matter. Serena is chasing slam count because everyone says she's got to beat Court's haul of slams.
Click to expand...
Truth in what you are saying. Unfortunately this big3 race has been focused on slams. Will be interesting if it stays this way on tour when they retire.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Truth in what you are saying. Unfortunately this big3 race has been focused on slams. Will be interesting if it stays this way on tour when they retire.
Click to expand...

Can't see how or why this would change.

I wonder though, if no player emerges who racks up slams like the Big 3 after they retire, the main tennis bodies might do something desperate to keep interest high in the sport....like create a Fifth Slam. The arguments that would create, and the way the record books would get artificially ripped up would be crazy.LOL!
 
Last edited:
octogon said:
Can't see how or why this would change.

I wonder though, if no player emerges who racks up slams like the Big 3 after the retire, the main tennis bodies might do something desperate to keep interest high in the sport....like create a Fifth Slam. The arguments that woulkd create, and the way the record books would get artificially ripped up would be crazy.LOL!
Click to expand...


It could be even worse: Best of 3 sets GS.
Zverev will :love: that prospect.
I am :sick:!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Razer
Rafael Nadal retires as the 12th Greatest athlete of the 21st Century
2 3 4
Replies
170
Views
9K
RS
RS
R
Nadal and Jankovic 3rd in Int'l sports media athlete of the year
Replies
3
Views
756
baseline08thrasher
B
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Nadal most dominant athlete in the world
2 3
Replies
142
Views
10K
Djokovic2011
Djokovic2011
K
Federer: Earns most money via endorsements of any sportsperson in the world, why?
2 3
Replies
138
Views
14K
Murrayjuannow
M
BeatlesFan
"Roger Federer has earned the mantle as the greatest of all-time"
2 3
Replies
134
Views
13K
socallefty
socallefty
Back
Top