Every open era great has won the YEC

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Roger Federer – ’03, ’04, ’06, ’07, ’10, ‘11
Pete Sampras – ’91, ’94, ’96, ’97, ‘99
Ivan Lendl – ’81, ’82, ’85, ’86, ‘87
Bjorn Borg – ’79, ‘80
John McEnroe – ’78, ’83, ‘84
Jimmy Connors – ‘77
Andre Agassi – ‘90
Novak Djokovic – ’08, ‘12, '13
Stefan Edberg – ‘89


How can Rafael “I wish the WTF was played on clay” Nadal be considered an all-time great when he cannot accomplish something that every great player of the open era has?
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Question: How many of those Open Era greats you listed ever completed the career Grand Slam?

Answer: Just 2 of them, Federer and Agassi along with Nadal and Laver of course.

So there is more than one way to measure all-time greatness and holding all 4 Slam titles is probably a more impressive achievement than holding a YEC title.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Question: How many of those Open Era greats you listed ever completed the career Grand Slam?

Answer: Just 2 of them, Federer and Agassi along with Nadal and Laver of course.

So there is more than one way to measure all-time greatness and holding all 4 Slam titles is probably a more impressive achievement than holding a YEC title.
Nadal is definitely a benefactor of surface homogenization.

But year after year he proves that he can't beat the top 8 players in a single tournament.
 

Goosehead

Legend
Rod Laver missed out on the first YEC in 1970 by a game or two,

it was done on a total games won format and stan smith won slightly more than Laver so laver finished 2nd.
 

Crisstti

Legend
Uhm, not EVERY open era great. Isn't that obvious? :)

Nadal is definitely a benefactor of surface homogenization.

But year after year he proves that he can't beat the top 8 players in a single tournament.
He hasn't been able (at least up to now) on a low bouncing indoor hc. How many do you think Fed would have if it was played on clay?. I guess he could have won it when Rafa was out injured. And his fans would claim it was just as tough as playing Rafa :)
 
Last edited:

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Lendl never won Wimbledon either and 2 of his Slams came at the AO at around the same era as Wilander's.
He has 270 weeks at number 1. And he at least made 2 finals, whereas Wi-can-der never made it past the QF. So... it kinda different.
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Roger Federer – ’03, ’04, ’06, ’07, ’10, ‘11
Pete Sampras – ’91, ’94, ’96, ’97, ‘99
Ivan Lendl – ’81, ’82, ’85, ’86, ‘87
Bjorn Borg – ’79, ‘80
John McEnroe – ’78, ’83, ‘84
Jimmy Connors – ‘77
Andre Agassi – ‘90
Novak Djokovic – ’08, ‘12
Stefan Edberg – ‘89


How can Rafael “I wish the WTF was played on clay” Nadal be considered an all-time great when he cannot accomplish something that every great player of the open era has?
Are you suggesting that Djokovic is a great and that Nadal is not. Are you suggesting that Nadal cannot be considered to be great until he wins a WTF title.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Are you suggesting that Djokovic is a great and that Nadal is not. Are you suggesting that Nadal cannot be considered to be great until he wins a WTF title.
I am suggesting that Nadal cannot win the YEC because he is not a great player. He needs his cakewalk draws or his opportunistic matches where a top seed isn't playing well. He can't beat the entire top 8 at a single tournament.

Every great player has won the YEC... most of them multiple times. Why can't he?
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
So are you suggesting that Nalbandian and Davydenko are greater players than Nadal?
Obviously the YEC is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria to be considered a great player.

Nadal is the only one left out. What a pity.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Obviously the YEC is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement to be considered a great player.

Nadal is the only one left out. What a pity.
But if a pair of scrubs like Nalbandian and Davydenko, who could only manage one Slam final between them, managed to win the YEC it doesn't say much about it as a tournament does it? On the other hand, I doubt anybody would ever be able to describe a winner of all 4 Grand Slam titles as a scrub!
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
are suggesting that Federer is vulnerable against pushers? Did Nadal push him out in 21 matches out of 31?
This thread is about the open era greats in general and why Nadal can't win a tournament that every other great player has.

Does he just require luck? Because it's hard to be lucky when you have to play only the top 8 players.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Mats Wilander didn't.

Thread fail.
You seem to have unaccountably missed Agassi off the list. I can't imagine why!
Wwwhooops!

(This is just another not-very-subtle, and not convincing attempt to devalue Nadal.)

Yep, you're right: 13 slams, career grand slam, 8 FO titles--all sheer luck.

What really, truly matters is the YEC. Smart thinking!
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
I am suggesting that Nadal cannot win the YEC because he is not a great player. He needs his cakewalk draws or his opportunistic matches where a top seed isn't playing well. He can't beat the entire top 8 at a single tournament.

Every great player has won the YEC... most of them multiple times. Why can't he?
Nadal fluked his way to 13 grand slams? lol. How can a player with Nadal's movement, forehand and mind not be a great tennis player...
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
But if a pair of scrubs like Nalbandian and Davydenko, who could only manage one Slam final between them, managed to win the YEC it doesn't say much about it as a tournament does it? On the other hand, I doubt anybody would ever be able to describe a winner of all 4 Grand Slam titles as a scrub!
However, Nalbandian and Davydenko at their best were as good as anyone.

Nadal is consistent and benefits from favourable draws a lot, but he apparently doesn't possess the peak level necessary to win the WTF.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
This thread is about the open era greats in general and why Nadal can't win a tournament that every other great player has.

Does he just require luck? Because it's hard to be lucky when you have to play only the top 8 players.
You said Nadal and Murray are pushers. They both have positive H2H vs Federer. Would that mean Federer is hopeless against pushers?
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Nadal has only won 2 indoor tournaments in his life. He came close in 2010 but Federer has halted his progress at latter stages of the tournament 3 times and the either quicker and/or indoor conditions of the YEC have been hard for Nadal to thrive in. It isn't dissimilar to Sampras never winning RG, except RG is a Grand Slam event and Sampras never even managed to get to a final despite the fact that the tournament is less strictly elite than the YEC where he didn't have to say face 4-5 top 8 players in a row to even reach a final (nevermind winning the event).
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Nadal has only won 2 indoor tournaments in his life. He came close in 2010 but Federer has halted his progress at latter stages of the tournament 3 times and the either quicker and/or indoor conditions of the YEC have been hard for Nadal to thrive in. It isn't dissimilar to Sampras never winning RG, except RG is a Grand Slam event and Sampras never even managed to get to a final despite the fact that the tournament is less strictly elite than the YEC where he didn't have to say face 4-5 top 8 players in a row to even reach a final (nevermind winning the event).
Nadal has benefited more than anyone from surface homogenization.

If anything, his failure to win the YEC proves that he wouldn't have won the USO, let alone Wimbledon, when they were still played on fast courts like in Sampras's time.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
However, Nalbandian and Davydenko at their best were as good as anyone.
As good as anyone? With only 1 losing Slam final between them? What an insult to the legacies of Federer, Borg, Agassi, Lendl, Sampras and co! So much for all their Slam victories then!

Nadal is consistent and benefits from favourable draws a lot, but he apparently doesn't possess the peak level necessary to win the WTF.
Give it up. He's won everything else there is to win and everybody knows he is sub-par at the tail end of the season following his exertions in the first half. But his career is not yet over. He may still win it, might he not?
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
As good as anyone? With only 1 losing Slam final between them? What an insult to the legacies of Federer, Borg, Agassi, Lendl, Sampras and co! So much for all their Slam victories then!



Give it up. He's won everything else there is to win and everybody knows he is sub-par at the tail end of the season following his exertions in the first half. But his career is not yet over. He may still win it, might he not?
Nadal will never win it. In fact, in recent months, him and his uncle have been whining to the ATP to change the surface to clay to give poor Rafa a chance. He has admitted himself that he cannot win without surface homogenization.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Nadal has benefited more than anyone from surface homogenization.

If anything, his failure to win the YEC proves that he wouldn't have won the USO, let alone Wimbledon, when they were still played on fast courts like in Sampras's time.
I agree that he has benefited quite a lot from the homogeneity of the surfaces, but frankly I think he's benefited less than Djokovic has from the change of the AO surface and how that catapulted his year in 2011 beyond the call of duty (along with generally winning the event since the Rebound Ace was changed to Djokocushion I mean Plexicushion my bad honest mistake yo).
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
Mats Wilander was a can. Couldn't get past the QF at Wimbledon and barely has more time at #1 than Roddick. You're grasping at straws.
Wilander was one of the most intelligent tennis players of all time, an open era great who never won the World Tour Finals. Your disrespect of Wilander does nothing to change this.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
As good as anyone? With only 1 losing Slam final between them? What an insult to the legacies of Federer, Borg, Agassi, Lendl, Sampras and co! So much for all their Slam victories then!



Give it up. He's won everything else there is to win and everybody knows he is sub-par at the tail end of the season following his exertions in the first half. But his career is not yet over. He may still win it, might he not?
Mainad. This is unrelated but I am just curious to know. I know you are a Murray fan but anyway, for real how many Majors do you think he'll end up winning by career end?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Mainad. This is unrelated but I am just curious to know. I know you are a Murray fan but anyway, for real how many Majors do you think he'll end up winning by career end?
To be honest, I hate speculating on this kind of thing. I always feel I will jinx an outcome if I attempt to predict it.

So much now depends anyway on how well Murray will recover from his back surgery. If he makes a full recovery, then I will stick my neck out and predict at least another 2 or 3 Majors for him.
 

Crose

Professional
OP is one of the most delusional, disrespectful, thoroughly ignorant posters on here.

Nadal is not great? What's next on his thread agenda, "Djokovic is not Serbian"?
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
To be honest, I hate speculating on this kind of thing. I always feel I will jinx an outcome if I attempt to predict it.

So much now depends anyway on how well Murray will recover from his back surgery. If he makes a full recovery, then I will stick my neck out and predict at least another 2 or 3 Majors for him.
Basically for now, I think this is the only thing we can say and wait on. It would be dangerous to assume that he will make a full recovery and not lose anything in his game, or that problems won't reoccur. Naturally, like any decent person would, I wish him a thorough and full recovery.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
OP is one of the most delusional, disrespectful, thoroughly ignorant posters on here.

Nadal is not great? What's next on his thread agenda, "Djokovic is not Serbian"?
To be fair to the OP, winning 13 slams and beating Federer 21 times out of 31 matches + some record 26 masters, OG, any player could have done.:rolleyes:
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
OP is one of the most delusional, disrespectful, thoroughly ignorant posters on here.

Nadal is not great? What's next on his thread agenda, "Djokovic is not Serbian"?
The comedic value of this thread has just been taken to the next level.

I thought I'd need to watch some comedy film for my late night entertainment but check THIS out.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Wilander is ranked #20 greatest male player of all time and that is way behind Nadal. I think Wilander missing WTF isn't much of a problem because he's already below many great players anyway, but Nadal is ahead of many great players who have won at least 1 WTF.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Your above comments have really brought a lot to the conversation :rolleyes:



Wilander won 7 majors, and is one of only two players to have won at least 2 majors on each of the 3 main surfaces, along with Nadal. As for Wimbledon, Wilander won the men's doubles. I suppose that doesn't count to you? ;)
3 at AO that no one played.
3 at the FO
Never made it past the QF at Wimbledon.
Only 1 USO title.
Only 20 weeks at #1 (Hewitt has 80, Roddick 13)

A decent slow court specialist I suppose. Not an open era great.
 
Last edited:
C

chandu612

Guest
Roger Federer – ’03, ’04, ’06, ’07, ’10, ‘11
Pete Sampras – ’91, ’94, ’96, ’97, ‘99
Ivan Lendl – ’81, ’82, ’85, ’86, ‘87
Bjorn Borg – ’79, ‘80
John McEnroe – ’78, ’83, ‘84
Jimmy Connors – ‘77
Andre Agassi – ‘90
Novak Djokovic – ’08, ‘12
Stefan Edberg – ‘89


How can Rafael “I wish the WTF was played on clay” Nadal be considered an all-time great when he cannot accomplish something that every great player of the open era has?
Every GOAT candidate won multiple slams on all three surfaces.
 
Top