Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by WhiskeyEE, Oct 18, 2013.
He is as bad indoors as Sampras was on clay.
Imo, Wilander is not a tier 1 tennis great. OK, he won 7 slams (3 of which being AO at a time when a lot of top players skipped it) but other than that: only 33 titles overall, only 8 master titles, only 20 weeks at #1. No way I would put him in the same category as Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Sampras, Agassi etc. I would put him somewhere in tier 2. So I tend to agree with the opinion that all the greatest tennis players in open era have won WTF. I sincerely hope that Rafa won't be the exception but even if he was, it wouldn' t be a big deal given everything else Rafa has won including the record in masters, slams way in the double digits, olympic gold, several DCs...
YEC is now an exhibition. Same as DC. I thought you guys knew this.
Just stop this
Players are measured on their achievements NOT their gaps in their resume.
Every great player has a gap in their resume - but that doesn't make them a non-great. (Borg - US Open, McEnroe - French Open, Lendl - Wimbledon etc etc)
The WTF is the 5th biggest tournament - it is very important. But Nadal's lack of a win doesn't make him a non-great. In fact he is definitely one of the greatest players of all time. I would put him in the top 3 in the Open era and top 7 or 8 all time. That is an incredibly great player..
Oh with regard to Wilander - his Australian Open wins had good competion - he beat McEnroe and Lendl in 83 and Edberg (1988 Wimbledon champion) and Cash (1987 wimbledon champion) in 88 - just from the top of my head. When some people talk about the Australian Open - they can confuse the weak period of 1972 to 1982 with the period afterwards when the top players starting coming back (beginning in '83).
Of course and he could still end up as #1. He is #1 in overall winning % in open era.
His best year would be one where he won the Grand Slam--in the Open Era.
Laver won the grand slam when he was 30+ It was the end of his career. He's mostly a pre-open era player.
What's the gap in Agassi's resume? He won all four Slams + the Y-E Champs + the Olympics. Is it just that he only won two of those six tournaments more than once?
I really wouldn't rank Wilander that far below McEnroe and Agassi. Below, yes. But not in a totally different ballpark. And Wilander had a really short career. His last major occurred the month after he turned 24. Even more truncated than Borg or McEnroe.
The only contender to miss the Australian Open in any of the years Wilander won it was McEnroe in 1984. He beat McEnroe and Lendl in 1983, and Edberg and Cash in 1988 (Cash having beaten Lendl in the semis). His route to those titles was if anything more difficult than his route to, say, the 1988 Roland Garros.
Also, it's worthy of note that Wilander in 1988 was the only 3-Slam winner of any man between 1975 and 2003. To have the greatest year in nearly 30 years is an incredibly impressive achievement.
He's probably a tier 2 great, whatever that means, but he's certainly a great.
Wilander is a great - a tier 3 great
Wilander is a open era tier 3 great. (Tier 1 (in no particular order): Federer, Nadal, Sampras & Borg, Tier 2 (in no particular order): Lendl, McEnroe, Connors and Agassi), Tier 2.5 Djokovic, Tier 3: Becker, Edberg & Wilander). And there is nothing shabby about being a open era tier 3 great. He is in the same company as Edberg and Becker.
For my analysis refer to my open era ranking thread:
At least Rafa made finals in WTF.
His best slam results despite being past his prime. You don't peak one year and then win nothing of significance after that. As Veroniquem said, he was already 31 in 1969. You can't fault a player for not winning the WTF when it didn't even exist until you were 32.
The bulk of his career was before the open era.
That year he won only 83% of his matches and crashed out in the QF of Wimbledon... his best result there.
McEnroe almost never played the Aussie Open. And his 1984 season when he won 2 of the 3 majors he entered (including Wimbledon), the WTF, and 96% of his matches is obviously far superior to Wilander's 1988 season. I'm sure that there are several other more impressive seasons. For example, Ivan Lendl's '86 and '87 seasons, etc. etc.
Wilander is nowhere near open era great status.
It's interesting that in this wild race to proclaim a mythical GOAT people are willing to overlook Sampras failing to make a final(not a title, one lousy final) in one of the SLAMS(the first four tournaments of tennis) and yet people are willing to slam Nadal for not winning a WTF title(even though he made 2 finals and another 2 SF from 6 attempts), the fifth most important event in our sport.
People also tend to forget that even guys with few slams won many year end championships when they put their mind to it, case in point, Ilie Nastase, proud owner of 2 slams won WTF 4 times. Until Lendl came along in the 80's to win one more, the guy with probably the fewest slams from the golden era had the most WTF under his belt.
Not to undermine the importance of this event, but guys like Kuerten, Stich, Davy, Corretja, Nalby also won it. Are you telling me that these guys rank higher on the totem pole than Nadal? Guys like Wilander, Ashe and Courier never won it.
2005 Madrid was seemingly Nadal's first and last indoor HC title.
Even Sampras won 3 clay titles.
Nadal's ineffectiveness indoors (on low bouncing courts w/o the heat/sun) is probably the most glaring deficiency of any long term top player. Ever.
that's correct... mats is indeed the only open era great who didn't win the YEC.
Indoor tennis is a pretend approximation of the true sport. Like 7-a-side football (soccer) matches. Clay and Grass are the true tests, with outdoor hard courts a distant third.
Are we not considering Newcombe an Open Era great?
you've got a point ! i didn't mean to question john's greatness but he has a step into the pre-open era, so...
Of course he is, but so are Laver and Rosewall. However, all three men cross the dividing line between pre- and post-Open Era.
Among pure Open Era greats, only Wilander and Nadal have failed to win the YEC, the only tournament featuring solely top players.
Nadal has suffered from the year end championship being played -year in, year out -on his least favourite surface. If the YEC was played on clay, McEnroe, Sampras and Federer would have zip.
McEnroe, Federer and Sampras have suffered from Roland Garros being played -year in, year out -on their least favorite surface. If Roland Garros was played on grass, Nadal would have zip.
Of course, if we're being fair to Newcombe, there used to be another tournament featuring solely top players: The WCT Finals. Newcombe won it in 1974, with a field of Newcombe, Borg, Nastase, Laver, Smith, Okker, Kodes, and Ashe.
The difference is, Roland Garros has an established surface that has been consistent for almost a century and is part of the clay court season. The YEC is supposed to be a tournament that presents a challenge to the best tennis players of the entire year, across all surfaces. It should not be constantly played on a surface that favours certain players and discriminates against others. Any unbiased, decent-minded person knows that.
Nadal has won slams on all surfaces; why can he not master an indoor event?
Why do you think Nadal would have zero titles at a hypothetical Roland Garros on grass when he has two titles at Wimbledon on grass?
Because, like many of the posters here, they deal in prejudice-not facts.
YEC presents a challenge because only the best tennis players participate there. As we all know Nadal is hardly ever capable of going through several quality opponents in succession outside of clay. There are no evaporated draws in YEC so he can't fluke a title, and that is because he has always sucked indoors, not because YEC is biased towards hard court players. You have a three month long clay season and barely any indoor events and you are still moaning about YEC not being played on clay, how triggered are you LOL.
The same reason why he thinks Federer would have zero clay WTF titles when he's won Roland Garros and several clay Masters.
Sure, if Nadal was injured Federer could theoretically have won a WTF finals on clay. Highly unlikely though.
Still more likely than Nadal beating Federer indoors.
Given Nadal has pulled out of almost half the wtf he qualified for it's safe to say he isn't that interested in it.
Players are not judged on wtf. Olympics is more remembered. Ask Andy Murray who made the point last year.
Even the players this year seem jovial and relaxed, not like they are at masters 1000 or even atp500 events when they are super serious.
Until the wtf becomes a straight knock out it will have the feel of an exhibition at end of season event .
You could be right. They seriously struggle against each other on their favourite surfaces. Which is why it is unfair to play the YEC constantly on Roger's favourite surface.
who said Indoor HC is Fed's favorite surface? Surfaces which suit Federer best are Grass, Fast HC. Indoor HC is probably his 3rd favorite surface
Nadal has beaten Federer indoors.
If he wasn't interested he wouldn't play when he's injured though he has nothing to gain, or complain again and again that it's never played on clay. He's interested, just that he always ends up out of gas at the end of the season and years ago he either had other priorities (completing a career slam) or he thought he'd have years left to win it.
Don't get me wrong, if he never wins it it's not a big deal, No player has won everything, but no it's not an exhibition and Nadal pulling out of Paris but still entering the WTF despite being too injured to win a match says as much. The only other explanation for him playing is he wanted the appearance fee which I really doubt.
Murray would tout the olympics seeing as he's the only male player to win 2 gold medals, but however for most of tennis history it's not been a medal event. The olympics flat out snubbed tennis or the other way around so in Tennis history it doesn't mean that much.
Having said all this Nadal haters need to stop going on about Nadal not winning the wtf and Federer haters need to stop going on about the wtf being an exhibition and the olympics being the be all and end all because they're both talking crap
well then, looks like Nadal has beaten Federer on the grandest stages of each of Federer's favorite surfaces/conditions.
the inverse remains, and will probably always be, unfulfilled.
True, but in 2013. I am saying overall that is less likely to happen.
Nadal has also won 2 gold medals, just that one was in doubles and one in singles...
You're DEFINITELY TennisATP LOL
i would say there is no probably about it. holding all 4 slam titiles is a much more impressive achievement.
Federer has also beaten Nadal on clay twice, Nadal beat Federer once on indoor hard. Neither player was at their best in their loss, but it's clear either player could score a win at the WTF regardless of surface. However Federer has a better history of being in shape at the end of the season, where as Nadal has skipped the WTF 5 times and gone winless twice. Hencey Federer would have a better chance of winning regardless of surface. You have t be in it to win it.
So considering Nadal is often gassed at the end of the season and if it were clay it would probably still be indoor clay, it's not unreasonable to assume Federer could still win the WTF on clay. He's won Hamburg and Madrid finals vs Nadal on clay after all, and at times when Nadal is traditionally in better shape than he is at the end of the year. Add to that the effect of Nadal having to play possibly Djokovic and 2 other top 10 players in the RR and it becomes less of a foregone conclusion than usual clay events such as MC, Rome and RG
The truth is that on indoor hard, Nadal could and can still win the WTF - he's got wins vs everyone there, Federer has not always done well at the WTF and neither has Djokovic. His win vs Federer was when Federer was barely a top 10 player but Federer was also a non factor in 2008 and lost to Davydenko in 2009. Nadal's real issue is not peaking for it. If he had played it ery ar he qualified he most likely would have won it He's had instances of doing this at other times, for instance not being in form at all at Canada and Cinci in 2010 but suddenly playing miles better at the USO. He's probably still got a couple of years
The conditions don't allow him to grind. He is forced to play a game based on shot-making rather than grinding so that's where he falls short.
Right but Murray's 2 in singles out rank that. He's the only male to win 2 golds in singles. So he would put that up there because that'his biggest unique achievement and something he holds over Fed, Nadal a Djokovic
Murray has better Olympic record than nadal
Nadal has never beaten Djokovic at AO and most masters
Djokovic has happily beaten nadal at AO, FO, WIMB, US, WTF, all masters
Djokovic, davednko etc all have h2h leads against nadal
Nadal simply cannot beat a string of top 8 players with enough consistency to get a WTF title. Doesn’t matter if it was clay or not
Conditions don't suit him but he could do it if he managed his body to be in top shape and with a it of luck with the draw and not getting layers in the form of their life, AND playing enough times to get the law of averages on his side. Next year he should skip the Asian swing, play a 500 as an indoor warmup and skip Paris
you're essentially correct, but of course your phrasing and terms lean toward shade more than necessary.
Nadal's game is based less on shot placement than other ATG's (both on serve and ground strokes).
he beats you into submission vs slitting your throat...
Are you saying that Nadal wouldn't have any WTF titles, even if it were played on clay?
yes, Murray does have a better Olympic record than Nadal, and a way better one than Federer and especially Djokovic!
the rest of your post has nothing to do with what was under discussion and is largely folly.
On clay he could but would depend on his body management and the type of clay conditions a bit. In fact on indoor hard he could, but depends on his form, opponents form etc. He needs everything in his favour and he's not played enough times to get that. Mind you, Miami should suit him but he seems to get unlucky every time and someone is in amazing form
Two Olympic singles golds by Murray In the most prestigious tennis tournament is unique and just too much. I’d say it’s more impressive than La Decima or >5 slams at 3 slams. Only comes around every four years and is far more prestigious then let’s say Roland Garros. Murray is solid GOAT candidate definitely > nadal especially as nadal has 0 WTFs
Separate names with a comma.