N
NadalAgassi
Guest
By the time both Federer and Nadal retire will they be considered the 2 greatest mens players of all time. How unlucky for the others in this era if that is the case.
Laver, yes, but not the other two. They don't have career slams.
forzamilan90
Legend
nadal will probably end up somewhere in the 14 range, and fed can really do the 20 slam thing, so yeah they will be considered the best
What kind of a question is that? The obvious answer is yes. The better question is are they considered the 2 greatest mens players of all time RIGHT NOW at this moment. Hell, even that is a stupid question.
kOaMaster
Hall of Fame
might be true.
Yes. You can compare them to the top 2 players in any past generations, they are better. They are more accomplished, more dominant, more distant themselves from the field, and they hold the key to all 4 slam events. If you combined Fed/Nadal as one player, there isn’t any weaknesses you can find. Pete/Andre, Lendl/Mac, Mac/Borg, Laver/Rosewall are also great one two punch, but they weren’t great enough to put their respective peers in place like these two.
Combined with 25 slams, 35 MS(Tier 1 events), 5 WTF, Olympic Medal, 365(?) weeks at #1, 7 yr end #1. They basically dominate every surfaces and condition across the globe.
And the thing is, we don’t know what’s the final numbers be when they are finished.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
Jupiter is clearly bigger than Saturn.
You are right. I think it would be better if the OP ask which era has the greatest top 2 players of all time.
There is a good chance. At the minute I consider Federer and Laver to be the two greatest players of all-time, because both their CVs are pretty much blemishless in terms of dominance, surface versatility (as I am forever pointing out Laver regularly won the biggest hard court and indoor titles available to him), variety of big titles etc.
Obviously if Nadal can win the Australian Open to hold all 4 slams at the same time, that would boost his standing significantly. I think he needs one more year as the undisputed best player in the world, as most of the other great players have had at least 3, but I think he will get it.
Certainly I think there is a strong chance that that by the time Nadal retires he will be in the top 3 alongside Federer and Laver. Top 2, well that be interesting.
Obviously if Nadal can win the Australian Open to hold all 4 slams at the same time, that would boost his standing significantly. I think he needs one more year as the undisputed best player in the world, as most of the other great players have had at least 3, but I think he will get it.
Certainly I think there is a strong chance that that by the time Nadal retires he will be in the top 3 alongside Federer and Laver. Top 2, well that be interesting.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
It was just a question Einstein. And if it is such nonsense why have most voted Yes so far, LOL! You sure do like to complain alot.
Eternally_damned
Banned
Depends on whether you consider saturns rings
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Still nowhere near Jupiter in size.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
in diameter, saturn's rings are easily larger than jupiter (especially if you consider the outer rings)... but you will tell me that jupiter has (discret) rings too, won't you ?... ok ok... but they're less large (and cool) than saturn's !
The ultimate test for greatness will be the test of time. On the long run, one should wait say 10-15 years after a player is retired, to evaluate his status in tennis history. For instance, in 1984 Mac had quite another status in most people's mind, than he had in 2004. The same is true for Sampras. His status has shifted quite a bit between his retirement in 2002/3 and now (its not the question if this is right or wrong). It would be good to put some distance between recent worship and a rounded evaluation. Memory will be the deciding factor. Tilden's greatness was established and stable some 50 years, after he had played.
Totai
Professional
Actually..... Jupiter is about 3 times as massive as Saturn, so it does kind of matter.
Now, Neptune and Uranus are much closer in size, so that might be a better comparison. But I doubt any one would want to be Uranus.
Similar threads
