forzamilan90
Legend
You should have rephrased that different, as Laver does have 18 "majors" just not what you would equal to 18 majors of today's standard.
Henman : Federer is the best player to have ever lived
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
You should have rephrased that different, as Laver does have 18 "majors" just not what you would equal to 18 majors of today's standard.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Imagine 8-player fields, or something near that, which regularly had the top 5 players in the world. Is that easier than a 128-player field with many easy matches before the serious business? In many ways, it's tougher, because you're playing your main rivals more often, and they get a greater chance to figure you out/turn the tables.
Professional tennis before the pre-open era was for the best of the best, and for those who wanted to make as much money as possible without going for the glory of the prestigious amateur events anymore. The vast majority of tennis players were amateur, even in the early days of the open era.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
And Becker has 23 consecutive semi finals and close to 40 consecutive QF as well ?
Point is the consistency of the current top 4 in such a field is unparalleled in tennis history.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
The open era didn't begin until April 1968, so Laver had no opportunity to do what you ask. It's like criticising Federer for not winning a major on a wood surface, like Laver did at the 1967 French Pro.
No because we don't have a split fields today like there was before open era. Unless someone surpass roger's achievements in the future, Roger remain the greatest by consensus.
But some fanatics believe nothing has changed since the 60s.
forzamilan90
Legend
I saw some of the draws they faced, it's not like they always played the top of the top in all the draws, there's some seemingly easy draws that happened. I cannot be convinced by your argument, I think a larger pool of talent, more opportunity for people to learn the sport all around the world and have a chance to succeed and be professional will always be greater and more difficult than a smaller pool with very few professionals.
Look at the WSOP Main Event, was it easier to win it back then or easier to win it now? Be honest.
Last edited:
forzamilan90
Legend
When I say Laver does have that many majors of course I am counting his pro majors wins. It is what it is. I am not criticizing him but some people are posting number while literary comparing the two and you cannot. Contemporary majors are a different animal all together.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Like the 1962 US Pro, when it entered into crisis under the promotion of Jack March? Some of the majors could be understrength because of the unstable economic and political situations. Professional tennis in those days was fighting hard for its existence, and also against a tennis establishment that fully backed amateur tennis over professionalism.
I sometimes wonder how many people really know how much we owe the professionals of those days for the professional tennis we have today. Jack Kramer, in particular, was a relentless advocate for an open era of tennis, from the 1940s onwards, while the ILTF was hostile to the possibility of such a development.
I should also mention that before the 1960s, the biggest events in professional tennis weren't the pro majors as much as the big world pro head-to-head tours.
Yes, and tell us more about all the great slam winners in the past 20 years at 5'8".
Michael Chang was about that height or shorter I believe, and he had a great career (could have easily won a 2nd or even 3rd slam with a bit more luck) and while he was a great competitor and good at his limited style game, he doesnt even half the overall talent in his pinky that Laver has in his whole body.
forzamilan90
Legend
that i also learned from the former section part of the forum
NRod2
Rookie
Why are people arguing this still?
The single most qualified group of people have already voted for this question.
http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx
Is it perfect? No.
Are all the voters perfect? No.
Have all the voters seen every player in their prime to make an unbiased opinion? No.
Can anyone find a better list of the top 100 that has a better cast of voters? No.
Wait for the updated vote in 5 years, then we can have some context on this Nadal/Federer debate.
The single most qualified group of people have already voted for this question.
http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx
Is it perfect? No.
Are all the voters perfect? No.
Have all the voters seen every player in their prime to make an unbiased opinion? No.
Can anyone find a better list of the top 100 that has a better cast of voters? No.
Wait for the updated vote in 5 years, then we can have some context on this Nadal/Federer debate.
Chang is ranked #100 by the Tennis Channel.
With so much athletes competing today, of course there are many talented players at 5'8", but the problem is there's no great player at this height is because the game has changed. An ideal size for a tennis player is ~6' 0" to 6'3", and all the best players are around that size. Undersized Laver would be at a disadvantage.
tennisbuck
Hall of Fame
Ok Nadal is only his main rival because he got to those finals past his prime and faced nadal. It appears thats the most important rivalry but its not. Federer dominated the other 3 best guys his age and stole slams from them, Roddick, safin, and hewit.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Nadal also has winning head-to-heads against Roddick (7-3), Safin (2-0) and Hewitt (6-4).
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
The ultimate example of mastering the sport is the concentrated dominance in the calendar year's majors--meaning all four. That is the goal, in illustrating absolute mastery of the year's majors and all who participated in them with supreme talent.
The accomplishment is not restricted by time. That's a defensive cop-out for those who know certain players do not measure up. Furthermore, Federer is routinely losing ground as the best of his own generation (says much) as there's an increasing number arguing in favor of Nadal. However, both lack the jewel in the crown critera for being a GOAT.
When Federer has the Grand Slam, then--and only then--when he be better than Laver.
In other words, it is not going to happen.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Do not waste time on that one; some still live in their self-created fantasy world where no shorter player ever won majors in the past 20 years. Hewitt is listed at 5'11" --which is considered "short" in the 21st century standard argued by some, thus their argument--as expected--falls apart.
Yikes.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Player A wins AO and FO 2 consecutive years, followed by wimb and USO the next 2 years, while Player B wins all majors in year 1, but does nothing more.
player A ends up career with 8 big pro majors and player B with 4 majors.
If you are saying Player B had a better career, then i cannot argue with you.
Death Master
Banned
henman is an idiot. and a lovesick federereeeeeesian missionary.
a lovesick federereeeeeesian missionary who cant see what nadal has done to roger.
a lovesick federereeeeeesian missionary who cant see what nadal has done to roger.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
What has he done to Roger? Has he stopped him from being successful? Has he stopped him from dominating his main rivals (and no, Djokovic and Murray don't count as they're from a different generation, as is Nadal). Has he mentally scarred Federer so much so he can't win another major? No, he won Wimbledon last year.
I am not a Federer advocate, but half of the incessant whining that comes from you is starting to turn me off Nadal.
Well he denied him 6-8 additional majors, turned him from a top 3 clay courter all time to a top 15 at best, and put a huge question mark on Federer's potential GOAT status whereas otherwise there would be none. Also has Federer sweating it out as we speak to see if his slam mark will even hold up anymore, and also sweating it out to see if he will go from arguable GOAT to the 2nd best player of his own era. I would say he has done quite a bit to him.
Federer himself probably secretly wishes Nadal had never played tennis, even though he would never admit it publicly.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He denied him those majors, yet he hasn't surpassed him in any regard, besides having the record for most French Open wins.
Why will Federer be sweating it out? There's no guarantee Nadal will win more majors than Federer, there's just a possibility he will win more.
If you want to bring up Federer's clay resume, I can easily bring Nadal's grass resume into the equation, and Federer stopped him from being an all time great on grass. If Federer didn't exist, Nadal would have an extra two grass slams to his name.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
The biggest thing that Nadal has over Federer is how he has never trailed in head-to-head rivalries against his biggest rivals (Federer, Djokovic, Murray), and has beaten Federer 8 out of 10 times in majors across 3 different venues and surfaces. The other 3 players all have losing head-to-heads against 2 of the others, Federer to Nadal and Murray, Djokovic to Nadal and Federer, Murray to Nadal and Djokovic.
There's Olympic singles gold and the Davis Cup titles as well, while Federer can claim the 6 World Tour Finals titles.
Death Master
Banned
so now these guys are "not from the same generation"?
right. what other excuses do you have.
this is getting amusing. I will grab some popcorn.
RF20Lennon
Legend
They have a 5-6 year age difference. I would only assume that you know how to do simple math or is that too much of a recent development for an ancient Spartan?
Death Master
Banned
5 years is a long time.
It is probably a relatively safe assumption that nadal will end up with 38-40 masters shields if not more.
he has 26 already. even he gets just 3 a year for the next 4 years, that is 12 more.
so that is 38 already.
who is going to touch that? people are not talking about this yet but they will. this is one of the greatest achievements in the entire history of the sport. 38-40 masters shields. are you kidding me? even I cant believe this but you know it is going to happen.
right now all eyes are on the slams while the federereeeeeesian missionaries cant stop clinging to the only thing they have left which is WTF.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Yes, they have tried this would-be manipulation of a generation before, and of course, it only cones into use when they need another means of protecting Federer's not-so-glorious record.
It will be short--as the "not from the same generation" production has as much material as a film trailer.
...and as much value.
IMO Nadal would only have 3 Wimbledons without Roger. 2006 he was lucky to make the final and he wasnt a very good grass player at that point. Someone would have beaten him either in the final or before with a new draw. Either Ancic, Berdych (who owned him off clay back then), or if they survived with the newly made draw Hewitt or Roddick. 2007 yes, that is pretty much the only painful defeat Federer has ever inflicted on Nadal anywhere. 3 Wimbledons would not make him a major all time great on grass. A second tier great in the Open Era, exactly what he is now. Right now I would rate him 6th on grass in the Open Era behind Sampras, Federer, Borg, Becker, and McEnroe. Had he won a 3rd Wimbledon I would still rank him 6th on grass in the Open Era behind those same 5. No difference.
Djokovic has done way more damage to Nadal than Federer ever has. Contrary to what Nadal has meant to Federer, Federer has been almost irrelevant to Nadal's career.
Yes it isnt a lock Nadal will pass Federer in slam titles. It isnt even a lock he will surpass him in consensus all time greatness (although some very prominent people are starting to already consider him better which must irk Federer) However both are a strong enough possability you had better believe he is already sweating it out. You are kidding yourself and living a fantasy if you believe he isnt. Tell me, do you not think Sampras was sweating it out once Roger reached 9 majors at the end of 2006. If you say no to that I would tell you the exact same thing, so it has nothing to do with who I like or dont like.
Nadal has surpassed Federer in quite a few things. Winning multiple majors at a slam on each surface, Masters titles, winning a slam for more years in a row, dominance in head to head which none of even the Fed is GOAT droolers ever go through a whole piece talking about Federer without noting. Maybe they arent the absolute biggest things yet, but they definitely make an impact on Federer.
Federer without Nadal would have a flawless record and be championed as the unquestioned best ever in everyway, on every surface, and would be perceived as flawless. Even if he might be the GOAT to some, he is far from that now. He is reminded of the Grand Slams Laver won he never could (and which he would have without Nadal), about his inability to stay at #1 as long as Sampras/Gonzales/Laver/Tilden all could (and would have done without Nadal), about Nadal keeping pace or being ahead of him at the same age constantly, about winning only 1 time at Roland Garros, about being owned by his biggest rival and fellow GOAT contender which no other GOAT contender ever was, and it is all because of Nadal, and it could get even worse in the next few years. Even if Nadal does not surpass him, he will never be the unquestioned GOAT the way a Michael Phelps or Michael Jordan is. Too many holes and shortcomings in his careers compared to other GOAT candidates to not always atleast bring a stern debate to anyone who wants to tout Federer as GOAT, and they are all caused by Nadal's existence.
Last edited:
Finesse4sum
Semi-Pro
If theres any certainty at all Nadal will not be winning much of anything at 31 at all if hes still around.
Death Master
Banned
dream on.
and keep dreaming. he is no ordinary athlete. you should have learned that by now.
and keep dreaming. he is no ordinary athlete. you should have learned that by now.
Death Master
Banned
affirmative general thundervolley.
i just cant believe these excuses. i mean i know they are coming and i can even guess 99% of them.
i knew sooner or later they were going to say that nadal, nole, and murray are from a different generation.
they will play the surface card again tomorrow.
and the they will jump on the doping angle in a couple of days.
we should look into making a special thread for these excuses and keep track of them.
and we could call it "1001 Excuses"
Finesse4sum
Semi-Pro
Only a pre open era great or a WTA great of this era could keep winning the biggest tournaments into the 12th year.
Ordinary? look at any current or past great from any sport besides golf. EVEN with teammates they only last a certain amount of time due to heightened playing time.
Anyway I look forward to your freakishly god like version of Nadal in wait wait for it..... 2017 a year after Brazil Olympics.
tennisbuck
Hall of Fame
so what they aren't his age group he also played those guys when they were out of their prime
Day Tripper
Semi-Pro
This is incorrect. None of these players have achieved more than Federer.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
If we include all their accomplishments on professional tour, there is a strong case to argue that they did have the more accomplished career.
Clay lover
Legend
I agree with Tim.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
This. People forget Rafa's not only an amazing tennis player but also a great athlete who'd have done well in any other physically demanding sport, football, hockey, you name it.
If not for his knee problem, he should be winning big tournaments in his mid 30s too. If Nadal if healthy, I'll be very surprised if he doesn't win a slam at 31 or 32.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Federer is not even the best player of his era, let alone the best player to have ever lived. Henman is on drugs. :lol:
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
He may be Nadal's pigeon or whipping boy, but Fed has 17 slams, no?
Rhino
Legend
Henman isn't the kind of person who has something to prove, and he isn't driven by ego like you imply. He's just saying what he believes is true. And he has the rare perspective of having played Samoras, Federer, Agassi, Nadal, etc.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
I have two words for you. Rafael "Federer's Master" Nadal! :twisted:
ark_28
Legend
You points there are actually contradictory, sure he is entitled to his opinion and yes he has played against most of the great players across the generations, but if he is basing his opinion on those matches then it is important to remember that he dominated the rivalry with Federer for a while and ended up only trailing 7-6 while he only won 1 out of 7 v Sampras.
Sure he is entitled to an opinion but if you are saying that the fact he has played them makes his opinion count for more well the fact he then says Federer given his record v him and his record v Sampras or Nadal (trails 2-0 never won a set) tell me that he is trying to make up for his own inadequacies.
Federer isn't even the best in his own era. Federer accumulated most of his slams when there was weak competition or when he didn't have to face Nadal. Nadal was beating him on hardcourt in 2004, choked in 2005 and 2006. A prime Federer struggled to beat a 19 year old Nadal on hardcourt. That alone shows Federer isn't even the best of his own era let alone the best in history.
Nadal beat Federer in Miami 2004, choked in the 2005 Miami final when Nadal was up 2 set to love and 4-1 in the 3rd set. This was a peak Federer getting humiliated by a baby Rafa on a hardcourt. What a joke. Nadal was inexperienced and lost only because of that.
Federer lost to Nadal in 2006 Dubai final on a very fast hardcourt at Federer's absolute peak.
Nadal choked the 2007 Wimbledon final and should have won the 2nd set in the 2006 Wimbledon final if he didn't get nervous (he won the 3rd set). That's Federer struggling at Wimbledon at his peak against an inexperienced Nadal.
And we are supposed to call this guy the best player ever? Dream on!
Federer lost to Nadal in 2006 Dubai final on a very fast hardcourt at Federer's absolute peak.
Nadal choked the 2007 Wimbledon final and should have won the 2nd set in the 2006 Wimbledon final if he didn't get nervous (he won the 3rd set). That's Federer struggling at Wimbledon at his peak against an inexperienced Nadal.
And we are supposed to call this guy the best player ever? Dream on!
DRII
G.O.A.T.
NO...
TMF admits the womens tour is undeniably weaker today than in the past, but comes up with the excuse that females are not really human and therefore do not abide by the universal fedephant rule that future generations are always better
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
NO...
TMF admits the womens tour is undeniably weaker today than in the past, but comes up with the excuse that females are not really human and therefore do not abide by the universal fedephant rule that future generations are always better
...which would not be the case if a certain member's well-known favorite false "god" Sharapova was the greatest player in the WTA. Thanks to that sad joke never coming true, said certain member has been on the sexism campaign.
Death Master
Banned
Similar threads
- Poll
