If RAFA wins Gold and US Open...it WILL BE the greatest individual season ever!
- Thread starter Connors
- Start date
Tomaz Bellucci
Rookie
The Gold standard requires the singles OLYMPIC GOLD .
With the singles Olympic Gold, Roland Garros, And WImbledon , Nadal has won the big ones on 3 different surfaces. Only mabe One of Laver's years beats him.
What happen in this thread? Please guys, take it easy. Fed 2005 is better year than this from Rafa, and like I said, I love Rafa.
But some people here just forget so quicky the past...:evil:
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Although I agree with what you are saying, by the same token I strongly disagree that Laver's accomplishments are the standard for all players to be measured by. Times have changed. As other have pointed out, slams unitl recently were played on 4 distinct surfaces, compared to Laver's two. Additionally, the draw's were much smaller back then compared to today. I think what Laver did was unbelievable, however, if someone were to achieve 4 slams in one year today>> it blows away what Laver did.
Lastly, just a question. Didd't the 'foot on the ground during serve" rule change before Laver's time?? Can't remember when that was instituted.
oberyn
Professional
If you're talking about 2006, I'll agree with you.
I disagree that Fed's 2005 was better than Rafa's 2008, particularly not to this point in the season.
In 2005, heading into the U.S. Open, Federer had won 1 major and 4 masters series events. He had semifinal appearances at the Australian Open and the French Open.
In 2008, heading into the U.S. Open, Nadal has won 2 majors, 3 masters series events, an Olympic gold medal, and a semifinal appearance at the Australian Open.
Federer's winning % was incredible, but just like I'll take Fed's 2006 over Johnny Mac's 1984, I'd take Rafa's 2008 over Federer's 2005. It's not like Rafa's winning percentage 70-8 to this point in the season is particularly shabby.
Oricus
Rookie
It's funny how easy people just forget two years ago.
There is no way this year will measure up to what Federer did in 2006, you cannot even argue it. The only thing he'll have on him is an Olympic medal and much to Federer's dismay the Olympics did not happen that year.
He made every single final of a tournament he entered aside Cincy that year. He won three Slams and the Tennis Masters cup, he also made it to all four slam finals. The guy won 12 titles that year, including 5 Masters events.
I'm sorry but What Federer did that year dwarfs anything Nadal has done this year.
There is no way this year will measure up to what Federer did in 2006, you cannot even argue it. The only thing he'll have on him is an Olympic medal and much to Federer's dismay the Olympics did not happen that year.
He made every single final of a tournament he entered aside Cincy that year. He won three Slams and the Tennis Masters cup, he also made it to all four slam finals. The guy won 12 titles that year, including 5 Masters events.
I'm sorry but What Federer did that year dwarfs anything Nadal has done this year.
And that one of the slams was more like a masters series tournament in draw size--it's not legitimate to point that out?
Anyhow, the TW posters can compare everyone to Laver, but none of the players seem to hold their careers up to his as any type of "gold standard."
Quite frankly, it's MUCH more difficult to become a professional tennis player now or in the last 25 or so years than it was in the 50s and 60s (same as it's become more difficult to become an "expert" in most things in life now). Tennis has become a global game where players starts from very early ages, train all-day, every-day at tennis academies and dedicate their entire lives to the sport. It's huge contrast from Laver's era where there were literally players who started playing as late as 20 (look it up).
I'm not saying we sure "devalue" Laver but if Rafa wins the French, Wimbledon, Gold, US Open & Masters--this is better than any of Laver's seasons in my opinion.
Last edited:
Eviscerator
Banned
I know some people like to distinguish the hard courts of the AO with the hard courts of the USO, but for the most part they are hard courts none the less. Remember Laver played and won on every surface, so it was not his fault 3 of 4 slams were grass. Also, in his day the grass was lightning fast and the bounce very low compared with todays version. So for him to win on slow clay, then win on fast grass was a major feat. That is what made Borg accomplishments so amazing as well.
The issue I would take with your comment is the blown away notion. It would be a great accomplishment, and arguably harder than in years past, but it would not blow it away.
I cannot recall with any certainty. I remember watching Laver, Rosewall, and others serving with one foot on the ground in video clips, so it must have been in their era, otherwise they would not have still done it.
I do remember that the tie-break came along in 1970, so anyone wanting to play time machine tennis with Laver would have to be prepared to go 13-11 in the first set alone, not to mention the subsequent sets.
Here is one clip where he is still doing it in 1976.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU
`
Eviscerator
Banned
Well Federer did in an interview when asked about accomplishing a true Gland Slam, and his desire to do so. Many of the greats wanted to do so, but one tourney or another got in their way (Sampras FO, Lendl W, etc.)
The thing I like about both Nadal and Federer is they have a sense of the history of the game and an appreciation for it. That is refreshing compared with fools like Rios who showed ignorance and disrespect for past greats with their comments.
While you site some good examples to make your point, it could also be reversed to say how difficult it was in the days to travel the world with no pay, poor conditions, etc.
Well I do not need to look it up, and can site more modern players who also took up the game later in life, although it is becoming rare in any sport now days. Cedric Pioline for example started playing around 18 (look it up) :mrgreen:
hyogen
Hall of Fame
lol, i love john lithgow.
my favorite show was 3rd Rock from the Sun. Great chauvinistic humor
CyBorg
Legend
I'm just curious how much you know about Laver's seasons.
Have you ever read Joe McCauley's book? Because that's probably the only definitive in-depth exploration of Laver's pre-Open era professional years.
Are you just basing this on Laver's years as an Open Era player?
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Those were indoors and the ball stayed very low. I believe they have wood underneath the floor for why this is. Outdoors play much higher bouncing and it is harder for Fed to take it to Nadal due to the elements.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
So you admit that Federer did indeed have mono then. Except that he chose to play even though he was injured so that his ranking would not plummet out of the Top 10.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Wrong>> it's because Nadal was exhausted.
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
Hey guys, Nadal was just making excuses about the foot blisters. he couldn't win 3 clay tournies w/ a foot blister.
If you're hurt don't play. If you're playing, you're not hurt!
If you're hurt don't play. If you're playing, you're not hurt!
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Sure, that's why Federer has won 4 US Opens in a row and Nadal has never even gotten past the quarters. :-?
BTW, FYI, the US Open is played outdoors.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Yep and very similar to Dubai which Nadal beat Federer at. Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer on all surfaces. Shanghai though is the lowest bouncing surface of the year from what I've seen.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
And Nadal was also making excuses that he was tired when he lost in Cincy.
If you're tired, don't play. If you play, you're not tired! Right? :-?
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
illkhiboy
Hall of Fame
Hmm, it's true that Nadal has dominated tennis on every surface in the last 4-5 months. The stretch from Hamburg uptil the Olympics has been truly remarkable. He's won 38 out of his last 39 matches, since the loss in Rome. And yes he's generally fared better on his less favored surfaces (grass/hard) than Agassi on clay/grass. I think he's won 5 Masters on hard already plus a few finals compared to a win in Rome for Agassi. But, he's yet to win a slam on hard. That fact might change though in just a few weeks, or a few months. This is Nadal's time to stamp his mark on hard courts.
Yes, he did win Toronto and the Olympics. But greatness is not defined after thoroughly examining each fact or accomplishment and reaching a naunced conclusion. Tennis greats are defined - for better or worse - by the number of times they come out on top during the two-week extravaganzas in the most prestigious of venues. And Nadal knows this. Winning a Slam on hard courts is a must, and if he doesn't do it now with all the momentum swinging his way, it would surely be a lost opportunity in terms of attaining the kind of status which would propel him to the level of Laver/Borg/Federer. I say this because I 'm under the impression that Nadal's physical ailments will prevent him from staying at the top for too long - I do hope I 'm wrong though.
tennis-hero
Banned
these are the kinds of threads that leave me in awe
he's done well this year- but the best year ever??? what?
he never had a chance at the AO, he got blown away there
he faced a mono-fied rog at the french, and took it easily, fed was impressive to just turn up there, never mind make it to the final
his win at wimbledon is the only worthy thing he's done this year, and even there a mono-fied rog was 2 points away from beating him
his best record at the US OPEN is QF, sure he should do better this year but he has a strong djokovic and a fed who is out of sorts (for his usual golden standard) the US OPEN is by no means sealed, in fact its probably the most open slam this year.
he's got the pressure of all the critics on his back now (just like rog had) he has to perform well everywhere or the critics will say he's finished, rog handled that for years, lets see rafa do the same, then lets see rafa do this well for 3 more years consistently (avoiding injury and playing to this level)
ONLY THEN can you even compare him to roger
neither rog nor novak are going to fall over and give the slams.... so no, this isn't doesn't put him on the same level as the greats, he needs to be doing this for 4 more years before he's allowed there
one year wonders mean nothing in tennis
graf didn't just have a great 88'
88 was outstanding but she was consistent for many years
pete didn't just have a few great years, he practically dominated the 90s on grass
fed didn't just do well from 04-07 he got to the semis of all the slams (by the way, he's still getting to the semis of everything, that slam record is on going)
if rafa wants the glory, the prestige, the legendary status, then he needs to do this for years to come
he's done well this year- but the best year ever??? what?
he never had a chance at the AO, he got blown away there
he faced a mono-fied rog at the french, and took it easily, fed was impressive to just turn up there, never mind make it to the final
his win at wimbledon is the only worthy thing he's done this year, and even there a mono-fied rog was 2 points away from beating him
his best record at the US OPEN is QF, sure he should do better this year but he has a strong djokovic and a fed who is out of sorts (for his usual golden standard) the US OPEN is by no means sealed, in fact its probably the most open slam this year.
he's got the pressure of all the critics on his back now (just like rog had) he has to perform well everywhere or the critics will say he's finished, rog handled that for years, lets see rafa do the same, then lets see rafa do this well for 3 more years consistently (avoiding injury and playing to this level)
ONLY THEN can you even compare him to roger
neither rog nor novak are going to fall over and give the slams.... so no, this isn't doesn't put him on the same level as the greats, he needs to be doing this for 4 more years before he's allowed there
one year wonders mean nothing in tennis
graf didn't just have a great 88'
88 was outstanding but she was consistent for many years
pete didn't just have a few great years, he practically dominated the 90s on grass
fed didn't just do well from 04-07 he got to the semis of all the slams (by the way, he's still getting to the semis of everything, that slam record is on going)
if rafa wants the glory, the prestige, the legendary status, then he needs to do this for years to come
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
It always makes me laugh when people insist "less" is "more".
Nadals worst surface is hardcourts. He has made **ONE** semi, between two hard court slams in his career.
Agassi's worst surface was grass. Not only did he win it, he also made the finals twice, and semis 5 times.
Additionally, as already pointed out, there is one grass slam vs two hard court slams>> so nadal has more opportunity to do well. Yet he hasn't.
So, how did you come to the conclusion that Nadal has "fared better" than Agassi, when it comes to their worst surfaces??
Please explain this mathematical theory??
VamosRafa
Hall of Fame
Pat Rafter always dropped off after the US Open. He hated the European indoor season and thought it was pretty pointless. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do think, as I said above, that except for accumulating key rankings points, there is no grand prize after the USO. Not until the Aus Open. The Masters Cup is a nice win, surely, and it is particularly relevant if it resolves the No. 1 position. But it doesn't add to the legacy the way the slams do. Look at it this way. If a player wins a bunch of slams but not a Masters Cup, no one is going to say at the end of his career: "It's too bad he didn't win the Masters Cup at least one of those years. He needed that to be the GOAT."
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
i disagree... the masters (now masters cup) is really prestigious.
for instance, i consider it's something missing in wilander's palmares relatively to edberg's and becker's.
VamosRafa
Hall of Fame
Rafa didn't just beat a "mono-fied" Federer. He emerged from a field with 128 total contenders.
I agree that we can't compare Rafa's career with Fed's at this stage. Roger's five years older and has had more of a chance to accumulate trophies. We already know that Rafa has achieved way more than Roger did when he was Rafa's age, but there's no guarantee he will continue to do so. He may stall at some point. But until he does, he's doing quite well. I think there are folks who are afraid he will continue to overcome certain obstacles that they have been insistent he will never overcome.
Rod Laver won his second Grand Slam in 1969. All Big Four, plus Wembley British Indoor & Filadelfia US Pro Indoor, the most important indoor events in that time and day. And he played more than 120 matches that year... No fatigue bull****t back then, I guess
Rafa`s having a great year... But still far away from Laver`s 1969. He´s 22 only, though...
Rafa`s having a great year... But still far away from Laver`s 1969. He´s 22 only, though...
superstition
Hall of Fame
No one stabbed Federer.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
ironically, most nadal fans, who are the ones talking about exhaustion, say he is fitter than they guys who played back then.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Lets face it, the Roland Rarros, Wimbledon, Olympics trebble (in 1 year) is the most difficult and most unique achievement in tennis after the Golden Grand Slam.. The Golden Grand Slam is the ultimate ofcourse, then next comes Rafas Treble and the Grand Slam. Every other combination rates below these.
Rafa is the first man to ever achieve this trebble. (Graf got her golden slam ofcourse)
And its very possible that no other man may ever achieve this Rafa Trebble again. In 100 years people will look back on this trebble as one of the greatest achievements ever in tennis.
Rafa is the first man to ever achieve this trebble. (Graf got her golden slam ofcourse)
And its very possible that no other man may ever achieve this Rafa Trebble again. In 100 years people will look back on this trebble as one of the greatest achievements ever in tennis.
JeMar
Legend
I just thought it was funny to see someone validate my Wilander-Nadal comparison a day later.
By the way, I couldn't find "trebble" in a dictionary in any language.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3541150&name=bodo_peter
By the way, I couldn't find "trebble" in a dictionary in any language.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3541150&name=bodo_peter
You can call it trebble, big 3 or the Holy Trinity... A Grand Slam is one tourney and a few 5 setters harder to get... I am starting to understand why Rafmorons are so anoying to every other one...
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
it may be unique, because it is only possible every 4 years>>> but it is surely not more difficult than french, wimbledon, us open. I will remind you the US Open is best of 5 sets, and almost every top player is there. The Olympics is best of 3, and many top players don't participate. It is also not more difficult than winning all 4 slams in one year, or making the finals of every slam in one year (considering 3 of those are won).
robin7
Hall of Fame
Joke of the day... ROFL
CyBorg
Legend
Homerism that is out of this world right here. Rafa doesn't even have to win the US Open, folks. He's already equalled Laver's Grand Slam achievement.
Bandwagon ahoy!
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
You need to quit with the Nadal fans this, and Nadal fans that. It's a bit silly. You bring it up as much as you do the exhaustion joke. Maybe we can use another word. It's getting tiresome.
CyBorg
Legend
I definitely prefer Holy Trinity, because it requires a hell of a leap of faith to overrate Nadal that massively.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
OK, I'll use "weak".
Funny how you are all of a sudden tired of hearing that only after one week of use from me. Nadal Freak, you and many others have been saying it for three years now.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
We can compare him to Roger because Roger never won FO and Wimbledon back to back and was never Olympic champion. He did other great things but really the FO/W combo is super rare (that's why it means a lot in terms of achievement)
CyBorg
Legend
Please wake me up when Nadal has four years with multiple majors under his belt.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
OK, see you in 3 years then!
CyBorg
Legend
Deal. Bring your hanky.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
No, no,no, you bring the hanky, I'll bring the champagne!
CyBorg
Legend
darrinbaker00
Professional
He won the Grand Slam for the second time in his career, that's all. No big deal.
If Nadal wins the Open, I would consider it the greatest non-Grand Slam season ever turned in by a male player.
darrinbaker00
Professional
After watching Roger carry on with Wawrinka after they won the gold-medal match, I think Mirka is ready to.
VamosRafa
Hall of Fame
I am glad to see the comparisons are moving beyond Chang and Muster. ;-)
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
All of the best players which are not injured compete, except 1 or 2 which have no chance to win anyway, like Roddick.
The Olympic Gold is the biggest achievement in world sport. It's the Ocassion that makes it more difficult to achieve. Peaking and performing under pressure on that 1 ocassion every 4 years at the Olympics is one very important factor that makes it more difficult than winning a slam which you can try to win 16 times every 4 years.
Besides playing 3 sets in the Beijing heat and humidity is probably like playing 7 or 8 sets at the AO at night with the roof cover. Its the ocassion! , and the Olympic Gold is the most distinguishing achievement in World sport!
I didnt say that the Olymnpic Gold isnt more difficult than Winning all 4 slams in 1 year, but winning the FO, Wimbledon and the Gold in 1 year is as difficult.
Fed will have his 4th chance in London 2012 to finally get that elusive singles Medal. Or mabe Even the Gold and the rafa treble.
The Olympic Gold is the biggest achievement in world sport. It's the Ocassion that makes it more difficult to achieve. Peaking and performing under pressure on that 1 ocassion every 4 years at the Olympics is one very important factor that makes it more difficult than winning a slam which you can try to win 16 times every 4 years.
Besides playing 3 sets in the Beijing heat and humidity is probably like playing 7 or 8 sets at the AO at night with the roof cover. Its the ocassion! , and the Olympic Gold is the most distinguishing achievement in World sport!
I didnt say that the Olymnpic Gold isnt more difficult than Winning all 4 slams in 1 year, but winning the FO, Wimbledon and the Gold in 1 year is as difficult.
Fed will have his 4th chance in London 2012 to finally get that elusive singles Medal.
Or mabe Even the Gold and the rafa treble.
CyBorg
Legend
All of the best players which are not injured compete, except 1 or 2 which have no chance to win anyway, like Roddick.
The Olympic Gold is the biggest achievement in world sport. It's the Ocassion that makes it more difficult to achieve. Peaking and performing under pressure on that 1 ocassion every 4 years at the Olympics is one very important factor that makes it more difficult than winning a slam which you can try to win 16 times every 4 years.
Besides playing 3 sets in the Beijing heat and humidity is probably like playing 7 or 8 sets at the AO at night with the roof cover. Its the ocassion! , and the Olympic Gold is the most distinguishing achievement in World sport!
I didnt say that the Olymnpic Gold isnt more difficult than Winning all 4 slams in 1 year, but winning the FO, Wimbledon and the Gold in 1 year is as difficult.
Fed will have his 4th chance in London 2012 to finally get that elusive singles Medal.
Nicolas Massu.
/end thread.
The-Champ
Legend
CyBorg
Legend
Andre Agassi's crap draw: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/vault/draws.asp?TournamentID=96&TournamentYear=1996
/end thread infinity.
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Wow that is hilarious. There is no way that an olympic medal will EVER be as important as a major. To argue that is so silly.
Similar threads
