In my humble opinion, if Rafa wins Open...

[McEnborg]

I think we have to start looking at him as greatest of all time. Yes, he'd still be 4 majors behind Roger but...look at this.

1) Roger was able to win just the one French on his worst surface (and didn't have to play Rafa) but Rafa will have two US Opens in his toughest event.

2) Rafa has lifetime 84% winning percentage to Roger's 81%.

3) Rafa is 21-10 head to head against Roger...21-10. That is huge. Rafa has won 68% of their battles.

4) Roger is 21-13 in Masters' finals. Rafa is 26-11. (Yes Roger has a huge edge in year end championship finals)

5) Rafa has won the Gold Medal in singles. Roger has not.

6) Rafa has higher winning percentage against the best player (Novak) over the last 7 years than Roger

7) Over the next best player of the last 7-8 years (Andy Murray), Rafa is
HANDS DOWN superior...13-5 vs Roger's 9-11.

These are COMPELLING stats. And, remember...Rafa is 27 years old. He'll be winning some more tournaments. Roger is 32 and might be done. Based on their OVERALL body of work...Rafa gets the nod as greatest of all time, in my humble opinion.

 

[malbaker86]

As big a Rafa fan as i am, Roger is the best ever as of now. Now if Rafa were to win another US Open and AO, THEN we reopen the convo because he'd be the able to say he has won ever GS event twice in a 5 year period. I still wont crown him the greatest then and i'll explain.

I wouldnt include Rafa's gold medal unless you are going to mention RF's YEC titles and YE #1 ranking and weeks ranked at #1.

Rafa also, imo, needs to have one Jan 1st to December 31st year being ranked #1 w/o losing it.

 

[edk1512]

1) Roger 17 slams, Nadal 13 should he win the Open.
2) Roger 302 weeks at number 1, Rafa 102.
3) Roger 5 times year end number 1, Rafa 2 and probably will have the third secured should he win the Open.
4) Roger 6 WTF, Rafa 0.
5) Roger has the best winning streak on two surfaces, Rafa 1.

 

[tennissportsrog]

Nadal believes previous tennis eras cannot match the excitement generated by the current stars of the sport.



"Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable, It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet.



It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve."




http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...-Day-Five.aspx


excuse arrogant selfish cheater will win.

 

[Russeljones]

I think we have to start looking at him as greatest of all time. Yes, he'd still be 4 majors behind Roger but...look at this.

1) Roger was able to win just the one French on his worst surface (and didn't have to play Rafa) but Rafa will have two US Opens in his toughest event.

2) Rafa has lifetime 84% winning percentage to Roger's 81%.

3) Rafa is 21-10 head to head against Roger...21-10. That is huge. Rafa has won 68% of their battles.

4) Roger is 21-13 in Masters' finals. Rafa is 26-11. (Yes Roger has a huge edge in year end championship finals)

5) Rafa has won the Gold Medal in singles. Roger has not.

6) Rafa has higher winning percentage against the best player (Novak) over the last 7 years than Roger

7) Over the next best player of the last 7-8 years (Andy Murray), Rafa is
HANDS DOWN superior...13-5 vs Roger's 9-11.

These are COMPELLING stats. And, remember...Rafa is 27 years old. He'll be winning some more tournaments. Roger is 32 and might be done. Based on their OVERALL body of work...Rafa gets the nod as greatest of all time, in my humble opinion.

I think if you had any credibility before making this post, you've lost a good chunk of it. The only compelling stat here is the 0 times you've given Federer credit for the incredible achievements overshadowing everything his contemporaries and predecessors have achieved.

I'll leave it to someone else to point out the gaping holes in your attempt at reasoning.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Nadal believes previous tennis eras cannot match the excitement generated by the current stars of the sport.



"Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable, It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet.



It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve."




http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...-Day-Five.aspx


excuse arrogant selfish cheater will win.

He's spot on though. That era, particularly on grass, was brutal. During the mid 90s at Wimbledon I sometimes actually, *gasp*, preferred the women's draw to the men's!

 

[dominikk1985]

I think we have to start looking at him as greatest of all time. Yes, he'd still be 4 majors behind Roger but...look at this.

1) Roger was able to win just the one French on his worst surface (and didn't have to play Rafa) but Rafa will have two US Opens in his toughest event.

2) Rafa has lifetime 84% winning percentage to Roger's 81%.

3) Rafa is 21-10 head to head against Roger...21-10. That is huge. Rafa has won 68% of their battles.

4) Roger is 21-13 in Masters' finals. Rafa is 26-11. (Yes Roger has a huge edge in year end championship finals)

5) Rafa has won the Gold Medal in singles. Roger has not.

6) Rafa has higher winning percentage against the best player (Novak) over the last 7 years than Roger

7) Over the next best player of the last 7-8 years (Andy Murray), Rafa is
HANDS DOWN superior...13-5 vs Roger's 9-11.

These are COMPELLING stats. And, remember...Rafa is 27 years old. He'll be winning some more tournaments. Roger is 32 and might be done. Based on their OVERALL body of work...Rafa gets the nod as greatest of all time, in my humble opinion.

Why are you ignoring laver and sampras?

I rank federer as the GOAT but even if you rank nadal above fed for some reasons he still has not achieved what pete and rod did. As of now rafa is not even in the top3.

for me rafa has to win at least 16 slams to be considered GOAT.

 

[Chopin]

I think we have to start looking at him as greatest of all time. Yes, he'd still be 4 majors behind Roger but...look at this.

1) Roger was able to win just the one French on his worst surface (and didn't have to play Rafa) but Rafa will have two US Opens in his toughest event.

2) Rafa has lifetime 84% winning percentage to Roger's 81%.

3) Rafa is 21-10 head to head against Roger...21-10. That is huge. Rafa has won 68% of their battles.

4) Roger is 21-13 in Masters' finals. Rafa is 26-11. (Yes Roger has a huge edge in year end championship finals)

5) Rafa has won the Gold Medal in singles. Roger has not.

6) Rafa has higher winning percentage against the best player (Novak) over the last 7 years than Roger

7) Over the next best player of the last 7-8 years (Andy Murray), Rafa is
HANDS DOWN superior...13-5 vs Roger's 9-11.

These are COMPELLING stats. And, remember...Rafa is 27 years old. He'll be winning some more tournaments. Roger is 32 and might be done. Based on their OVERALL body of work...Rafa gets the nod as greatest of all time, in my humble opinion.

These percentages will change as Rafa ages and declines.

 

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

Delete post ~ misread OP

 

[pmerk34]

Nadal believes previous tennis eras cannot match the excitement generated by the current stars of the sport.



"Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable, It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet.



It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve."




http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...-Day-Five.aspx


excuse arrogant selfish cheater will win.

He's right, which is why the surfaces have been slowed and the balls made less lively.

 

[Top Jimmy]

I'm glad you thought to post this. This board is too devoid of discussion on who's the greatest of all time. Your opinion matters!!!

 

[veroniquem]

I agree. The summer triple would be an extraordinary feat on top of everything else he has accomplished. And to think he would do it in the same season as 8 titles at a slam for the first time in tennis history (on a different surface!!). Think about it. It would be HUGE.

 

[Shroud]

Nadal believes previous tennis eras cannot match the excitement generated by the current stars of the sport.



"Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable, It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet.



It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve."




http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...-Day-Five.aspx


excuse arrogant selfish cheater will win.

I find todays tennis homogeneous and boring. Everyone has a similar style and strokes and the matches are far too long. Murray is the worst. He is soooo boring to watch. Nadal is not much better. At least earlier eras had stylistic contrasts (mac/borg, becker/lendl, Samp/Agassi) not so today for the most part.

These GOAT threads are boring too. The courts arent even the same these days, the balls, rackets and strings are all different, so its really hard to say.

 

[CoachSubway]

Disagree, for the reasons already listed, but also because GS titles in our sport is the ultimate measuring stick and it needs to be weighted more than any other metric. You simply cannot be considered GOAT if you aren't at least tied for the most GS titles, IMO. Now do I think there's a reasonable chance of his surpassing Federer. Oh yeah, absolutely. But do it first and then let's talk.

 

[Bender]

A bunch of trivial stats favourable to Nadal doesn't make him the GOAT, but at least it's in your opinion

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Ten...-Day-Five.aspx


excuse arrogant selfish cheater will win.

tennissportsrog has done it again

 

[Finesse4sum]

Does anyone remember when a 11-20+ shot rally was a battle and a treat to watch as the point was crucial to the situation fairly often. Now a 15-20 shot rally is the norm and short points are seen as dominant events.

I always wonder how the landscape would look if the top 100 had to play with 90's tennis racquets without co polyester strings (Luxilon, RPM blast, and Pro Hurricane among others)

Tennis has become about who can get the highest percentage game with the least unforced errors along with the least winners + the highest mobility achievable by that particular player.

Do we as fans really want every player to be like Simon, Monfils, and Murray among others?

 

[pmerk34]

Disagree, for the reasons already listed, but also because GS titles in our sport is the ultimate measuring stick and it needs to be weighted more than any other metric. You simply cannot be considered GOAT if you aren't at least tied for the most GS titles, IMO. Now do I think there's a reasonable chance of his surpassing Federer. Oh yeah, absolutely. But do it first and then let's talk.

Sorry but running up your GS total at the French make you the clay not GOAT only.

 

[Phoenix1983]

If Rafa wins the US Open, he will still be far behind Federer and Laver.

He will be in the mix for 3rd greatest of all time with Sampras, Gonzales and Rosewall - not sure exactly where I would rank him but probably still behind all three...

 

[RF20Lennon]

Rafa would win 2 US opens only because Fed is old. If this was the 2006 Fed Rafa would be doing no such thing. But on the other hand Fed never got to win multiple french opens because Nadal was younger.

 

[Roddick85]

There's no doubt in my mind that Rafa is up there in the GOAT talk. However they are 2 valid points against him. While he dominated RG since 2005, his slam count mainly consist of the french open and not much of anything else outside of it. Roger dominated Wimbledon, but also the US Open and the Australian Open and 1 RG, and that shows more variety in my opinion. There's also a huge difference between Roger and Rafa in terms of week spent as #1 and year end as #1 which is an even greater indicator of dominating an era. Perhaps he'll get there in the next few years, but it's too early to tell.

While some may not agree, I'd also like to see Nadal clinch a few year end championship as well.

 

[monfed]

Ralph can't be goat with his muddy resume. :lol:

 

[objectivity]

Does anyone remember when a 11-20+ shot rally was a battle and a treat to watch as the point was crucial to the situation fairly often. Now a 15-20 shot rally is the norm and short points are seen as dominant events.

I always wonder how the landscape would look if the top 100 had to play with 90's tennis racquets without co polyester strings (Luxilon, RPM blast, and Pro Hurricane among others)

Tennis has become about who can get the highest percentage game with the least unforced errors along with the least winners + the highest mobility achievable by that particular player.

Do we as fans really want every player to be like Simon, Monfils, and Murray among others?

but at the same time, tell me, were you really that keen on ivanisevic vs sampras serve-fests? do you really prefer that to nadal vs djokovic AO 2012? sure, i can understand that this over-homogenization of court surfaces may have removed variety from the game. but there was a point in the 90s when it became such a service dominated game, that interest was genuinely dying.

 

[CoachSubway]

Does anyone remember when a 11-20+ shot rally was a battle and a treat to watch as the point was crucial to the situation fairly often. Now a 15-20 shot rally is the norm and short points are seen as dominant events.

I always wonder how the landscape would look if the top 100 had to play with 90's tennis racquets without co polyester strings (Luxilon, RPM blast, and Pro Hurricane among others)

Tennis has become about who can get the highest percentage game with the least unforced errors along with the least winners + the highest mobility achievable by that particular player.

Do we as fans really want every player to be like Simon, Monfils, and Murray among others?

Doesn't sound too bad to me, honestly. Better that than serve, serve, serve, serve.

 

[McEnborg]

I think if you had any credibility before making this post, you've lost a good chunk of it. The only compelling stat here is the 0 times you've given Federer credit for the incredible achievements overshadowing everything his contemporaries and predecessors have achieved.

I'll leave it to someone else to point out the gaping holes in your attempt at reasoning.

So the 21-10 head to head advantage is not COMPELLING??? Give me a break. More Masters' wins is not compelling?? Weak comeback my friend.

 

[McEnborg]

I'm glad you thought to post this. This board is too devoid of discussion on who's the greatest of all time. Your opinion matters!!!

as much as your opinion, nitwit

 

[NatF]

So the 21-10 head to head advantage is not COMPELLING??? Give me a break. More Masters' wins is not compelling?? Weak comeback my friend.

Weeks at #1 and more slams + WTF's is more compelling than h2h and second tier events.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I think if you had any credibility before making this post, you've lost a good chunk of it. The only compelling stat here is the 0 times you've given Federer credit for the incredible achievements overshadowing everything his contemporaries and predecessors have achieved.

I'll leave it to someone else to point out the gaping holes in your attempt at reasoning.

Start with the gaping hole in your claim above, as Federer has not overshadowed "everything"--and certainly not the most important of all tennis achievements.

 

[objectivity]

Rafa would win 2 US opens only because Fed is old. If this was the 2006 Fed Rafa would be doing no such thing. But on the other hand Fed never got to win multiple french opens because Nadal was younger.

well if this logic is true, then federer only won 2006 and 2007 wimbledons because nadal was inexperienced.

 

[veroniquem]

Rafa would win 2 US opens only because Fed is old. If this was the 2006 Fed Rafa would be doing no such thing. But on the other hand Fed never got to win multiple french opens because Nadal was younger.

Fed is a has-been. In order to win another USO, Nadal will have to go through current top competition: Murray/Djoko. Nothing to do with Fed. And Murray/Djoko are tougher than the guys Fed had as main rivals at USO between 2004 and 2006.

 

[ScottleeSV]

I think we have to start looking at him as greatest of all time. Yes, he'd still be 4 majors behind Roger but...look at this.

1) Roger was able to win just the one French on his worst surface (and didn't have to play Rafa) but Rafa will have two US Opens in his toughest event.

2) Rafa has lifetime 84% winning percentage to Roger's 81%.

3) Rafa is 21-10 head to head against Roger...21-10. That is huge. Rafa has won 68% of their battles.

4) Roger is 21-13 in Masters' finals. Rafa is 26-11. (Yes Roger has a huge edge in year end championship finals)

5) Rafa has won the Gold Medal in singles. Roger has not.

6) Rafa has higher winning percentage against the best player (Novak) over the last 7 years than Roger

7) Over the next best player of the last 7-8 years (Andy Murray), Rafa is
HANDS DOWN superior...13-5 vs Roger's 9-11.

These are COMPELLING stats. And, remember...Rafa is 27 years old. He'll be winning some more tournaments. Roger is 32 and might be done. Based on their OVERALL body of work...Rafa gets the nod as greatest of all time, in my humble opinion.

1) Easily negated by Rog's 4 slams+ on 3 different surfaces.

2) This is because Rog has played on to the age of 32. If Rafa does likewise rather than bum out early, let's review it again.

3) 18-10 prior to Rog's 31st birthday. Also, 14 of those meetings were on Rafa's favourite surface, and only 4 on Roger's. Flip that round the other way and Rafa's in a world of hurt.

4) You answered it yourself in brackets. Thus, this one was pointless.

5) Irrelevant. The Olympics is a 'right place right time' 750pt tournament.

6) Irrelevant given the ages they've been able to play Novak at.

7) (see 6)

 

[kragster]

This thread discussion just flat out sucks.

 

[sbengte]

This thread discussion just flat out sucks.

Actually the USO as of now flat out sucks

 

[Finesse4sum]

but at the same time, tell me, were you really that keen on ivanisevic vs sampras serve-fests? do you really prefer that to nadal vs djokovic AO 2012? sure, i can understand that this over-homogenization of court surfaces may have removed variety from the game. but there was a point in the 90s when it became such a service dominated game, that interest was genuinely dying.

If Hewitt and Nalbandian could make the Wimbledon final in 2002 and Federer could win all these Wimbledon titles playing predominant baseline game and Djokovic could make 2007 and 2010 semifinal runs as a baby and also in one of the worst slam years he ever had (by his standards) then I dont see how it would become that way.

At most I would only want to see 40 percent of rallies to go over the 10-13 shot point. I know what your saying and serve fests are bad but I still believe in balance though as idealistic as that sounds.

Do you honestly remember even 5 memorable points from AO 2012? All I remember is Nadal missing that famous backhand up the line when Djoker drew him in (the reason why Nadal lost in many fans's minds) I watched that whole match and I wished I went to bed and watched the last 1.5 sets instead.

Seeing every player have more success (some not having a iota of skill at net or dealing with being drawn in on a off pace shot or dropshot) regardless of tournament or surface shows that only certain match ups of players will become serve fest esque (Raonic vs Anderson sort of matches)


The serve can always be neutralized/nerfed with modifying the surface, making the balls heavier, lack of luxilon type strings, and lack of racquets that make up for reaction time, mishits that should be going out 50-70 percent and
allow players to completely tee off of a 128+ mph serve much of the time with little risk.

If you look at the more recent battles between Murray, Djoker, and Djoker at slams holding serve is not even as important. Whoever returns the best and wins more of the long rallies wins. Breaks of serve are like hot cakes ala WTA matches and whoever is on the higher side of 6 games first is the one who wins the set quite often.

 

[TMF]

So the 21-10 head to head advantage is not COMPELLING??? Give me a break. More Masters' wins is not compelling?? Weak comeback my friend.

Start with the gaping hole in your claim above, as Federer has not overshadowed "everything"--and certainly not the most important of all tennis achievements.

Nadal is too far behind Federer and he isn't even in the same tier great. Borg is a tier above Lendl and their gap isn't even as huge as Federer and Nadal.


Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Rafael Nadal 12*
4. Björn Borg 11
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Dkokovic 6*
= Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Rafael Nadal 17*
5. Björn Borg 16
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11
9. Novak Djokovic 10*

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10*
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5*
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4*
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Andy Murray 3*
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3*


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 33*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. Rafael Nadal 20*
= Novak Djokovic 20*
7. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
9. Boris Becker 18
10. Björn Borg 17


Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23*
2. Novak Djokovic 13*
3. Ivan Lendl 10
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5*
= Andy Murray 5*
= Boris Becker 5
9. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4*


GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 40*(41 if not for walk-over in 2004)
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
7. Novak Djokovic 25*
8. Rafael Nadal 24*
9. Boris Becker 23
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 17*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Andy Murray 9*
7. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7*
10. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6*

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Novak Djokovic 2012
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40(41 if not for walk-over in 2007)
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Roger Federer 54*
= Stefan Edberg 54
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
1. Roger Federer 256*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 302*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Novak Djokovic 90+*
9. Andre Agassi 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt 80


Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. Roger Federer 77*
= John McEnroe 77
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. = Rafael Nadal 59*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Triva lists never address:

Start with the gaping hole in your claim above, as Federer has not overshadowed "everything"--and certainly not the most important of all tennis achievements.

 

[kalyan4fedever]

with this uso rafa has how many non clay slams- five ? that does not make him goat...Anyway are the fed fans still following the USO, i stopped watching 2 days ago but following the results and i hope wawrinka reaches final

 

[Finesse4sum]

Doesn't sound too bad to me, honestly. Better that than serve, serve, serve, serve.

In a time when using an approach shot is like using a light saber as a weapon in the original Star Wars and volley is deemed a hopeless attempt to press the issue by many baseliners because of the heavy topspin DTL or CC which is used more as a tactic to "taunt" the other player into making an error or bad decision.

And why should a player hug the baseline EVER if he/she can be behind the baseline 1.5-2 feet or more and simply hit a 50-60 percent power shot until the the other player gets annoyed and goes for a low percentage winner or perhaps he/she misses a routine ball themselves.


For fans of other sports do you honestly like a completely defensive team in basketball, futbol, and football. If you want a defensive game to do go play chess.

 

[TMF]

^^
Michael Jordan never overshadowed "everything" but he's the goat by consensus.

 

[BrooklynNY]

^^
Michael Jordan never overshadowed "everything" but he's the goat by consensus.

Further proving the point that your list that you post in every thread is rhetoric.

If Jordan doesn't have to overshadow every notable accomplishment in order to be considered the GOAT, he just needs to have memorable performances and peak levels with relatively notable accolades, why does Nadal need to smash every obscure statistic in order to be deemed GOAT?

What if general consensus begins to sway in Nadal's favor once he racks up a few more major titles? Nadal is also at 59 titles, what happens if he breaks Fed's count of 77(assuming Fed won't add a few more Halle's or Basels in the mix)

You're forgetting consensus can change pretty quickly

 

[NatF]

with this uso rafa has how many non clay slams- five ? that does not make him goat...Anyway are the fed fans still following the USO, i stopped watching 2 days ago but following the results and i hope wawrinka reaches final

Real tennis fans are still watching - I among them.

 

[surfvland]

I will consider Rafa GOAT if and and only when he has more slam singles titles than Fed

 

[objectivity]

Further proving the point that your list that you post in every thread is rhetoric.

If Jordan doesn't have to overshadow every notable accomplishment in order to be considered the GOAT, he just needs to have memorable performances and peak levels with relatively notable accolades, why does Nadal need to smash every obscure statistic in order to be deemed GOAT?

What if general consensus begins to sway in Nadal's favor once he racks up a few more major titles? Nadal is also at 59 titles, what happens if he breaks Fed's count of 77(assuming Fed won't add a few more Halle's or Basels in the mix)

You're forgetting consensus can change pretty quickly

good point. bill russell had more titles... wilt chamberlain had 100 point game... etc etc.

 

[TMF]

Further proving the point that your list that you post in every thread is rhetoric.

If Jordan doesn't have to overshadow every notable accomplishment in order to be considered the GOAT, he just needs to have memorable performances and peak levels with relatively notable accolades, why does Nadal need to smash every obscure statistic in order to be deemed GOAT?

What if general consensus begins to sway in Nadal's favor once he racks up a few more major titles? Nadal is also at 59 titles, what happens if he breaks Fed's count of 77(assuming Fed won't add a few more Halle's or Basels in the mix)

You're forgetting consensus can change pretty quickly

If Nadal can surpassed Roger in all achievement in the future then he gets the credit he deserve. The OP is stating if Nadal win the USO then he's in the same league as Roger. That's far from the truth since he's still way behind.

Currently it's Roger in tennis is Jordan in basketball. They both dominated the sport but they aren't perfect either. Both have incredible run, records and memorable performance. Lebron James is being compare to Jordan. Actually, at the same respective age, James is ahead of Jordan in accomplishment. However, at the end of his career, he must surpassed Jordan(e.g. rings, MVP, records, etc.)in order to considered the greater player. And likewise, Nadal has a lot works ahead of him.

 

[Egoista]

uNTILL we start testing no one can positively say their opinions will not change with the results

 

[Day Tripper]

The two most important stats in tennis are grand slams won and weeks spent at number one.

On both these counts Federer dominates Nadal.

Nadal will never catch Federer record of weeks at number one and is highly unlikely to beat his slam tally.

The most important issue which will ultimately decide how Nadal is viewed in tennis history is that of whether or not he is a drugs cheat.

 

[ctoth666]

You know what the real problem is? Nobody is coming up the ranks. Nadal has no equivalent, currently, to what Nadal was/is to Federer. However, if we look at Djokovic as the guy who dethroned Nadal in 2011, Nadal is apparently turning the tables on that rivalry, which he already leads anyway, and that is very impressive. Nadal usurped Federer's spot at the top in 2008, and Federer did get it back, but Federer didn't have to go through Nadal to do it.

Look, Federer is the greatest player currently based on his resume. However, Nadal might actually be a more formidable tennis player, which we might expect given that the game usually moves forward and players/athletes continue to improve. Make sense?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Further proving the point that your list that you post in every thread is rhetoric.

If Jordan doesn't have to overshadow every notable accomplishment in order to be considered the GOAT, he just needs to have memorable performances and peak levels with relatively notable accolades, why does Nadal need to smash every obscure statistic in order to be deemed GOAT?

Exactly! Excellent response--proving he cannot have it both ways, so Jordan--who does not have the most NBA titles (Russell) is not even the top in the most important achievement--much like Federer.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Fed is a has-been. In order to win another USO, Nadal will have to go through current top competition: Murray/Djoko. Nothing to do with Fed. And Murray/Djoko are tougher than the guys Fed had as main rivals at USO between 2004 and 2006.

Thats only because Fed was such a monster back then. If you put these guys back in 2006, they too would be humbled and crushed just like Hewitt and Safin. Federer was just THAT good.

Coming back to the point. Nadal never really had his own ERA. He only dominated like what? 2 years? In order to be GOAT you need to be flourishing for years and years. Jordan, Federer, Woods, Tendulkar and many others were all CRUSHING people left and right in their prime. Nadal never did that, he just stayed and stayed and took some opportunities here and there. For most of his career, hes been No.2!! how the hell is that GOAT?? While Fed clearly has a better resume.

 

[Anaconda]

Thats only because Fed was such a monster back then. If you put these guys back in 2006, they too would be humbled and crushed just like Hewitt and Safin. Federer was just THAT good.

Coming back to the point. Nadal never really had his own ERA. He only dominated like what? 2 years? In order to be GOAT you need to be flourishing for years and years. Jordan, Federer, Woods, Tendulkar and many others were all CRUSHING people left and right in their prime. Nadal never did that, he just stayed and stayed and took some opportunities here and there. For most of his career, hes been No.2!! how the hell is that GOAT?? While Fed clearly has a better resume.

When was Safin ever crushed in a slam by Federer? Oh yeah after missing a year off and being dead tired in the final of AO 2004 :roll:; When they were both great and healthy, Safin actually won their only slam encounter. Wimbledon 07 and 08 hardly count as Safin would have lost to many players those days, and was clearly a shadow of his former self, he was ranked like outside the top 50 in those years or something. They didn't even meet in 2006.








BTW, this thread isn't even needed, Djokovic is taking this one. Nadal won't win.