The balls in your court.
Banned
If Roger Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time..... Then following that line of logic wouldn't Nadal be the second greatest grass court player of all time?
is Nadal the second greatest grass court player of all time?
- Thread starter The balls in your court.
- Start date
What? You got ammensia?! *cough* Sampras *cough, cough* Borg *cough* McEnroe *cough*
I don't agree that Fed is greatest on grass anyway.....
The balls in your court.
Banned
Well Sampras lost to fed and nadal beat fed .
Fed also has the world record for most consecutive wins in grass and has toes the world record of most consecutive wimbys with Borg.
But Nadal beat Fed and I think without ever losing his serve!( note i said THINK!!.... Was nadal even broken? Anyone know?).
But if you don't agree that fed is the greatest then my argument does fail..
Volly master
Semi-Pro
I would make him top 15 for sure. But this is my list (in no particular order).
Sampras
Goran
Rafter in the late 90s
The great aussies: Laver, Rouche, Rosewell, Newcomb
McEnroe
Connors
Borg
Cash
Edberg
Becker
Krajicek
Federer
Sampras
Goran
Rafter in the late 90s
The great aussies: Laver, Rouche, Rosewell, Newcomb
McEnroe
Connors
Borg
Cash
Edberg
Becker
Krajicek
Federer
Last edited:
The balls in your court.
Banned
What about Borg ? I guess thats why you don't think much if nadal. Its all because of style.
The balls in your court.
Banned
Well let's say I knocked out Muhammad Ali . Muhammad is the greatest of all time ( or maybe Marciano ).... Well wouldn't that make me the second greatest?
The balls in your court.
Banned
top of your list is fed. Nadal beat fed and went the distance with him twice before.
The balls in your court.
Banned
Nope . My entire argument is based on fed being the greatest.
The balls in your court.
Banned
Fed however did beat Sampras. So I think Fed is greater. Fed also did win 5 wimbys in a row and holds the world record for most grass court wins consecutively.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
no. kevin anderson knocked out the best hard court player this year in miami; did not make him the second best on hard court this season. nadal got upset by jcf in clay this year; did not make him the 2nd best this season. you cannot entirely compare players based on match results alone, otherwise while blake is still better than nadal in their h2h at 3-2 and nadal obviously leads federer at 12-6, would that make blake better than federer?
The balls in your court.
Banned
Except that fed is not the best hard court player this year. He could not even make it to the finals of the AO.
besides I don't think anyone would Argue that fed is the greatest hard court player of all time .
Finally the knockout did not occur at a grandslam. I think getting beat at the wimbys finals is just slightly different
Last edited:
The balls in your court.
Banned
standard ******* response..... This is a discussion board. I am simply making a logical argument which requires people to think .
Its simply a mere question.... If you say fed is the greatest grass courters then following that line of logic the argument can simply be made that nadal is the second greatest.
If you disagree with that fine! State your reasons and "discuss".... But if you are going to bully people with every statement you don't agree with it then what are you doing on a "discussion" board
Please give use your list of approved non-troll topics. It would probably all be fed is the greatest and nadal suxxx.
luckyboy1300
Hall of Fame
did i say that? who did kevin anderson eliminate this year at miami? and yeah, no one would. he still holds the most number of consecutive wins on hard courts (56) and grass (65).
The balls in your court.
Banned
Actually I don't know .
The balls in your court.
Banned
He has been in three wimbledons and has made the finals of all three only to face Fed each time. He is 1-2 against arguably the greatest of all time. I think the argument can be made that therefore he is the second greatest.
pennc94
Professional
If you have convinced yourself so easily, why did you post?
alonsin
Rookie
Ancic is also 1-2 against Federer in grass, but lost to Nadal once. I guess that makes him "arguably" the third greatest, in a close tie with Sampras
This is just ridiculous. He has one Wimbledon title and you're ready to anoint him second best ever?
How about Connors? Fed may have beaten Sampras, but it was a past his prime Sampras and it could easily have gone the other way. Sampras' 7 Wimbledon titles make him best ever, bar none.
If I were to rank them, it would be:
Sampras
Laver
Borg
Federer
McEnroe
Becker
Connors
Edberg
Nadal doesn't even hit top 10, because you have to remember some of the other big names from the 50s and 60s, if you want to talk GOAT on grass.
5263
G.O.A.T.
This list looks pretty good except, where is Laver? I think 3 of 4 slams were on grass in the 2 years he completed true Slams.
Alexio92
Professional
im sorry but this is exactly where my hate of nadal comes from.
skip1969
G.O.A.T.
i know this is tw and we can't possibly go an hour or two without having a catfight between fed and nadal fans . . . but what is the point of this thread? i mean really, who cares?
do you honestly think that in 20 years when nadal is retired, that he will be introducing himself at parties as "hi, i'm raphael nadal, the second-best grass-court player of all time. nice to meet you."
"tonight, we are proud to induct into the international tennis hall of fame . . . a dear, personal friend . . . a credit to our sport, a tireless ambassador . . . a spanish icon . . . and, as it happens, godfather to my oldest son, brad (chuckles from crowd) . . . yes, here he is, the second-best grass-court player of all time . . . raphael nadal! come on up here, rafa, you big lug!"
(standing ovation from crowd)
do you honestly think that in 20 years when nadal is retired, that he will be introducing himself at parties as "hi, i'm raphael nadal, the second-best grass-court player of all time. nice to meet you."
"tonight, we are proud to induct into the international tennis hall of fame . . . a dear, personal friend . . . a credit to our sport, a tireless ambassador . . . a spanish icon . . . and, as it happens, godfather to my oldest son, brad (chuckles from crowd) . . . yes, here he is, the second-best grass-court player of all time . . . raphael nadal! come on up here, rafa, you big lug!"
(standing ovation from crowd)
MAX PLY
Hall of Fame
Why would you hate Nadal because of someone else's (who has probably never been within 1000 miles of Nadal) faulty logic? Same with Fed (you just have to ignore the Federallies and the Freaky Nads and admire the players on their own merits). I admire both players and really appreciate the rivalry. As to the question posed by the OP -- way too early to even guess (and that's not even factoring in changes in racquets, balls and the grass itself).
Oui c'est moi.
Hall of Fame
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Enlightened Coelacanth
Rookie
These sorts of threads by know nothings whose grasp of history stretches all the way back a couple of weeks or so are the death of intelligent exchanges of conversation in favor of childish and slavish boosterism.
In short, it's a joke.
In short, it's a joke.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
How could 3 finals in a row be a fluke? It's obvious he's the real thing on grass but I agree with you that it's too soon to compare him with anybody. Let's just watch his career play out and then we can make some judgement about it.
G
Gugafan_Redux
Guest
Please insert your internet license in the shredder.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
If putting Federer's grass court streak exceeding Borg's is you sole reason for putting him above Borg, you should rethink it. It is factually incorrect as Federer and Borg have an identical streak at Wimbledon. Borg did not play any grasscourt tune ups prior to Wimbledon. The only way Federer surpasses Borg is counting his victories over what some would consider a diluted field at Halle.
Oh yes, IF that "all time" is after the Wimbledon grass court transformed into slow one between 2001-2003.
Last edited:
gsquicksilver
Semi-Pro
fed barely beat sampras, when sampras was on a decline and toward the end of his career.
you're an idiot.
InvisibleSoul
Hall of Fame
That's all fine and good, except the problem is your argument is completely illogical.
The argument depends on the following clauses all being true:
1.) Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time;
2.) Player B beating Player A automatically means Player B is a better player than Player A.
While #1 is debatable, #2 is completely false. Just because Player B beats Player A one time, it does not mean they are a better player in the grand scheme of things.
What if the same two players play one hundred times, and Player B wins one of them. Does that mean after Player B is a better player than Player A after that one win? Obviously not.
Being "greatest of all time" is determined by what is accomplished over the entire career of a player, and NEVER by a single win.
There are so many variables that need to be taken into account that it's not possible to list them all.
What if Federer had ten Wimbledon titles, and is still playing at Wimbledon in 2015 at 34 years old, and some random guy that nobody has even heard about now beats him? Does that mean this random guy is now the greatest grass court player in the world?
anointedone
Banned
Not yet, but he will be one of the greatest grass courters of all time by the time his career is over. Federer is the 2nd or 3rd greatest grass courter of the open era, and Nadal will be right up there with him in due time.
this thread is terrible....OP knows nothing aside from the last 4 years of tennis.....the grass played on today is much slower than the grass played on 5 years ago.......i don't think nadal would have gotten to the final of wimbledon if the grass was still as fast as it was a couple years ago.....
The balls in your court.
Banned
1- I never bought the "Sampras was over his prime argument". First of all Sampras went on to win the USO and beat Andre Agassi in the finals. So Pete was still playing as well as he ever was.
2- Federer was no way near his prime. Roger was a rookie who was just starting to be great. It was Federer who was no way near his prime and he still beat Sampras.
Nadal has played in three Wimbledons. He has made the finals of all three and the only one who has been able to stop him is the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time.....Roger Federer.
If not for Roger Nadal would now have three wimbledons, a world record for the only person to ever win every Wimbledon they ever entered!
Clealy the argument can be made that Nadal is the second greatest Wimbledon champion ever.
alonsin
Rookie
You have to check your facts. Nadal has played more than three Wimbledons
It must be an interesting experience being a troll, starting such a stupid thread and still get some attention
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Dude, get a clue before you talk. He lost to Paradorn before at Wimbledon in straight sets, and some unknown dude the next year. Heck, this is only his second title on grass, so why are we even discussing about the greatness of Nadal on grass??
Similar threads
