is Nadal the second greatest grass court player of all time?

[Cenc]

does anyone here remember nadals 2nd round of wimbledon in 2006?

about sampras: yes he was in his prime at age of 30 and fed was not at age of 20 are you serious? federer played the match of his life against an old man, far from his prime, player with loads of injuries and fed eventually won in the deciding set
if sampras had played each wimbledon round against nadal he would never have lost a match in wimbledon so this argument is either stupid or provocative

 

[The balls in your court.]

does anyone here remember nadals 2nd round of wimbledon in 2006?

about sampras: yes he was in his prime at age of 30 and fed was not at age of 20 are you serious? federer played the match of his life against an old man, far from his prime, player with loads of injuries and fed eventually won in the deciding set

That "old man" went on to beat everyone and win the US Open!!

Fed on the other hand had zero grand slams and had not yet reach his prime. In other words like a fruit (no pun intended) Fed was still not ripe....he was very "green".

if sampras had played each wimbledon round against nadal he would never have lost a match in wimbledon so this argument is either stupid or provocative

How do you know? If federer was able to hit passing shots against Sampras just imagime what Nadal would do to Pete. It would have been embarrasing.

Mcenroe warmed up with rafa at this years wimby and Mac said that Nadal was able to pass him at will.

Finally Petes weakest point is physical stamina. Pete never would have lasted against nadal.

 

[Satch]

yeah Rafa is the second greatest player with 1 W title, and probably the only...
I hate all this Nadal-o-mania that is going on here right after wimbly.
some people here don't even know the history of tennis.

 

[callitout]

this topic is amazing

do you know that karlović is 2nd best claycourter of all times?

volleymaster did a nice job. i dont think federer is in top 15 on grass
btw, if he had played 10 years ago he would never have reached 2nd week of wimbledon

Great post...I'm hoping this whole thing is sarcastic. Otherwise maybe we should take Agassi's word on the level of tennis improving over 10 years and Fed being every bit as good as Sampras instead of yours.

 

[Deleted member 22147]

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?

Are you seriously deluded?

 

[SempreSami]

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.

What a mong :roll:

 

[bolo]

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.

Lol. This reads like one of those paragraphs in the SAT english section. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[seffina]

The OP is being ridiculous. One Wimbledon does not greatest make.

 

[Serve_Ace]

This is one of the worst threads of all time.

I second to that

 

[Cenc]

That "old man" went on to beat everyone and win the US Open!!

Fed on the other hand had zero grand slams and had not yet reach his prime. In other words like a fruit (no pun intended) Fed was still not ripe....he was very "green".



How do you know? If federer was able to hit passing shots against Sampras just imagime what Nadal would do to Pete. It would have been embarrasing.

Mcenroe warmed up with rafa at this years wimby and Mac said that Nadal was able to pass him at will.

Finally Petes weakest point is physical stamina. Pete never would have lasted against nadal.

that old man was the best player in the history and thats why he retired as king and you nadalfanboy should really think before you write something
2nd thing mcenroe is 50 years old
nadal would embarras pete? on clay i believe he would but on grass he would survive the worst loss of his career (kind of 61 61 61 or something) same as on any surface other than clay and maybe some very slow hard court

 

[BallzofSkill]

I second to that

If I created a thread that was even worse than this thread, than it will be the second crappiest thread of all time.

 

[Cenc]

next thing i suggest u open is:
is sampras/federer the greatest claycourter of all times

 

[The balls in your court.]

by winning two tournaments it makes him the second best grass court player?

Well it depends on what your cirteria is for 2nd greatest of all time.

If your criteria is Wimbledon wins then clearly Nadal who is in the infancy of his career is no where near the second greatest of all time. That is obvious.

But what I am talking about is actual talent....actually who would win.

Rod laver is considered the greatest of all time but if Federer had to play Rod then Roger would have killed laver for sure. And yet laver clearly has the better record.

So I am not talking about records....but rather actual talent. I truly believe that if nadal stepped on to the court with almost anyone in the past that Nadal would beat them. I really think Nadal would have beaten Sampras, Laver, Borg, you name it. The only person that stands in Nadals way on grass is Roger Federer.

 

[veroniquem]

At the moment, the best grass court players of the open era are Sampras, Borg and Federer. Maybe Nadal will join the list one day, but he's not there yet!

 

[The balls in your court.]

At the moment, the best grass court players of the open era are Sampras, Borg and Federer. Maybe Nadal will join the list one day, but he's not there yet!

Again that depends on what criteria you are using. By your statemnt i see that you are using a different criteria than I am and thats my fault. Rather I should have entitled this thread "Nadal would have beaten everyone on grass except Roger".

But its too late to give this a new title. Again , yes they all have much greater records but I think that Nadal would have beaten both Sampras and Borg.

By your saying...."Nadal is not there yet" I believe you are refering to their records. However, I am saying that Nadal would beat Sampras or
Borg...regardless of records.

 

[jane-hawkEye]

next thing i suggest u open is:
is sampras/federer the greatest claycourter of all times

Is Bruguera/Wilander the greatest volleyer of all time
Is Dementieva/Coetzer the greatest server of all time

 

[Cenc]

if nadal would beat sampras on grass then next thing that is gonna happen is karlović winning roland garros against nadal

 

[veroniquem]

Again that depends on what criteria you are using. By your statemnt i see that you are using a different criteria than I am and thats my fault. Rather I should have entitled this thread "Nadal would have beaten everyone on grass except Roger".

But its too late to give this a new title. Again , yes they all have much greater records but I think that Nadal would have beaten both Sampras and Borg.

By your saying...."Nadal is not there yet" I believe you are refering to their records. However, I am saying that Nadal would beat Sampras or
Borg...regardless of records.

I think the records are the only reliable thing we can go by (wins and streaks). The problems with "he would have beaten X or Y" is that it's too hypothetical. We can imagine but we'll never know. I do hope that Nadal will win several Wimbledons and I do believe he's capable of it.

 

[The balls in your court.]

if nadal would beat sampras on grass then next thing that is gonna happen is karlović winning roland garros against nadal

Well Federer beat Sampras The same year Pete went on to win the USO. Nadal has beaten Federer so I am not quite sure you would be right. I would bet on Nadal beating sampras.....maybe we can have an exhibition match now!!!

 

[The balls in your court.]

I think the records are the only reliable thing we can go by (wins and streaks). The problems with "he would have beaten X or Y" is that it's too hypothetical. We can imagine but we'll never know. I do hope that Nadal will win several Wimbledons and I do believe he's capable of it.

Thats true. But thats also what makes it such an intriguing discussion.

There is no right answer here.

 

[veroniquem]

Thats true. But thats also what makes it such an intriguing discussion.

There is no right answer here.

Exactly, one could never come to any conclusion, so the discussion could be rambling and endless...

 

[The balls in your court.]

Is Bruguera/Wilander the greatest volleyer of all time
Is Dementieva/Coetzer the greatest server of all time

Well...., actually, an argument can be made that Wilander may actually be the greatest of all time. At the height of his career he won on every single surface with the stiffest competiton. I think it was 1988....mats was unbeatable....he was a grinder and added an incredible serve and volley aspect to his game. He could beat you from the baseline on clay or on grass serving and volleying (he won wimbledon doubles and lost in the finals to Edberg). Too bad Mats started to use drugs ad was never the same. Mind you I dont think Wilander is the greatest of all time....but at one point in his career Mats was virtually unbeatable and ,may have been able to beat just about anybody who has played this sport.


Now as far as womens tennis.....well you guys would first have to learn how to serve. .....just kidding.

 

[The balls in your court.]

Exactly, one could never come to any conclusion, so the discussion could be rambling and endless...

alas the term "discussion board"...however you can have a majority of opinions.

Therefore the question is do people believe that Nadal could beat all prior Wimbledon champions? I really think that he would have beaten then all. Pete Sampras is questionable......but Nadal would clearly have beaten, Mcenroe,Borg, Laver.

 

[slice bh compliment]

I have indirect wins over Sampras and Becker. And I've practiced with McEnroe.

I feel that really puts me in the ''greatest grasscourter of all-time'' conversation.

LOL!

 

[The balls in your court.]

I have indirect wins over Sampras and Becker. And I've practiced with McEnroe.

I feel that really puts me in the ''greatest grasscourter of all-time'' conversation.

LOL!

Like when they were 12 maybe.

 

[slice bh compliment]

Like when they were 12 maybe.

Hhahahah, probably not that far off, but we see how ridiculous this exercise is, right?

Fun thread, though.;-)

 

[The balls in your court.]

Hhahahah, probably not that far off, but we see how ridiculous this exercise is, right?

Fun thread, though.;-)

Actually no....heres a guy who has found a way to scientifically prove the greatest player of all time

[EDIT] Because updated analysis appears to be routinely overlooked by commentators whilst appearing in the middle of the thread, I am placing the version that incorporates all the latest comments and suggestions here.

LATEST SUMMARY CHART

SOURCE DATA AND LATEST SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS

[END OF EDIT]

I see that there are many heated discussions about the greatest players of all times on these forums. I have undertaken the task of taking a scientific approach to determining who those players are.

Here's a brief outline of my scientific methods. Since we all agree that any tennis play before the nineties cannot be considered modern tennis, I have only considered players with achievements over the past fifteen years. We know that racquet and string technology wasn't there, and the guys weren't as fit, so when we say great pro tennis, we are talking about the past fifteen years or so.

I have considered those players who had managed to win at least two grand slam tournaments (because surely we don't want "one-slam wonders" muddying the waters). Each player gets a point per grand slam title, as well as a point for each davis cup participation that resulted in a win for the team. Also, each player gets points for "intangibles".

Here's the final analysis (although please feel free to comment, I would be glad to adjust the table if necessary):

 

[TheTruth]

im sorry but this is exactly where my hate of nadal comes from.

You hate Nadal because of a poster(s)?

 

[TheTruth]

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.

True! Fed's results come from two different tournaments. Borg's come from Wimbledon alone.

 

[Cenc]

about federers win over sampras
1) this was not in the same season
2) that was sampras' worst season
3) only tournament that sampras played well after 2000 was that uso which he won
4) he lost 2 sets against cowan in 2nd round before losing to federer
and since fed is better than cowan (or something) its normal that he wins a set more, no?
5) this is by far the worst topic of all times

 

[drakulie]

the op has a point.

 

[The balls in your court.]

about federers win over sampras
1) this was not in the same season
2) that was sampras' worst season
3) only tournament that sampras played well after 2000 was that uso which he won
4) he lost 2 sets against cowan in 2nd round before losing to federer
and since fed is better than cowan (or something) its normal that he wins a set more, no?
5) this is by far the worst topic of all times

Petes biggest drawback was his poor physical conditioning . Five sets against Federer is hard enough but five sets against Nadal is a whole different world. I dont see how Pete would last against Rafa.

 

[Kelcher]

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?

No. Rafa won, so he must be greater than greatest. He's the greaterest!

 

[carlos djackal]

this topic is amazing

do you know that karlović is 2nd best claycourter of all times?

volleymaster did a nice job. i dont think federer is in top 15 on grass
btw, if he had played 10 years ago he would never have reached 2nd week of wimbledon

LOL..........anyways, i don't buy that Fed is the greatest player in grass so end of discussion for me....,

 

[Cenc]

Petes biggest drawback was his poor physical conditioning . Five sets against Federer is hard enough but five sets against Nadal is a whole different world. I dont see how Pete would last against Rafa.

he wouldnt have to last long because nadal wouldnt win more than 5 games in 3 sets on grass/carpet/hard and only fanboys can say that its not true

 

[carlos djackal]

Petes biggest drawback was his poor physical conditioning . Five sets against Federer is hard enough but five sets against Nadal is a whole different world. I dont see how Pete would last against Rafa.

Fed met Sampras in Wimby when Pistol Pete was already on a decline, had they meet when Pete was at his peak Fed wouldn't get a set.......

 

[alonsin]

he wouldnt have to last long because nadal wouldnt win more than 5 games in 3 sets on grass/carpet/hard and only fanboys can say that its not true

I agree that Sampras would probably have the edge, but 5 games? That's exaggerating a bit. Actually, THAT is the definition of a fanboy.

 

[logansc]

If your argument is that Fed is the Greatest, I would say thats a flawed argument as Borg has won the same number of Wimbledons as Fed and Sampras has two more than Fed. So the basis that Fed is the best is definitely debatable. Secondly, just because you get one win over "the greatest grass player" doesn't necessarily equate to making Nadal the second best. You are using the distributive property in a case where there aren't any facts, just opinions and therefore is illogical as the distributive property is based on fact. I.E. if A>B and B>C then A is always > than C. This whole discussion is now flawed because it is based on a flawed premise.

 

[oranges]

LOL, at first I couldn't believe some of the stuff that appears on TT, now I'm actually starting to view some absurdities as fun. Kelcher already concluded Rafa is the greatest grasscourter of all time because he beat Roger, who was up until then the greatest by beating Sampras once. I'd like to extend that argument further and say that Paradorn is in fact the greatest since he beat Nadal on Wimbledon grass and has not lost to him ever since.

 

[alonsin]

LOL, at first I couldn't believe some of the stuff that appears on TT, now I'm actually starting to view some absurdities as fun. Kelcher already concluded Rafa is the greatest grasscourter of all time because he beat Roger, who was up until then the greatest by beating Sampras once. I'd like to extend that argument further and say that Paradorn is in fact the greatest since he beat Nadal on Wimbledon grass and has not lost to him ever since.

Don't give up, you haven't seen the worst. Tonight someone might start a thread claiming that Kiefer is the greatest hardcourt player ever

 

[oranges]

Don't give up, you haven't seen the worst. Tonight someone might start a thread claiming that Kiefer is the greatest hardcourt player ever

He already is, he beat Simon, who beat Federer. Case closed until the final is over.

 

[Baboman]

Well Sampras lost to fed and nadal beat fed .QUOTE]

so your saying Kiefer is better than Fed ?
because Simon beat Fed but Kiefer beat federer

hmmm

yet again another silly thread started by you.... making a habit of this aye ??

 

[The balls in your court.]

LOL, at first I couldn't believe some of the stuff that appears on TT, now I'm actually starting to view some absurdities as fun. Kelcher already concluded Rafa is the greatest grasscourter of all time because he beat Roger, who was up until then the greatest by beating Sampras once. I'd like to extend that argument further and say that Paradorn is in fact the greatest since he beat Nadal on Wimbledon grass and has not lost to him ever since.

I really didn't want to bring this up but you are the title holder for the absolute most moronic post ever.

So please oranges please tell us all again why you feel that this why this past Wimbledon final was one of the most boring finals ever? I think we would all love to hear your brillance. Or will you cry to kk again to have that idiotic post deleted?

 

[127mph]

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?

um, no because chumps cant be the greatest ever.

 

[oranges]

I really didn't want to bring this up but you are the title holder for the absolute most moronic post ever.

So please oranges please tell us all again why you feel that this why this past Wimbledon final was one of the most boring finals ever? I think we would all love to hear your brillance. Or will you cry to kk again to have that idiotic post deleted?

You really want to bring up again the thread where you embarrassed yourself and had the mods delete a dozen or so of your posts? And you're doing it in one of the most absurd threads that graces the forum? (Who's KK? The mod that deleted them, presumably?)

In any case, I applied your logic and came to some interesting conclusions. Paradorn is the greatest garasscourter ever. Kiefer is the greatest hardcourter ever. It remians to be seen whether that will change after the final.

 

[Zaragoza]

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?

The question should be: is Federer the 2nd greatest grass court player of all time?

 

[Cenc]

I agree that Sampras would probably have the edge, but 5 games? That's exaggerating a bit. Actually, THAT is the definition of a fanboy.

nop
i have never been anything near sampras fan
im just trying to be objective unlike most of you
honestly, right now i cheer for nadal much more than i did for sampras

btw this word probably is so funny that i am not going to spend one more post discussing this stuff with you

 

[Cenc]

I really didn't want to bring this up but you are the title holder for the absolute most moronic post ever.

i find it very difficult to take this title away from you

 

[CyBorg]

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.

Borg's Wimbledon streak actually exceeds Federer's (41 to 40).

 

[The balls in your court.]

i find it very difficult to take this title away from you

Really so you think that this past wimbledon was the most boring ever? Then I'm sorry but you are the winner . By far!!