Laver crowns Nadal as the best player

[dysonlu]

And that Chang argument is silly, since Chang only won ONE slam, was never a dominator.

Huh, I think you totally missed the point. The point was that comparing the number of GS titles at a specific age means nothing because past GS success doesn't guarantee future GS titles. It's not a linear equation. Nadal winning 5 GS in the past 4 years doesn't necessarily mean he'll win 5 more in the next 4 years. So saying Nadal is a greater player or will win more GS that Fed just because he has more GS at age 22 is non-sense. I used Chang to illustrate how ridiculous your argument was.

 

[tennis-newb]

nadal whipped fed off da court at fo. wimby was close, fed was 2 points away from retaining his title. fed would still smash nadal off the court at us open or aussie open. nadal has been playing great tennis lately yes, but fed will come back.

 

[MONOIMMORTAL]

Huh, I think you totally missed the point. The point was that comparing the number of GS titles at a specific age means nothing because past GS success doesn't guarantee future GS titles. It's not a linear equation. Nadal winning 5 GS in the past 4 years doesn't necessarily mean he'll win 5 more in the next 4 years. So saying Nadal is a greater player or will win more GS that Fed just because he has more GS at age 22 is non-sense. I used Chang to illustrate how ridiculous your argument was.

Your point doesn't add up. You are saying that because Chang won a grand slam at age 17 and never won again it proves that early winning rates don't guarantee future GS titles. When all it really proves is that Chang was a flash in the pan. Winning 5 slams by the age of 22 is completely different, it proves Nadal has a winning trend, not a flash in the pan. Additionally, Nadal is getting better every year. Chang got worse after his big year (at least in terms of winning slams, aka none). So the 2 cases aren't connected. :???:

 

[ksbh]

LOL! I recall you guys were saying that about Wimbledon but now that Nadal knocked Federer off at Wimbledon, it's the AO & U.S. Open that matter most. :???:

nadal whipped fed off da court at fo. wimby was close, fed was 2 points away from retaining his title. fed would still smash nadal off the court at us open or aussie open. nadal has been playing great tennis lately yes, but fed will come back.

 

[ksbh]

Possibly the same folks. The Federer lovers did talk a lot of smack prior to Wimbledon. But with Nadal's dethroning of Federer in the Wimbledon final, I'm afraid many of them have been permanently scarred!

Their one straw-man argument that Nadal hasn't won any slams outside the French Open went right out the window this past Sunday!

I noticed that too. I was going to ask who were all these new posters with the same writing and thinking patterns?. Methinks it's the old posters hiding under aliases because they're too embarrassed about all the ridiculous claims they made before the final. So sad!

I know, about the hard court thing. I definitely think Uncle Toni has a plan. The man is a virtual genius. It's hard to believe that you cannot see the tremendous potential of one who at 22 already has five slams. Ironically they even called Djoker an idiot. Even Djokovic has enough sense to "I have a lot to learn."

 

[Sarzy]

Yes Nadal has been the best player this year. But only this year. That's obvious, he has two grand slams. I do find it disgusting how people write Federer off now. I still think he's the best ever. I'm sure he'll win more slams. It seems disrespectful for fans, and some of the commentators to suddenly throw Fed to the side.

 

[TheTruth]

Possibly the same folks. The Federer lovers did talk a lot of smack prior to Wimbledon. But with Nadal's dethroning of Federer in the Wimbledon final, I'm afraid many of them have been permanently scarred!

Their one straw-man argument that Nadal hasn't won any slams outside the French Open went right out the window this past Sunday!

I know. It'll go on and on. If Nadal wins the USO, then it'll become, well he never won the Oz, and if he wins the Oz, it'll be he never won it three times. If he repeats Wimbledon, the other player played bad. The excuses go on and on. It's fun reading it!

 

[boringmember]

Nadal is playing the best right now by any objective measure (ATP race, number of slams etc), and that's what Laver said. He didn't crown him GOAT or anything. It will be interesting to see what happens in the months to come.

 

[FEDEXP]

what's the big deal here?

 

[Polaris]

The greats have no problem saying it as it is.
---------------------------------------------

Australian Rod Laver, one of the greatest players of all-time, echoed those sentiments. "That was the best match I've ever seen," said Laver. "Until the final, Roger was the best player in the world. Now Nadal is."

It is sad that people need the sanction of a tennis great to understand what has been perfectly obvious.

Results-wise, Nadal is clearly the best player at present.

But, if I had only one player to watch, I would still watch Federer. Then McEnroe, then Laver, then Borg, then Edberg. Nadal isn't even top 20 in my list of preferences. Those are my preferences, and it doesn't matter what any tennis great says. Miloslav Mecir or Ramesh Krishnan never reached the dizzy heights of the greats, but I would still watch them over Nadal. That is just me.

 

[veroniquem]

Why does Rafa have to get 12 slams to be anointed GOAT? Fed doesn't have 14 and many proclaim him the GOAT. If it's a numbers game, it works for Fed too! And remember, at Rafa's age, Fed had ONE!

Yes the numbers are fun to play with. Did you know that at Rafa's age Fed had won 9 tournaments? (that's counting everything). Rafa has won 29 (20 more :shock. Even if the rest of his career is less dominant than Fed's, he certainly took a good head start . I also like to compare the MS. Fed had 1 and Rafa has... 10 more!

 

[TheTruth]

It is sad that people need the sanction of a tennis great to understand what has been perfectly obvious.

Results-wise, Nadal is clearly the best player at present.

But, if I had only one player to watch, I would still watch Federer. Then McEnroe, then Laver, then Borg, then Edberg. Nadal isn't even top 20 in my list of preferences. Those are my preferences, and it doesn't matter what any tennis great says. Miloslav Mecir or Ramesh Krishnan never reached the dizzy heights of the greats, but I would still watch them over Nadal. That is just me.

Great post! That's as it should be. People shouldn't allow "greats" to validate or confirm their opinions. A lot of players I like to watch don't even get honorable mentions, but that doesn't mean they're not great players. I simply refuse to let others tell me what my opinion should be.

 

[TheTruth]

Yes the numbers are fun to play with. Did you know that at Rafa's age Fed had won 9 tournaments? (that's counting everything). Rafa has won 29 (20 more :shock. Even if the rest of his career is less dominant than Fed's, he certainly took a good head start . I also like to compare the MS. Fed had 1 and Rafa has... 10 more!

What's sad is that people want to trash this great, young talent, when the results obviously speak for themselves. At his age, with possibly five years to catch up, no one knows what his tally will be. Yet, because they want to proclaim Fed GOAT, everyone in his path becomes dog meat!

 

[veroniquem]

Yes, you're right they both lost in the semifinals. I thought it was in the very early rounds because Tsonga was such an unknown. And the score 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 was such a sound thrashing and I'm not off about that, Rafa couldn't wait to get off that court. Rafa will not dominate on the hardcourts, I'd love to see him play Tsonga again at the US Open.

Actually Nadal played Tsonga again at Indian Wells and beat him.

 

[stormholloway]

Laver said Rafa is the best in the world. I don't see the controversy. Nadal has a semifinal appearance in Australia and multiple Masters titles and two slams.

Federer has one second tier tournament to his name. Of course Nadal is #1. Federer should be thinking of dominating the hard court season as he has for the last 4 years (as he obviously hopes to do). To this day, Nadal's worst grand slam showing has been at the USO. Federer still owns those courts. If we're lucky, they'll meet in the final.

 

[veroniquem]

What's sad is that people want to trash this great, young talent, when the results obviously speak for themselves. At his age, with possibly five years to catch up, no one knows what his tally will be. Yet, because they want to proclaim Fed GOAT, everyone in his path becomes dog meat!

Fed fans are blinded by their religious adoration of him. Yes he could become the best ever but right now Sampras still holds better records and Nadal looks like he could break some pretty good records himself. Instead of waiting until the time has come, Fed fans want to put Fed on a throne by anticipation. When Fed is the GOAT, let's say so but it hasn't happened yet and nobody knows for sure that it will.

 

[stormholloway]

The facts are 5-1 Nadal leads at age 22. Head-to-head at Wimbledon its 2-1 Federer, but extremely close to 2-1 Nadal. Head-to-head at Roland Garros Nadal leads 3-0 including the most lopsided Final in history.
0-0 at Australian Open and US Open.

You've already got a lopsided head-to-head and you have the nerve to say "extremely close to 2-1 Nadal"? That's ridiculous.

If Federer weren't so good on clay he would rarely, if ever, have met Nadal on clay and his record against Federer would pale in comparison to the current numbers. Federer still has the huge edge on hard courts, and, despite his loss, an edge on grass as well.

All that matters are the wins. The head-to-head only plays a role in the minds of the players.

 

[zagor]

Fed fans are blinded by their religious adoration of him. Yes he could become the best ever but right now Sampras still holds better records and Nadal looks like he could break some pretty good records himself. Instead of waiting until the time has come, Fed fans want to put Fed on a throne by anticipation. When Fed is the GOAT, let's say so but it hasn't happened yet and nobody knows for sure that it will.

Do you Nadal fans have to insult Fed fans in every single post? You should really add "some" to your blinded religious adoration whatever cause I've seen many Fed fans acknowledge Nadal's win and Nadal as a great player.Also what makes you think that Fed would become GOAT by breaking Pete's record? Who anointed Pete the undisputed GOAT? Maybe his fanatics in this forum? The GOAT would be someone like Laver or Pancho Gonzales IMO,even Borg but not Sampras.Sampras is probably the grass GOAT but overall best player ever? IMO,no.

 

[zagor]

What's sad is that people want to trash this great, young talent, when the results obviously speak for themselve

Well,IMO it's equally sad to trash another great player-Federer(whose results also speak for themselves)just because Sampras fans don't like the fact that he's close to breaking Pete's record.Or is it okay to bash Fed but not okay to bash Nadal? Interesting logic.

 

[taffymoon]

Incredible how many professionals call the match the best they have ever seen!

 

[veroniquem]

Do you Nadal fans have to insult Fed fans in every single post? You should really add "some" to your blinded religious adoration whatever cause I've seen many Fed fans acknowledge Nadal's win and Nadal as a great player.Also what makes you think that Fed would become GOAT by breaking Pete's record? Who anointed Pete the undisputed GOAT? Maybe his fanatics in this forum? The GOAT would be someone like Laver or Pancho Gonzales IMO,even Borg but not Sampras.Sampras is probably the grass GOAT but overall best player ever? IMO,no.

I was referring to most # of slams amd most weeks at #1 and you're right, Sampras is not the only contender. There seems to be some sort of consensus that the GOAT should have the most slams and/or career/calendar slam. All this is arguable at length of course but the point was it's too early to call Fed goat, he's not there yet even though he's one of the greats for sure. I know you've acknowledged Rafa's wins but a lot of posters recently have written posts that aimed at minimizing his achievement(s), calling his game ugly etc.

 

[superman1]

I don't see how Fed can be put above Laver, or even Borg, but Fed's career isn't over so we'll see.

 

[TheTruth]

Well,IMO it's equally sad to trash another great player-Federer(whose results also speak for themselves)just because Sampras fans don't like the fact that he's close to breaking Pete's record.Or is it okay to bash Fed but not okay to bash Nadal? Interesting logic.

The only problem I have with your logic, is that you act as if you don't see the things the Fed Fans do. You only see when others talk about Fed. The Nadal bashing you seem to be okay with. I rarely, if ever see you saying something to them about the many ignorant threads they put out. But, whenever a poster disagrees with something about Fed, it's called bashing. To me, that's a perception issue. The things I mostly talk about Fed for are what I see as character issues (his comments, his arrogance) these things to me are verifiable and it's my right not to like them and to discuss them on a public board. I also don't understand why you keep bringing up Sampras. Here's the way I see it. There are Nadal fans, Federer fans, Djokovic fans and other players have fans too. We're not all going to like the same players, but that's ok with me. I'm not coming after any poster armed with verbal insults because I disagree with their opinion. For the life of me I can't understand people getting their feathers ruffled and acting like these things are life and death issues. I take every poster on here with a grain of salt and respect their opinion whether I agree with it or not. To me differing views allow for growth, as opposed to me thinking that my way is the only way and all others should follow suit!

 

[AndrewD]

He's saying that he's the best this year. Nadal has 6 titles, 2 of which are slams. Fed has 2 titles (Halle, Estoril), none are slams. So therefore Nadal is best this year. Simple enough for you?

What Laver is actually saying is that, if you win Wimbledon, you are the best player in the world. He doesn't care how many other tournaments you've won or what your head-to-head record is against other players. Simply put, Wimbledon is and always has been THE tournament and whoever wins it is THE best of the year.

 

[Morrissey]

What Laver is actually saying is that, if you win Wimbledon, you are the best player in the world. He doesn't care how many other tournaments you've won or what your head-to-head record is against other players. Simply put, Wimbledon is and always has been THE tournament and whoever wins it is THE best of the year.

So according to your logic Richard Krajicek was the best player of 1996 and Goran Ivanisevic was the best player of 2001 then. Mmmm, okaaaayyy. I think Laver is not just talking about WImbledon but what he´s done as a whole this year as well.

 

[dysonlu]

Your point doesn't add up. You are saying that because Chang won a grand slam at age 17 and never won again it proves that early winning rates don't guarantee future GS titles. When all it really proves is that Chang was a flash in the pan. Winning 5 slams by the age of 22 is completely different, it proves Nadal has a winning trend, not a flash in the pan. Additionally, Nadal is getting better every year. Chang got worse after his big year (at least in terms of winning slams, aka none). So the 2 cases aren't connected. :???:

Let me ask you these simple questions: Federer has been winning 3 GS each year, in 3 of the last 4 years. Who would have honestly predicted that he's now still looking for his first GS this year??? The point is, in sports, things can and will change and it can change quickly.

Who's to say for sure that Nadal will get better next year and the year after? Who can honestly say no one will challenge Nadal? Who can be sure he won't be slowed by nagging injuries? As it stands right now, no one can reasonably claim Nadal will win US Open or the AO, nor keep his Wimbledon title next year. The only thing closer to certaintly is that he wins RG 2009.

There is no guaranteed future success no matter how much you're convinced Nadal is on a winning trend or how much more he'll improve. You cannot extrapolate past success. This is so simple to understand.

 

[MONOIMMORTAL]

Let me ask you these simple questions: Federer has been winning 3 GS each year, in 3 of the last 4 years. Who would have honestly predicted that he's now still looking for his first GS this year??? The point is, in sports, things can and will change and it can change quickly.

Who's to say for sure that Nadal will get better next year and the year after? Who can honestly say no one will challenge Nadal? Who can be sure he won't be slowed by nagging injuries? As it stands right now, no one can reasonably claim Nadal will win US Open or the AO, nor keep his Wimbledon title next year. The only thing closer to certaintly is that he wins RG 2009.

There is no guaranteed future success no matter how much you're convinced Nadal is on a winning trend or how much more he'll improve. You cannot extrapolate past success. This is so simple to understand.

Its all about circumstances. Nadal became a better player than Federer and this year prevented Federer from winning 2 slams. Djok prevented Federer from winning the Oz Open too. Whereas Nadal has no roadblocks in the next few years. Nobody plays the baseline like he does, and all the promising players on tour are around Nadal's age and have less capablities. There are no threats to Nadals reign over the next 3 years unless a prodigy comes out of nowhere (like Tsonga, but better). Prodigies are common on the WTA tour but rare on the ATP tour, Nadal was probably the last one. Look how long Agassi and Sampras ruled the ATP. Federer and Nadal are the new dominators and Nadal is the player with the huge uppper-hand. Sampras had the huge upperhand in the Agassi-Sampras rivalry.

 

[zagor]

The only problem I have with your logic, is that you act as if you don't see the things the Fed Fans do. You only see when others talk about Fed. The Nadal bashing you seem to be okay with. I rarely, if ever see you saying something to them about the many ignorant threads they put out. But, whenever a poster disagrees with something about Fed, it's called bashing. To me, that's a perception issue. The things I mostly talk about Fed for are what I see as character issues (his comments, his arrogance) these things to me are verifiable and it's my right not to like them and to discuss them on a public board. I also don't understand why you keep bringing up Sampras. Here's the way I see it. There are Nadal fans, Federer fans, Djokovic fans and other players have fans too. We're not all going to like the same players, but that's ok with me. I'm not coming after any poster armed with verbal insults because I disagree with their opinion. For the life of me I can't understand people getting their feathers ruffled and acting like these things are life and death issues. I take every poster on here with a grain of salt and respect their opinion whether I agree with it or not. To me differing views allow for growth, as opposed to me thinking that my way is the only way and all others should follow suit!

I actually did defend both Nadal and Djokovic a couple of times even though they're not my favourite players,ask Morrisey if you don't believe me(he even called me a Djokovic fan at one time even though I'm not).IMO it's wrong to trash and insult both Nadal and Federer and you act like it's only wrong to insult Nadal but it's fine to insult Fed.There's a difference between criticizing and bashing and I never called you a basher or similar now,did I? Criticizm I'm fine with but saying childish things like Fed sucks and that posters here have better volleys(both of these things were said by Sampras fans here).As for me not seeing what Fed fans do,I could say the same for you ,you do not see what Nadal fans and Sampras fans do.

 

[SikSerb]

lol he wins wimbledon and now hes the king and the greatest. Federer just flew out the window for all of you eh? lol jokes

 

[TheTruth]

I actually did defend both Nadal and Djokovic a couple of times even though they're not my favourite players,ask Morrisey if you don't believe me(he even called me a Djokovic fan at one time even though I'm not).IMO it's wrong to trash and insult both Nadal and Federer and you act like it's only wrong to insult Nadal but it's fine to insult Fed.There's a difference between criticizing and bashing and I never called you a basher or similar now,did I? Criticizm I'm fine with but saying childish things like Fed sucks and that posters here have better volleys(both of these things were said by Sampras fans here).As for me not seeing what Fed fans do,I could say the same for you ,you do not see what Nadal fans and Sampras fans do.

I'm confused as to why you're posting this to me:

1. Why would I care if you defended Nadal and Djokovic?
2. Why would I waste my time asking Morrissey if you defended them?
3. People can trash whomever they please. Why would that bother you? This is a board with over a thousand members, you should expect that.
4. I'm hanging on this board because I'm a procrastinator simply passing time. I don't get emotionally involved with these posters, nor the athletes I watch. Many of these posters amuse me, and I'm fascinated at how involved they are with their faves to the point where they call complete strangers idiots and trolls.
5. The Sampras fans saying things that you don't like has nothing to do with me so I am clueless as to why you keep bringing this to my attention.
6. Regarding what Nadal fans say, to me many times it is in direct opposition to what a Fed Fan has said. The Nadal fans are usually defending against unwarranted attacks. Whereas, some of the posts the Fed Fans make are positively revolting and cruel in nature. That's the difference. Now, the other reason I may not be able to distinguish which are Nadal ****s or/Fed ****s is because if the thread title is stupid, I neither enter it, or post to it (Unless I'm in a wacky mood). Just like the post you brought to my attention last week. I never saw that thread because the title said it all. Why would I go in there to see such drivel?



In addition, I've never trashed Federer, I just don't hold him in the same high esteem that his fans do. Because of that I've been called Nad ****, idiot, troll, liar, all manner of things. The reality is that anything that isn't glorifying Fed on this board bothers the majority of Fed Fans. And lately, even you have been pretty testy regarding perceived "insults" to Federer.

I could care less if someone criticizes Nadal, but I do have an issue with those who do it and then come back at you crying because you don't like Fed (not you, but there are plenty of them). I also have never hunted anyone down because they didn't agree with me, but I will defend the right to my opinion, because who is someone else to determine what my position should be?


I am not a crowd pleaser, or an approval seeker. I do not care about belonging to a group or being politically correct. If I have an opinion I will voice it. It is no more than any other poster on this board. Everyone that hits submit is typing in their own opinion, so I don't appreciate people chasing me down telling me how vehemently they disagree with my opinion. So dang what! Am I to cry because someone doesn't agree with me? Hardly! But what's even funnier is that I don't even remember who calls themselves not liking me here. There's less than ten people who's screen name I recognize because it's not that deep to me. When someone comes after me with a vengeance (and there's been plenty) I usually have to check their history to even see who they are.

If this post offends you I'm sorry, but I've had my fill of people ignoring an entire group of bashers because they're on the same side, and then being hypocrites and chastising the other side.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Don' t waste your breath on him, he's just a ******* troll who makes it his personal mission to berate anyone who has a view thats incompatible with his...then follows it up with his cheesy line of 'but i respect so and so'.

This fool hunts down people to insult them, then crys foul when he cops it back.

It amuses me.

Anyways, happy posting

I'm confused as to why you're posting this to me:

1. Why would I care if you defended Nadal and Djokovic?
2. Why would I waste my time asking Morrissey if you defended them?
3. People can trash whomever they please. Why would that bother you? This is a board with over a thousand members, you should expect that.
4. I'm hanging on this board because I'm a procrastinator simply passing time. I don't get emotionally involved with these posters, nor the athletes I watch. Many of these posters amuse me, and I'm fascinated at how involved they are with their faves to the point where they call complete strangers idiots and trolls.
5. The Sampras fans saying things that you don't like has nothing to do with me so I am clueless as to why you keep bringing this to my attention.
6. Regarding what Nadal fans say, to me many times it is in direct opposition to what a Fed Fan has said. The Nadal fans are usually defending against unwarranted attacks. Whereas, some of the posts the Fed Fans make are positively revolting and cruel in nature. That's the difference. Now, the other reason I may not be able to distinguish which are Nadal ****s or/Fed ****s is because if the thread title is stupid, I neither enter it, or post to it (Unless I'm in a wacky mood). Just like the post you brought to my attention last week. I never saw that thread because the title said it all. Why would I go in there to see such drivel?



In addition, I've never trashed Federer, I just don't hold him in the same high esteem that his fans do. Because of that I've been called Nad ****, idiot, troll, liar, all manner of things. The reality is that anything that isn't glorifying Fed on this board bothers the majority of Fed Fans. And lately, even you have been pretty testy regarding perceived "insults" to Federer.

I could care less if someone criticizes Nadal, but I do have an issue with those who do it and then come back at you crying because you don't like Fed (not you, but there are plenty of them). I also have never hunted anyone down because they didn't agree with me, but I will defend the right to my opinion, because who is someone else to determine what my position should be?


I am not a crowd pleaser, or an approval seeker. I do not care about belonging to a group or being politically correct. If I have an opinion I will voice it. It is no more than any other poster on this board. Everyone that hits submit is typing in their own opinion, so I don't appreciate people chasing me down telling me how vehemently they disagree with my opinion. So dang what! Am I to cry because someone doesn't agree with me? Hardly! But what's even funnier is that I don't even remember who calls themselves not liking me here. There's less than ten people who's screen name I recognize because it's not that deep to me. When someone comes after me with a vengeance (and there's been plenty) I usually have to check their history to even see who they are.

If this post offends you I'm sorry, but I've had my fill of people ignoring an entire group of bashers because they're on the same side, and then being hypocrites and chastising the other side.

 

[TheTruth]

Don' t waste your breath on him, he's just a ******* troll who makes it his personal mission to berate anyone who has a view thats incompatible with his...then follows it up with his cheesy line of 'but i respect so and so'.

This fool hunts down people to insult them, then crys foul when he cops it back.

It amuses me.

Anyways, happy posting

Really? Anyways. Love your Avatar. I haven't seen that picture!

 

[carlos djackal]

But Borg was right! You have to give him that. It's not hard to comment after the fact. It's braver to make a not so popular prediction before the fact: so he was insightful, not stupid. I think he likes Rafa too. He looked really happy when Rafa won the match. I love what Sampras said in this article btw, that the match transcended tennis! Such a wonderful tribute from all the tennis greats!

Agree.....

 

[chaognosis]

What Laver is actually saying is that, if you win Wimbledon, you are the best player in the world. He doesn't care how many other tournaments you've won or what your head-to-head record is against other players. Simply put, Wimbledon is and always has been THE tournament and whoever wins it is THE best of the year.

This is clearly untrue. Yes, Wimbledon has generally been regarded as the most important event in tennis (with the possible exception of Davis Cup), but winning Wimbledon does not automatically make one the best player of the year and never has. I cannot imagine even Laver claiming that, e.g., Edberg was the No. 1 player of 1988, when Wilander won the other three majors.

That said, Nadal is already, unequivocally, the No. 1 player of 2008 for winning Roland Garros and Wimbledon back to back, and beating Federer in both finals, regardless what happens the rest of the year.

 

[stormholloway]

What if Djokovic dominates the hard court season and wins the USO and the Masters?

 

[Virginia]

It is sad that people need the sanction of a tennis great to understand what has been perfectly obvious.

Results-wise, Nadal is clearly the best player at present.

But, if I had only one player to watch, I would still watch Federer. Then McEnroe, then Laver, then Borg, then Edberg. Nadal isn't even top 20 in my list of preferences. Those are my preferences, and it doesn't matter what any tennis great says. Miloslav Mecir or Ramesh Krishnan never reached the dizzy heights of the greats, but I would still watch them over Nadal. That is just me.

I agree with most of that, except you missed out Rosewall, probably the most under-rated player in the history of tennis.

Rosewall's victory over Laver in the 1972 WCT Finals (4-6 6-0 6-3 6-7 7-6) lwhen he was 38 years old and had made a comeback to No 1 in the world (a feat that nobody else has ever achieved before or since) was classified as one of the three greatest matches in history. The other two were Gonzales v Sedgman (Wembley 1956) and Crawford v Vines (Wimbledon 1933).

It really upsets me that this amazing player does not currently figure in peoples' minds the way he deserves to be.

Do you know what they used to say about Laver and Rosewall?

Laver will destroy you, but Rosewall will break your heart!

You perhaps haven't been around long enough to realise that in the grand scheme of things, rivalries between players have an ebb and flow that does not define either one as "the best player", other than on the day.

Yes, Nadal won, yes he played better, but never, never write off Federer - he has years to go yet. Nadal? I predict he will be burned out in two years. No human body can withstand the sort of abuse that Nadal puts his through.

 

[CAM178]

What idiots. Have we all forgotten he failed to win on a HARD COURT GRAND SLAM? I mean Hard court season is the most predominant season right? Have we also forgotten that he only has won 1 wimbledon?

Ease up, there. What Laver was proclaiming was 'at the moment' rankings, not historical. Laver and the crew have stated that Roger is the best ever. But due to Nadal beating Rog so handily on clay, and then beating Rog on his own home court, well, Laver just said what everyone is thinking. At the moment, Nadal is the best. And I bet if you asked in the locker room, you'd get the same opinion there, too.

But as Fed himself has said, we're coming into his season: hard court season, & the U.S. Open Series. If Rafa makes as strong of a showing there, then everyone needs to agree that Rafa is the best right now.

But until Rafa can dominate the GS's the way Rog has, he is still a long way off from immortal status. But I do like BG's prediction at Wimbledon early in the second week: Rafa can win 17 or 18 GS's.

 

[chaognosis]

Rosewall's victory over Laver in the 1972 WCT Finals (4-6 6-0 6-3 6-7 7-6) lwhen he was 38 years old and had made a comeback to No 1 in the world (a feat that nobody else has ever achieved before or since) was classified as one of the three greatest matches in history. The other two were Gonzales v Sedgman (Wembley 1956) and Crawford v Vines (Wimbledon 1933).

Just curious: according to whom? All three were classic matches, no doubt, but there are plenty of other matches that could easily be, and have been, mentioned in the same breath as these. In fact, prior to 1980, the one match most often cited as the greatest ever was almost certainly Budge's 1937 Davis Cup SF victory over Von Cramm.

 

[consistency wins]

I'd have to agree with the Rocket. Right now, Rafa is the best to date this year in terms of consistency on various surfaces. But, the hard court season is upon us.

The question is can he dominate three surfaces in one year?

I highly doubt it....but he amazed me at Queens and Wimbledon this year.

 

[Virginia]

Just curious: according to whom? All three were classic matches, no doubt, but there are plenty of other matches that could easily be, and have been, mentioned in the same breath as these. In fact, prior to 1980, the one match most often cited as the greatest ever was almost certainly Budge's 1937 Davis Cup SF victory over Von Cramm.

Well, you are right in that these things are somewhat subjective, but it was C.M.Jones, editor of the British magazine Lawn Tennis, in an article in the 1973 WCT magazine, who made this statement.

 

[chaognosis]

Well, you are right in that these things are somewhat subjective, but it was C.M.Jones, editor of the British magazine Lawn Tennis, in an article in the 1973 WCT magazine, who made this statement.

Thanks for the source; I will look it up.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Thanks I love my avatar too.

Really? Anyways. Love your Avatar. I haven't seen that picture!

 

[Morrissey]

The greatest player of all time Laver knows who the best player is right now.

 

[veritech]

to be honest, you would be kind of ignorant to not name nadal the number one player right now.

laver's just pointing out the obvious.