Mcenroe : Nadal may actually be the GOAT

borg number one said:
I have Borg, Laver, Sampras, and Federer in a top tier of all time greats. I think Nadal will eventually be there as well. I think Nadal would be most helped by some more Wimbledon titles especially.
Click to expand...

I wondered if you would mention these names in chronological order, such as Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, but instead you mentioned Borg first. What might this intimate about your true deep down feelings about the order of these tier 1 ATGreats?
 
TennisMaven said:
Yeah but then you'd also have to point that the only reason Nadal leads in Master's titles is because there are more clay and slow HC Master's than grass Master's. OR likewise that there are 2 HC majors as opposed to 2 grass majors.
Click to expand...

Federer is favoured over Nadal on hardcourt, career wise. There are 6 hardcourt masters series events (excluding the WTF), compared to 3 on clay.
 
Mustard said:
Not just against Federer, but against all his big rivals and virtually the whole field. Nadal has the career Grand Slam, and loads of weeks in the top 2. Federer can claim all those weeks at number 1 and 17 majors, but he has had a losing head-to-head against Nadal, and even Murray has frequently led Federer in their head-to-head. Then one could point out that there's 2 hardcourt majors every year as opposed to 2 clay-court majors. Nadal has managed these career achievements of his despite having periods where he's either out of the game or struggling by top level standards, which makes his top achievements all the more remarkable.
Click to expand...

Mustard, I don't care whether Nadal leads H2H against Tom, Dick and Harry or how his achievements are so remarkable and he's such warrior for overcoming through such adversity etc. he gets no bonus points from me, no player does, Nadal is not the only player on the whole tour struggling with issues (physical or otherwise) no matter if he's the most vocal about them or not.

You're either ranked #1 or you aren't, in every one of the years in which Nadal wasn't ranked #1 the player who was ranked ahead (whether it was Fed or Novak) had far better results overall (including slam results so please no parallel to WTA and bringing up Wozniacki).

You don't put much stock in time spent as #1? Great, that's your prerogative but H2H has nothing to do with it, you're mixing up apples and oranges.
 
Mustard said:
6-2 to Nadal. How many times has Federer won Indian Wells compared to Nadal? Same with Miami and all the other hardcourt masters series events?
Click to expand...

Therefore Nadal is favoured against Federer on outdoor HC.

HC fields are deeper than clay fields. IF you truly want to argue that, you have no clue.
 
borg number one said:
I have Borg, Laver, Sampras, and Federer in a top tier of all time greats. I think Nadal will eventually be there as well. I think Nadal would be most helped by more Wimbledon titles especially.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's what I was interested in.

I do firmly believe tiers are best way of ranking players all-time, putting one single player above others when tennis is such a nuanced sport in which conditions change (in some cases drastically) across different eras is faulty as far as I'm concerned.

I also don't put much stock in what former tennis players (greats even) who are currently employed in the media say about the issue given their tendency to always hype the current best (not that I particulary blame them, it's their job to create interest for the game).
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
I wondered if you would mention these names in chronological order, such as Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, but instead you mentioned Borg first. What might this intimate about your true deep down feelings about the order of these tier 1 ATGreats?
Click to expand...

Also borg no 1, can you explain your omission of others such as Rosewall, Pancho, Tilden. Did no tier 1 ATG's exist before approx. 1960?
 
zagor said:
Thanks, that's what I was interested in.

I do firmly believe tiers are best way of ranking players all-time, putting one single player above others when tennis is such a nuanced sport in which conditions change (in some cases drastically) across different eras is faulty as far as I'm concerned.

I also don't put much stock in what former tennis players (greats even) who are currently employed in the media say about the issue given their tendency to always hype the current best (not that I particulary blame them, it's their job to create interest for the game).
Click to expand...
Good post. I also agree Nadal is in a tier below Federer at the moment.
 
borg number one said:
I think that Federer was able to rack up a lot of slams at a time when there's wasn't a lot of strength at the top. Agassi played some great tennis post 30, but he was not the same player he was during his best years versus Sampras. All all time greats have pluses and minuses, so to discuss the depth at the top during prime years is very valid. I think Federer is one of the all time greats, but certainly not the undisputed "greatest ever", so we agree there. That's a big honor, so my main difference of opinion is with those that try and assert that Federer must be the undisputed "greatest ever" and that his major count is the bedrock for that assertion. I know that you are not in that camp. I think Nadal will end up being an all time great, one of the greatest ever, right up there with the best of them, but he too will have pluses and minuses. Some may say that he had too much of his success on clay, so it all tends to be considered in the end.
Click to expand...

Nadal has only finished two years as #1, how could Federer with his 5 year end #1's be the transitional champion? Especially considering he spent more time at the top spot than Sampras. There was plenty of strength in 2004, 2005 and 2007. More so than in 2010 Nadal's best year. Nadal is already an all-time great. Sorry but a massive lol at Federer being a transitional champion. Perhaps the stupidest comment I've ever seen...
 
Mustard said:
Not just against Federer, but against all his big rivals and virtually the whole field. Nadal has the career Grand Slam, and loads of weeks in the top 2. Federer can claim all those weeks at number 1 and 17 majors, but he has had a losing head-to-head against Nadal, and even Murray has frequently led Federer in their head-to-head. Then one could point out that there's 2 hardcourt majors every year as opposed to 2 clay-court majors. Nadal has managed these career achievements of his despite having periods where he's either out of the game or struggling by top level standards, which makes his top achievements all the more remarkable.
Click to expand...

Well, you could also argue that since Nadal loses early and misses a lot of matches that he comes always more fresh to tournaments. And Federer always plays and goes deep means that he plays everything tired, non fresh, which also makes his top achievements all the more remarkable.

About two hard court slams. There is also one grass slam. And no masters on grass, so Nadal has the edge on clay vs grass.
But let's say there are two slams on clay. You have then a butterfly effect.
Maybe Nadal also wouldn't be able to play the whole season still.
And if it were two slams on clay, others would also be better on clay. They would made their games for clay. So this means also much tougher competition on clay.

Hard courts is where 75% of the tennis is played. It is the most important surface. And conditions are the same for everyone. All players knew this in advance when they started their careers. You would have a point if they changed it in the middle of the season.

Like they did slow down the courts. And Federer was at disadvantage there.
Because he made his style to faster surfaces. And because he is older, he is at a disadvantage because of fitness on slower surfaces. So he suffers the most because of those conditions.
 
Last edited:
I think you can make an argument for a number of players, including Rosewall, Gonzalez, and perhaps Tilden. As for the order in my top tier, of course it's Borg Number One.
 
borg number one said:
I think you can make an argument for a number of players, including Rosewall, Gonzalez, and perhaps Tilden. As for the order in my top tier, of course it's Borg Number One.
Click to expand...

But why isn't Rosewall in your list given his amazing career, much of which ran in parallel with Laver, plus he was winning big titles before Laver's first Major and after Laver's last, I'm curious.

Also, I want to know if your name order of Borg, Laver, Sampras, Federer echoes your true feelings on the order of your tier one ATGs if a gun was pointed to your head and you were asked to discern their hierarchy within the tier list.

Lastly, how do you end up having Borg as the 'number one of numbers ones'? To me, even if I was absolutely fanatical about Borg, I think the most I could ever say is 'what if', because he could have achieved so much more but... just left.

Thanks.
 
BobbyOne said:
borg number one, I realize that you underrate the giants prior to Laver, namely Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall (and maybe Budge and Kramer).
Click to expand...

Yes, I just want to know specifically why, especially in the case of Rosewall, much of whom's career ran in parallel with Laver, and he achieved a similar amount. Though he showed slightly less dominance, he demonstrated a greater longevity in being able to win major events at the top level. So I'm having difficulty understanding the reasoning, especially when he feels Nadal will make it into his list, with the Federer/Nadal tandem in various ways echoing an equally great/greater tandem of the past in Rosewall/Laver.
 
The Dark Knight said:
Well Nadal has been around for less time and missed 7 slams.

I think it's amazing that he has 11 .....more impressive to me than Feds 17 because he has never missed a slam and has been around longer than Nadal with a lot less competition .

Nadal would already have 14 if not for Jokers incredible year. Nadal was in every one of those finals.
Click to expand...
this argument does not work. fed would have 23 slams without nadal. so you cannot make this work for rafa and not for fed also
 
TMF said:
Modern slam >>>>>>>>>>>>> amateur slam(split fields)

Given a split fields today, you put most of the best players on one tour and let Murray(or Roddick, Hewitt...) play on another tour, he can win 12 slams.
Click to expand...

Mighty Federer, You are right but you are not consequent: You use to praise the idiotic Tennis Channel list where Emerson has got a stupid 11th place while the true giants, Rosewall and Gonzalez, were on places 13 and 22.
 
NatF said:
So amateur slams equal open era slams now? Federer is a GOAT contender because he's the most dominant and accomplished player of the open era by a variety of different metrics. Few rate Federer top purely based on his number of slams.
Click to expand...

NatF, Tennis Channel has ranked Federer first mostly because his 17 major titles. See Emerson's insane place in their list. Many other experts and Federer fans refer also to his 17 majors.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
But why isn't Rosewall in your list given his amazing career, much of which ran in parallel with Laver, plus he was winning big titles before Laver's first Major and after Laver's last, I'm curious.

Also, I want to know if your name order of Borg, Laver, Sampras, Federer echoes your true feelings on the order of your tier one ATGs if a gun was pointed to your head and you were asked to discern their hierarchy within the tier list.

Lastly, how do you end up having Borg as the 'number one of numbers ones'? To me, even if I was absolutely fanatical about Borg, I think the most I could ever say is 'what if', because he could have achieved so much more but... just left.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I think Laver had a higher peak level of play, with 1969 being a huge plus. After Borg, I'd go with Laver, Federer, Sampras, but could easily mix in Rosewall and Gonzalez especially. Borg achieved so much by 25, with a great win rate, with very tough competition at the top, at a time when there was much more surface versatility and the dynamics tended to favor great fast court players. Connors and McEnroe were great hard courters/grass court players and Borg faced them at a time when the grass courts were faster, the hard courts were faster, and there was no slow hard court major. He still won 11 of 27 majors and made 5 more finals (16/27). He also won three channel slams, 5 W titles in a row, won 41 straight matches at W, won W without losing a set, and three majors without losing a set. He won the 1978 FO, while dropping just 32 games. He revolutionized the game with his playing style, including topspin off both wings, great conditioning and power from the baseline along with a big first serve. He was also a huge superstar, who took tennis into previously unchartered territory in a Golden Age in tennis. What is your list of the all time greats? How do you rank them?
 
Last edited:
BobbyOne said:
Mighty Federer, You are right but you are not consequent: You use to praise the idiotic Tennis Channel list where Emerson has got a stupid 11th place while the true giants, Rosewall and Gonzalez, were on places 13 and 22.
Click to expand...
Rosewall and Gonzalez? Especially Gonzalez at 22. Did they calculate that by having a chimpanzee get a hold of the LSD and then drop some dies holding them with its butt cheeks? Because that's the most stupid ranking I've ever heard.
 
BobbyOne said:
NatF, Tennis Channel has ranked Federer first mostly because his 17 major titles. See Emerson's insane place in their list. Many other experts and Federer fans refer also to his 17 majors.
Click to expand...

They ranked him first for his major titles yes, but also his time at #1 and his level of play. I agree that the tennis channel list is not the best indicator of anything but maybe the place of open era greats.
 
borg number one said:
I think Laver had a higher peak level of play, with 1969 being a huge plus. After Borg, I'd go with Laver, Federer, Sampras, but could easily mix in Rosewall and Gonzalez especially. Borg achieved so much by 25, with a great win rate, with very tough competition at the top, at a time when there was much more surface versatility and the dynamics tended to favor great fast court players. Connors and McEnroe were great hard courters/grass court players and Borg faced them at a time when the grass courts were faster, the hard courts were faster, and there was no slow hard court major. He still won 11 of 27 majors and made 5 more finals (16/27). He also won three channel slams, 5 W titles in a row, won 41 straight matches at W, won W without losing a set, and three majors without losing a set. He won the 1978 FO, while dropping just 32 games. He revolutionized the game with his playing style, including topspin off both wings, great conditioning and power from the baseline along with a big first serve. He was also a huge superstar, who took tennis into previously unchartered territory in a Golden Age in tennis.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but it's hard to reconcile his sudden self imposed exile from the game as being conducive with the idea of being the very best tennis player in history. How would have he fared had he continued? He didn't prove himself for as long as he could have.. it's like imagining Fed having retired after winning RG or something. I do hold it against Borg, as great as I find his accomplishments. It means that in the end he lacks the achievements that he could have had, however we will never know if he would have actually attained that much more or if McEnroe/Lendl would have pushed him largely out of the frame similar to how Nadal and Djokovic have done to Federer. If he had played on for more years then maybe I would currently feel that he really is the strongest contender for best of the best, but with the mid 20's retirement, I find it simply impossible.

BTW check this out, I only just realised this series was reuploaded to youtothetubism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7IUqFjNrMM
 
zagor said:
There was no amateur-pro split during Fed's time so no, his situation in no way correlates to Emerson.
Click to expand...

zagor, then tell this to those many "experts" and fans who rank Emerson among the top ten or eleven (Tennis Channel and many others including some posters here).
 
NatF said:
They ranked him first for his major titles yes, but also his time at #1 and his level of play. I agree that the tennis channel list is not the best indicator of anything but maybe the place of open era greats.
Click to expand...

The Tennis Channel had Emerson above Gonzales :lol:
 
Mustard said:
The Tennis Channel had Emerson above Gonzales :lol:
Click to expand...

The omission of Gonzales from the top 5 is crazy. I don't understand why the accomplishments of the pro's was ignored, surely it's common knowledge that the pro's were far better players than the amateurs.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
Indeed, but it's hard to reconcile his sudden self imposed exile from the game as being conducive with the idea of being the very best tennis player in history. How would have he fared had he continued? He didn't prove himself for as long as he could have.. it's like imagining Fed having retired after winning RG or something. I do hold it against Borg, as great as I find his accomplishments. It means that in the end he lacks the achievements that he could have had, however we will never know if he would have actually attained that much more or if McEnroe/Lendl would have pushed him largely out of the frame similar to how Nadal and Djokovic have done to Federer. If he had played on for more years then maybe I would currently feel that he really is the strongest contender for best of the best, but with the mid 20's retirement, I find it simply impossible.

BTW check this out, I only just realised this series was reuploaded to youtothetubism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7IUqFjNrMM
Click to expand...

Ok, that's your opinion, everyone has there own take. I disagree with others as to who they have at number one. It's just the nature of the debate. The TC is there to market the modern game, just like guys like John McEnroe and modern tennis writers. Obviously, there is that bias towards the here and now, such as with that TC feature. There is money to be made by doing so.
 
Guys, forget the crappy rankings in that Tennis Channel series, at least the individual segments for each player are quite interesting and it's a good series. It's worth a watch for sure.
 
borg number one said:
Ok, that's your opinion, everyone has there own take. I disagree with others as to who they have at number one. It's just the nature of the debate. The TC is there to market the modern game, just like guys like John McEnroe and modern tennis writers. Obviously, there is that bias towards the here and now, such as with that TC feature. There is money to be made by doing so.
Click to expand...

Refer to my last post.


PS, I'm not interested in the hyping of the current game but rather formulating objective judgments that are formed logically -- to look at issues from a myriad of angles, which involves research and plenty of history reading. I dislike the recency affect as much as anyone else, period.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
Refer to my last post.


PS, I'm not interested in the hyping of the current game but rather formulating objective judgments that are formed logically -- to look at issues from a myriad of angles, which involves research and plenty of history reading. I dislike the recency affect as much as anyone else, period.
Click to expand...

I agree with that approach, but also realize that there will always be inherent limitations on what can be considered "objective" criterion. In the end, you're always left with much that is subjective, the objective, along with the seemingly "objective". I concur that there is a recency effect and we're on the same page there then. Here's one take on it.

Recency Effect: This is the principle that the most recently presented items or experiences will most likely be remembered best. If you hear a long list of words, it is more likely that you will remember the words you heard last (at the end of the list) than words that occurred in the middle. This is the recency effect. You should also note that you will be likely to remember words at the beginning of the list more than words in the middle, and this is called the Primacy Effect.

Read more: http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Recency Effect#ixzz2UcZHteCN
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
People actually got too hung up on the admittedly foolish and inconsistent or anachronistic approach to the TC's top 100 list, and refused to look past that enough to actually appreciate the series for something else which it also was; an overall celebration of tennis history and tennis players. The Jimmy Connors mini feature was particularly good to watch, for me. The rankings of the list are foolish, but getting hung up on them is equally as foolish, so it's really advisable and wise to not fall into that trap.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
But why isn't Rosewall in your list given his amazing career, much of which ran in parallel with Laver, plus he was winning big titles before Laver's first Major and after Laver's last, I'm curious.

Also, I want to know if your name order of Borg, Laver, Sampras, Federer echoes your true feelings on the order of your tier one ATGs if a gun was pointed to your head and you were asked to discern their hierarchy within the tier list.

Lastly, how do you end up having Borg as the 'number one of numbers ones'? To me, even if I was absolutely fanatical about Borg, I think the most I could ever say is 'what if', because he could have achieved so much more but... just left.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Nathaniel, Good question regarding Rosewall. It's a fact that Rosewall played in the Laver era (not only then) and that these two giants "stole" a lot of titles from each other. If they had played in different eras, their resume would have been even greater.
 
Last edited:
Mustard said:
Federer is favoured over Nadal on hardcourt, career wise. There are 6 hardcourt masters series events (excluding the WTF), compared to 3 on clay.
Click to expand...

But the hc(except Cincinnati) have slow down, so this surface is a wash. However Nadal's favorite surface has 3 MS while Fed's favorite surface has zero MS. And if you want to get technical, grass was also slow down in favor of Nadal, MC was no longer a mandatory since 2009.


Courts overall continue to get slower, and slower.....
http://www.fawcette.net/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html (thanks to Flash O'Groove)
 
borg number one said:
I agree with that approach, but also realize that there will always be inherent limitations on what can be considered "objective" criterion. In the end, you're always left with much that is subjective, the objective, along with the seemingly "objective". I concur that there is a recency affect and we're on the same page there then.
Click to expand...

The fact is, judgement will largely revolve around facts regarding numbers etc, and then also context and opinions on such, which are utterly subjective. But then again, these are all things I just take as an obvious given which are barely worth noting or mentioning, yet it's amazing how many people see things in black and white and make the assumption that the bigger number is the better number. Many also seem oblivious to the fact that not only does the way the game is played change over time, but also, the 'in vogue' parameters by which tennis players are judged. Right now, the recency effect that the media conjure up favours the likes of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and also by extension, Laver, for reasons we know very well.
 
No Super 9 was mandatory before the year 2000, TMF. The changes in the game are mostly down to the new strings, more so than surface speed.
 
The Dark Knight said:
Do you have anything intelligent to say?

You miss the point . I'm not saying Nadal
Would have won those slams.

I'm saying that he has won 11 slams despite missing 7 of them.

The only other player who has done that in history that I can think of is Bjorn Borg.

At know Phuc you seriously must be pretty young because other than insults you have not made even one remotely adult point .

Seriously .....just curious how old are you ? For real?
Click to expand...
Do you?
Besides hatching all the time the same excuses for Rafa, while promoting his greatness over Fed, can you say anything else? The same bashing worded differently is getting...old...very fast, do you know?
Let's see I watched the end of Borg's career, including his win and loss at Wimby by Big Mac, the emergence of Lendl, then Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Chang, Courier, Fed, Nadal, and now Djoker, Murray. Is that enough for you? I leave Laver, Rosewall, Tilden for other people to discuss.
I'm smart enough to close my trap when I don't know anything about a topic. You, old enough to watch Laver play in person? Of course, these 'youtube' clips you can dig out don't count since they're only snapshots of some players. So how old are you really to bring in Laver in your discussion about Nadal's greatness? Or you just rehash some stats by googling and youtubing?
One more point, I'm old enough to leave topics like whom I fantasize about outside of this forum. And are you old enough to do the same?
Still waiting for an answer... "No", that's what I thought.
Finally, you created threads, jumped from one to another to bash Fed and clamored Rafa is better than Fed. All you had to show for is their respective h2h. And I asked you many times to show a list of as many categories as you can come up to show Rafa leads Fed in ALL of these categories. ALL, not one, not 2, not 3, ALL. If you can do that, then Rafa is BETTER. If not, Rafa is NOT better.
Where's that list? Still waiting... Not any time soon, right? Because you have none to show for. That's what I thought too.
So far from you, I saw zitch to answer my request. All I saw was "missing slams, parent divorce, knee problems, too young to compete, not peaking then, and other bs". Yup, these are facts. However when someone said, "mono, Fed is getting older, etc.", then for you, it's bs. Wow! Great integrity in making the same standards for everyone!
You're just an hypocrite, liar, and perv, not deserving to say anything in this forum. And you have the audacity to ask about my age, and my posts. Me, at least when I say 17>11, it's true. You, on the other hand, claim 11>17 (seriously?), then proceeded to justify by saying quality over quantity and to finish it off, Decker over Mirka. WTF?
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
Yes, I just want to know specifically why, especially in the case of Rosewall, much of whom's career ran in parallel with Laver, and he achieved a similar amount. Though he showed slightly less dominance, he demonstrated a greater longevity in being able to win major events at the top level. So I'm having difficulty understanding the reasoning, especially when he feels Nadal will make it into his list, with the Federer/Nadal tandem in various ways echoing an equally great/greater tandem of the past in Rosewall/Laver.
Click to expand...

Nathaniel, I agree. As I have tried to show in the other forum months ago, Rosewall's record is arguably as great as anyone's: 23 majors (or 25 if we include his two WCT finals' wins), 137 tournaments won, 356 SFs reached, 23 years among the top 10, a positive balance against all his top opponents at big events (with the only exception of Connors, against him he was already 39), nine majors won in a row where he participated, and so on.
 
VPhuc tennis fan said:
Do you?
Besides hatching all the time the same excuses for Rafa, while promoting his greatness over Fed, can you say anything else? The same bashing worded differently is getting...old...very fast, do you know?
Let's see I watched the end of Borg's career, including his win and loss at Wimby by Big Mac, the emergence of Lendl, then Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Chang, Courier, Fed, Nadal, and now Djoker, Murray. Is that enough for you? I leave Laver, Rosewall, Tilden for other people to discuss.
I'm smart enough to close my trap when I don't know anything about a topic. You, old enough to watch Laver play in person? Of course, these 'youtube' clips you can dig out don't count since they're only snapshots of some players. So how old are you really to bring in Laver in your discussion about Nadal's greatness? Or you just rehash some stats by googling and youtubing?
One more point, I'm old enough to leave topics like whom I fantasize about outside of this forum. And are you old enough to do the same?
Still waiting for an answer... "No", that's what I thought.
Finally, you created threads, jumped from one to another to bash Fed and clamored Rafa is better than Fed. All you had to show for is their respective h2h. And I asked you many times to show a list of as many categories as you can come up to show Rafa leads Fed in ALL of these categories. ALL, not one, not 2, not 3, ALL. If you can do that, then Rafa is BETTER. If not, Rafa is NOT better.
Where's that list? Still waiting... Not any time soon, right? Because you have none to show for. That's what I thought too.
So far from you, I saw zitch to answer my request. All I saw was "missing slams, parent divorce, knee problems, too young to compete, not peaking then, and other bs". Yup, these are facts. However when someone said, "mono, Fed is getting older, etc.", then for you, it's bs. Wow! Great integrity in making the same standards for everyone!
You're just an hypocrite, liar, and perv, not deserving to say anything in this forum. And you have the audacity to ask about my age, and my posts. Me, at least when I say 17>11, it's true. You, on the other hand, claim 11>17 (seriously?), then proceeded to justify by saying quality over quantity and to finish it off, Decker over Mirka. WTF?
Click to expand...

Bravo, bravo. Hope that shuts him up.
 
Mustard said:
Why does getting more weeks at number 1 matter when he's already had a big record number of weeks at number 2?
Click to expand...

Why should Federer win more matches against Nadal when he already has done that 10 times?

I'm very serious.

Mustard said:
Federer can claim all those weeks at number 1 and 17 majors, but he has had a losing head-to-head against Nadal, and even Murray has frequently led Federer in their head-to-head.
Click to expand...

Fantastic. And that "even Murray.." part. *clap clap*

Let's play around with this sentence a bit.

Nadal can claim all those wins at head-to-head, but Federer has all those weeks at number 1 and 17 majors. (can't touch the Murray part)

Nadal has managed these career achievements of his despite having periods where he's either out of the game or struggling by top level standards, which makes his top achievements all the more remarkable.
Click to expand...

Being out of the game is not remarkable, it's not a good note in a player's career, and it doesn't make anything any more remarkable than they already are.
 
BobbyOne said:
Nathaniel, I agree. As I have tried to show in the other forum months ago, Rosewall's record is arguably as great as anyone's: 23 majors (or 25 if we include his two WCT finals' wins), 137 tournaments won, 356 SFs reached, 23 years among the top 10, a positive balance against all his top opponents at big events (with the only exception of Connors, against him he was already 39), nine majors won in a row where he participated, and so on.
Click to expand...

I would definitely include the two WCT titles -- That 'thief' Rosewall. I find it hard to argue against Rosewall being in the very top tier of tennis greats. He proved himself for way too long not to be...
 
VPhuc tennis fan said:
Decker over Mirka. WTF?
Click to expand...

I prefer BDecker to MVavrinec, but BDecker's chin is too pointy-

Brooklyn-Decker-01.jpg
 
VPhuc tennis fan said:
Do you?
Besides hatching all the time the same excuses for Rafa, while promoting his greatness over Fed, can you say anything else? The same bashing worded differently is getting...old...very fast, do you know?
Let's see I watched the end of Borg's career, including his win and loss at Wimby by Big Mac, the emergence of Lendl, then Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Chang, Courier, Fed, Nadal, and now Djoker, Murray. Is that enough for you? I leave Laver, Rosewall, Tilden for other people to discuss.
I'm smart enough to close my trap when I don't know anything about a topic. You, old enough to watch Laver play in person? Of course, these 'youtube' clips you can dig out don't count since they're only snapshots of some players. So how old are you really to bring in Laver in your discussion about Nadal's greatness? Or you just rehash some stats by googling and youtubing?
One more point, I'm old enough to leave topics like whom I fantasize about outside of this forum. And are you old enough to do the same?
Still waiting for an answer... "No", that's what I thought.
Finally, you created threads, jumped from one to another to bash Fed and clamored Rafa is better than Fed. All you had to show for is their respective h2h. And I asked you many times to show a list of as many categories as you can come up to show Rafa leads Fed in ALL of these categories. ALL, not one, not 2, not 3, ALL. If you can do that, then Rafa is BETTER. If not, Rafa is NOT better.
Where's that list? Still waiting... Not any time soon, right? Because you have none to show for. That's what I thought too.
So far from you, I saw zitch to answer my request. All I saw was "missing slams, parent divorce, knee problems, too young to compete, not peaking then, and other bs". Yup, these are facts. However when someone said, "mono, Fed is getting older, etc.", then for you, it's bs. Wow! Great integrity in making the same standards for everyone!
You're just an hypocrite, liar, and perv, not deserving to say anything in this forum. And you have the audacity to ask about my age, and my posts. Me, at least when I say 17>11, it's true. You, on the other hand, claim 11>17 (seriously?), then proceeded to justify by saying quality over quantity and to finish it off, Decker over Mirka. WTF?
Click to expand...

this should be the first response to any worthless thread

TheDudKnight starts from now on.
 
Sartorius said:
Why should Federer win more matches against Nadal when he already has done that 10 times?

I'm very serious.
Click to expand...

The point I was making is that Nadal has always led their head-to-head and has an 8-2 advantage in the majors, against a player who many think is the greatest of all time.

Sartorius said:
Fantastic. And that "even Murray.." part. *clap clap*

Let's play around with this sentence a bit.

Nadal can claim all those wins at head-to-head, but Federer has all those weeks at number 1 and 17 majors. (can't touch the Murray part)
Click to expand...

The point I was making is that Federer has frequently had losing head-to-heads against two of his biggest rivals.

Sartorius said:
Being out of the game is not remarkable, it's not a good note in a player's career, and it doesn't make anything any more remarkable than they already are.
Click to expand...

The comebacks to top form are what's remarkable.
 
BobbyOne said:
NatF, Tennis Channel has ranked Federer first mostly because his 17 major titles. See Emerson's insane place in their list. Many other experts and Federer fans refer also to his 17 majors.
Click to expand...

Please open your eyes. total slams is the biggest criteria, but not the be-all and end-all. No player have ever performed better than Nadal at the slam. He's the only player to surpass 300 weeks at #1. His win/loss record at Davis Cup is excellent(despite most is play on clay which is his least favorite surface). He holds the most number of records/streaks. Off court, he's a role model, ambassador of the sports, established "The Federer Foundation", charity works. I think he holds the record for most awards(e.g. sportsman of the year, 4.Stefan Edberg, ESPY Best Male Player, etc.)

What more do you want !??
Geez...he's not God !

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OddJack
Patrick McEnroe fears Nadal may Quit
2 3
Replies
123
Views
8K
Sentinel
Sentinel
3fees
McEnroe Picks Federer To Make It Seven Wimbledon Titles
Replies
36
Views
6K
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight
Frenchy-Player
John McEnroe seething over shot-clock drama: ‘Rafael Nadal should be penalised. It’s a joke’
3 4 5
Replies
225
Views
5K
Bubcay
Bubcay
N
McEnroe talking about Nadal and Roland Garros
2
Replies
72
Views
4K
TheTruth
TheTruth
clayqueen
John McEnroe backs Rafael Nadal
Replies
38
Views
1K
Mustard
Mustard
Back
Top