Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Yes, she is pointy alright, if you catch my (ocean) drift.I prefer BDecker to MVavrinec, but BDecker's chin is too pointy-
Mcenroe : Nadal may actually be the GOAT
- Thread starter The Dark Knight
- Start date
Nathaniel, Thanks a lot for your link to the T.C. list. I saw the Rosewall part. Even in these short pictures one can realize how good this little man was.
It's interesting that Bud Collins is shown when he says that Muscles is arguable the GOAT. We know that Bud also called Laver (his favourite player and friend), Tilden and Gonzalez the GOAT. And he is right because it's actually very difficult to decide between these giants.
It's typical for Tennis Channel that they did not mention any of Rosewall's important pro achievements (Wembley, US Pro and French pro plus Kramer Cup).
It seems as though Collins was outvoted by other voters of T.C.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
No problem. It's a shame there aren't more accessible documentaries for more of the great tennis players for example in the 'Sports Century' series. Some of the great tennis players were covered but not all. Here is an example from that series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhvuI59Ij40
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Read my signature.
Feddy, you are exactly right. Pancho Gonzalez at No.22. Jesus!
NatF, again I can agree with you!!
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Yeah, I'm still recuperating. I find it difficult to believe somebody would stick their foot so deep in crap. Gonzalez is arguably the best S/V player ever. I happen to believe Sampras has nothing on him.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Well there is also the issue that it's a combined list for the men and women.
Sartorius
Hall of Fame
Was this your point when you made that rankings comment?
Anyhow, I guess making that particular point is kind of a necessity now, like putting on your clothes before leaving the house.
Federer is a guy who has had many big rivals in both from his contemporaries in age and also those who are younger than him. More taint for his legacy awaits him I fear as he'll probably make the mistake of continuously playing and going deep in tournaments, and keep recording losses here and there.
I guess it is. I would also call playing on the tour non-stop, going through struggles in play, enduring losses and keep coming back remarkable. Not to say Nadal didn't have to endure anything, but there's also plenty of room to inflate Federer's (or anyone else's) achievements if you choose the romantic route. Don't do it on the expense of anyone else though.
...but he also said that he cannot win against Nadal...
VPhuc tennis fan
Professional
Hey Feddy and 6-3 6-1 6-0,Yes, she is pointy alright, if you catch my (ocean) drift.
Should I start asking about your maturity? Let me take you by the hands and point to the APPROPRIATE forum for your posts. It's called SI (short for Sports Illustrated, just in case you don't know it yet) swimsuit forum. Go ahead, log in there, and boast about your criteria.
The last time I check, TW is NOT the same as SI. Letters can be confusing, I know.
BTW, you don't need to come back to tell us what you posted on SI. I leave it to you, KOT, and 6-whatever to debate the winner. Good posting on SI now!
Wouf!
tennisplayer1993
Professional
Yes, she is pointy alright, if you catch my (ocean) drift.
:lol: I would like a taste of that ocean drift
Don't agree. Their overall results against the rest of the field matter more. Nadal's game is perfectly suited against Roger's weakness, so using that metric (which is nothing but a preference) seems biased to me. Let's take the following scenario. Berdych hits hard and flat and poses particular problems for Nadal. His head to head against Nadal is extremely one sided, but he's won less titles than Nadal. Would anyone consider Berdych to be the best of all time? Of course not. Individual matchups being what they are, are irrelevant. Their total effectiveness against the rest of the field, is a far more objective barometer.
Feddy, Gonzalez as best S/V player ever is a very good choice.
I agree but Berdych is a bad example, as he has a losing streak, a huge one, against Nadal. Davydenko is a better example, a player that Fed owns, but Nadal hates playing against. Djokovic is about to become another example, as Fed seems to have easier time against him than Rafita.
Don't have some experts a brain or don't they use it? Mixing men and women in ONE list is absurd.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I don't see how it would have been hard to just create two top 50 lists instead. Maybe they just decided it would be less 'marketable'...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Funny, Federer has beaten Nadal 10 times, is Collins really an expert?
. What he actually says is that Federer's only weakness is the high topspin forehand of Nadal to his backhand.Funny, Federer has beaten Nadal 10 times, is Collins really an expert?
NatF, Bud is really an expert. Of course he meant that Roger can virtually not beat Nadal in big events. Of course that does not mean there cannot be exceptions.
Bud also praised Federer's slice backhand as comparable with Rosewall's (I disagree because Rosewall's backhand was much more offensive) but also said that Rosewall's volley is better than Roger's.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I was just messing around, I know of and respect Bud's opinions. Which is why I find his testimony that Federer is a GOAT contender convincing. He's beaten Nadal 4 times at the WTF which is a big event. Obviously in slams it's not good. I think it's unfair to constantly mention the h2h with Nadal. Federer lost some close matches that he should of won IMO. But Nadal is simply the perfect player versus Federer and he has the advantage of being younger. For example Djokovic has a huge lead over Nadal in hardcourt matches, but Federer despite playing the majority of his matches versus Djokovic past his peak actually leads him in hardcourt matches. Matchups are a part of tennis, unfortunately for Federer his kryptonite is a fellow all-time great and his struggles are more obvious.
Rosewall's volley is no doubt better than Roger's, but I think Bud would admit that Federer can still volley. From what I've read Rosewall's game and Federer's has some similarities. Both are renowned for their artistry.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Did you get into a time machine in late 2006-early 2007 and transport yourself to the present day? Because that's how long it's been since Berdych was a bad matchup for Nadal.
I don't think Davydenko is a bad matchup for Nadal. He is just better on hard courts. 6-1 record. Nadal barely scraped 1 match. It's almost 6-0.
And he was like he was avoiding Davydenko those 2 hard court slams, he won. Because Davy would have beaten him. Entire Nadals hard court career of 2 slams is built on him avoiding his main rival. Sounds familiar?
Yes Fed has losing h2h against Nadal. But he can be excused a little because Nadal is an all time great. Just like Nadal lost to Djoker 7 times in a row, 3 slams in a row (which is a new record) in his prime can be excused because Djoker is an all time great.
But NO way can Nadal be excused having a losing h2h vs a journeyman 6-1 on the surface that 75% of the tennis is played. Or losing to a player outside of 100 in wimby in his PRIME.
I mean there are holes and there are HOLES!!!
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Lighten up. Double entendre that a 10 year old wouldn't get is not a big deal. It's just a bikini picture and a funny comment. Geez.
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
LOL. Yeah, no kidding. Careful, or VPhuc will give you a lecture though. Kind of ironic that somebody named VPhuc is so uptight. VPhuc? Really? Wow. I could have made that one up and it wouldn't have come out so perfect. LOL.
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Thank you, Bobby. I think it is the sensible choice. Didn't they even change the rules of tennis for a while because of Gonzalez? The guy was a monster. Imagine him with modern technology. He would be nearly unstoppable!
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
davydenko is not a journeyman, but I see your point.
If fed having a skewed losing h2h with a clay goat and a bad matchup is unpardonable
then what about a 7 in a row finals losing streak on all surfaces and including 3 slams in a row?
a negative HC h2h with a guy who never went to a slam final
and losing to someone barely in the top 100 while in your prime.
but I can already hear the excuses now. I think it starts with a k.
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
There goes Ma'a-nus again with the name calling.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Davydenko got battered by Gasquet at the 2010 US Open, in the second round. He didn't play at the 2009 Australian Open due to a foot injury.
But none of those matches were in a major.
TennisMaven
Banned
Nadal has a losing record against Rosol in the majors only. Ummm, THAT one was a major
Lucky for Nadal in 2009. In 2010 Davy was way past his prime.
Why do only majors count? I guess because of this Federer nr.1 ranking doens't count either right?
Even using your logic that slams count, Fed is 2-1 in wimby, the most important slam. And Nadal doesn't lead in USO. So at best, ignoring age gap, bad matchup and Feds 17 slams and nr.1 ranking and Wtfs, Nadal leads Fed in 2 slams.
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Are you implying that a 6-5 H2H with no slam matches is the same as a 20-10 H2H (with a partial 6-2 H2H in slams on all surfaces?)
Really? Suit yourself I guess, as long as it makes you happy.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
6-1 on HCs
and davydenko is no surface all time great.
but whatevs.
its always different for nadal.
OK he's a journeyman compared to the best. I'm using the term to illustrate a point.
Don't Djokovic and Murray lead h2h against Nadal too on hard? I think Blake and Nalbandian lead it too. And hard courts are where 75% of the tennis is played. And where competition is the toughest. That is a huge hole.
And Nadal might end up the 4th on hard courts in this era behind Fed, Djokovic. Even behind Murray. People just ignore that most of the tennis is played on hard.
But I guess Fed haters will never understand. They are fixated in one small hole in Feds resume, while ignoring a lot of holes in Nadals.
Like I've said there are holes and there are HOLES.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Why do you say luckily? You think Davydenko would have beaten Nadal at those tournaments?
The majors are the most important tournaments. I didn't say that only they counted. Davydenko got his head-to-head advantage over Nadal in the second half of 2009 and into early 2010, when Nadal was losing to all top 10 players bar Tsonga.
Tennis Fanatic 070
Banned
Davydencko always kicks Nadals' butt if he wants, depends on whether he has gambled against himself or not :twisted:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
and thats davydenko's fault because...?
rofl. always an excuse for nadal
tired, sick, baby, too rested, knees, burnt out, wore out, parents divorce, pre prime, post pime, etc etc etc
never because he just lost or he wasnt good enough.
for Fed its always "but the H2H!"
for Rafa its always extenuating circumstances.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Well chances are he would have beaten him. I mean 6-1 h2h on hard. He almost beat Fedex in AO 2010. And Fed was on fire that tournament. Davy was the only one who gave him a tough match. And Fed owns h2h vs Davy. And Davy wasn't even in his prime anymore in 2010.
Now is Davy a bad matchup for Nadal or is he better? I mean Fed has 9 hard court slams, Nadal 2. He leads him 2-0 at AO and people are saying Nadal is better. But Nadal had problems with lower ranked players on hard. Ferrer, Murray, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Blake, Gonzalez, Youzny. Ferrer beat 2 times Nadal at hard court slams yet he is undefeated vs Fed.
So is Nadal vs Fed a bad matchup or is he better? We have to use the same logic for every player.
Tennis Fanatic 070
Banned
You've lost me
I think he's trying to explain;
Federer: 'I have the most slams, 17 of them.'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Laver: 'I have a CYGS'
Federer: 'I am #1 for 302 weeks.'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Laver: 'I have a CYGS'
Federer: 'I have lost only 4 matches in 2005'.
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Laver: 'I have a CYGS'
Federer: 'I have won 93 Finals and Semifinals and lost only 11 between 2004-2007'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Laver: 'I have a CYGS'
If you don't have anything to counter my post, don't reply.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Davydenko beat Nadal at 2009 Shanghai, 2009 World Tour Finals and 2010 Doha (after surviving 2 Nadal CPs). As I said before, this was a period when Nadal was losing every match to top 10 players except for Tsonga. This period took Davydenko from 2-1 against Nadal on hardcourt to 5-1, and the overall head-to-head from 4-2 in Nadal's favour to 5-4 in Davydenko's favour.
Davydenko was playing some of the best tennis of his career in late 2009 and early 2010. Federer's bathroom break in Melbourne (
) and Davydenko's wrist injury at 2010 Rotterdam ended his run of form.Davydenko isn't an easy opponent for Nadal, but let's not go overboard. I'd still solidly back Nadal in a major against him.
Ask yourself how old Nadal was at this time, and how Federer's career was looking at the same age. Federer hadn't won a major when he was the same age that Nadal was when players like Youzhny, Blake, Berdych and Gonzalez were beating him on hardcourts.
Feddy, Yes, they (which is organisator, Jack Kramer) changed a few things in order to stop Pancho: In the 1960 pro tour (won by Gonzalez against Rosewall, Segura and Olmedo) only one service was admitted plus the server had to wait with an approach to the net till the ball touched the field on the server's side. So no serve-and-volley was possible. But the plan did not work: Pancho still won the tour clearly. Gonzalez is arguably the greatest server of all time.
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
HAHAHAHAHA. This is actually pretty funny.
Nadal always bets against Fed when they play though. Good to make some extra cash.
I think he's trying to explain;
Federer: 'I have the most slams, 17 of them.'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Laver: 'I have a CYGS'
Federer: 'I am #1 for 302 weeks.'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Laver: 'I have a CYGS'
Federer: 'I have lost only 4 matches in 2005'.
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Laver: 'I have a CYGS'
Federer: 'I have won 93 Finals and Semifinals and lost only 11 between 2004-2007'
Nadal: 'I have a 20-10 H2H against you.'
Laver: 'I have a CYGS'
Fanatic, Laver would also say: I have 200 tournament titles, for example...
Davydenko beat Nadal at 2009 Shanghai, 2009 World Tour Finals and 2010 Doha (after surviving 2 Nadal CPs). As I said before, this was a period when Nadal was losing every match to top 10 players except for Tsonga. This period took Davydenko from 2-1 against Nadal on hardcourt to 5-1, and the overall head-to-head from 4-2 in Nadal's favour to 5-4 in Davydenko's favour.
Davydenko was playing some of the best tennis of his career in late 2009 and early 2010. Federer's bathroom break in Melbourne (
Davydenko isn't an easy opponent for Nadal, but let's not go overboard. I'd still solidly back Nadal in a major against him.
Ask yourself how old Nadal was at this time, and how Federer's career was looking at the same age. Federer hadn't won a major when he was the same age that Nadal was when players like Youzhny, Blake, Berdych and Gonzalez were beating him on hardcourts.
I don't even know what are you trying to argue. Which horse do you have in the race? Are you applying that Nadal is superior overall tennis player than Fed?
But let's get back on track. Ok so if Nadal was losing to everybody, I guess I can excuse his losses to Davydenko.
Well you backing Nadal vs Davy in slams doesn't really prove anything. What are you trying to apply with the bathroom break? That Fed cheated? He made 1 break in his entire career. Why didn't he choose a better time? And why doesn't he do it consistently?
Well the age gap. Finally something I agree with. So I guess we can't use h2h with players that are from different generations.
But even with the age gap Nadal still has just 2 hard court slams. Federer made more RG finals than Nadal on hard combined. And Nadal has twice as many chances.
Fedex is mr. consistency. He made 10 consecutive AO semis. He even made 5 consecutive semis at RG, something than even the clay goats Borg and Nadal weren't able to do.
And this on his worst surface, while still winning and playing full season being tired. How can anyone even doubt Feds greatness.
Similar threads
