Where's Rafa Nadal on your GOAT-list now?
After winning his seventh slam, his fifth FO title, three Masters 1000 tournaments in a row, 18 Masters shields total--more than anyone, and dominating the 2010 clay-court season, I've moved him up a fair amount on my all-time list.
He was #3(I think) after Montreal for a while last year .Better than bloody Agassi, that's for sure.
I'd place him right behind Mac. So far Rafa is:
- a year-end #1
- a winner of the Wimbledon/French double
- on a six-year major-winning streak
- a winner of two majors without dropping a set
- the open era leader in masters series titles (admittedly he would not be one had these existed before 1990 - Mac or Lendl would probably be ahead of him)
Did Rafa fall out of the top-2 at any point last year? I can't remember. If not, then he's been 1 or 2 for five years now.
Better than bloody Agassi, that's for sure.
I'd place him right behind Mac. So far Rafa is:
- a year-end #1
- a winner of the Wimbledon/French double
- on a six-year major-winning streak
- a winner of two majors without dropping a set
- the open era leader in masters series titles (admittedly he would not be one had these existed before 1990 - Mac or Lendl would probably be ahead of him)
Did Rafa fall out of the top-2 at any point last year? I can't remember. If not, then he's been 1 or 2 for five years now.
You say right behind Mac, wheres Mac on your GOAT list?
I didn't make a list; I might later. What I am suggesting is that Nadal is creeping up on the likes of Mac and Connors and is now easily ahead of Agassi/Wilander/Edberg/Becker.
For the open era:
1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Mcenroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal
One more major and I'd have Rafa above Agassi, but for now I think Agassi has accomplished more in his 20 year career than Rafa in his 8 years (which is nothing to be ashamed of).
In the Open Era my list right now is:
1. Sampras
2. Borg (I cant decide between him and Sampras though)
3. Federer
4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe
7. Nadal
8. Laver (1969 onward achievements only, makes top 10 due to Grand Slam of course)
9. Agassi
10. Wilander
Honorable mentions- Newcombe, Becker, Edberg, Rosewall (again 1969 onwards Rosewall only)
If Nadal can win the French-Wimbledon-U.S Open triple this year I would easily move him up to 5th or even 4th.
I didn't make a list; I might later. What I am suggesting is that Nadal is creeping up on the likes of Mac and Connors and is now easily ahead of Agassi/Wilander/Edberg/Becker.
Ahead of Agassi ? Get out of here. Agassi won all majors and in a time here the contrast in surfaces was much greater, where Wimbledon and RG couldn`t not be more different. Agassi matched all of other relevant Nadal`s achiviements being N.1 ending as N.1 and most importantly was a top player for around 16 years which I considered one of them ost impressive feats in sports. 16 years mate, the Guy was a top player by 1989 and making GS finals until 2005. He transcended several generation of players. This is quite amazing in my view. Many considered legendary players were relevant only for about 5-8 years. Not ot mention 8 Grand slams.
Nadal has still ways to go until he surpasses Agassi, the one important point going for him is what he has done with Federer. He i most likely in the top 10 most expressive Players in history and with much potential still for improvement, no doubt on this.
Nadal is much more dominant, not to mention more consistently dominant.
While Agassi played for a long time he was a non-factor in several of those years, mediocre in some and playing second/third/fourth fiddle to Sampras in most others.
Agassi was never clearly the game's best player. He probably came the closest to it in 1995.
Whereas I look at Nadal and I see a much greater player. Has won a major for six years in a row, has yet to have a bad year, always #1 or #2 in the rankings, most dominant clay court player since Borg, more convincing champion at Wimbledon than Agassi too.
The career grand slam strikes me as somewhat of a fluke. Borg doesn't have one either, nor Pete, nor Lendl. I think Andre was just at the right place at the right time.
Better than bloody Agassi, that's for sure.
I'd place him right behind Mac. So far Rafa is:
- a year-end #1
- a winner of the Wimbledon/French double
- on a six-year major-winning streak
- a winner of two majors without dropping a set
- the open era leader in masters series titles (admittedly he would not be one had these existed before 1990 - Mac or Lendl would probably be ahead of him)
Did Rafa fall out of the top-2 at any point last year? I can't remember. If not, then he's been 1 or 2 for five years now.
I believe that he dropped to no. 4 at one point.Did Rafa fall out of the top-2 at any point last year? I can't remember. If not, then he's been 1 or 2 for five years now.
Nadal is much more dominant, not to mention more consistently dominant.
While Agassi played for a long time he was a non-factor in several of those years, mediocre in some and playing second/third/fourth fiddle to Sampras/Edberg/Lendl in most others.
Agassi was never clearly the game's best player. He probably came the closest to it in 1995.
Whereas I look at Nadal and I see a much greater player. Has won a major for six years in a row, has yet to have a bad year, always #1 or #2 in the rankings, most dominant clay court player since Borg, more convincing champion at Wimbledon than Agassi too.
The career grand slam strikes me as somewhat of a fluke. Borg doesn't have one either, nor Pete, nor Lendl. I think Andre was just at the right place at the right time.
It's up to debate, but I tend to think that greatness stems, first and foremost, from dominance. And only secondly from consistent adequateness. Which is what Agassi brought to the game.
Ahead of Agassi ? Get out of here. Agassi won all majors and in a time here the contrast in surfaces was much greater, where Wimbledon and RG couldn`t not be more different. Agassi matched all of other relevant Nadal`s achiviements being N.1 ending as N.1 and most importantly was a top player for around 16 years which I considered one of them ost impressive feats in sports. 16 years mate, the Guy was a top player by 1989 and making GS finals until 2005. He transcended several generation of players. This is quite amazing in my view. Many considered legendary players were relevant only for about 5-8 years. Not ot mention 8 Grand slams.
Nadal has still ways to go until he surpasses Agassi, the one important point going for him is what he has done with Federer. He i most likely in the top 10 most expressive Players in history and with much potential still for improvement, no doubt on this.
Nadal is and has been really dominant on Clay, in other surfaces he simply is not. Agassi wasn`t particularly dominant in any surface but he was outstanding in all of them.
Agassi was making US open finals in 1990, French open in the early 90's winning wimbledon in 1992. His diversification of being great is clear, what do you mean fluke ? Nadal come out as a dominant Clay courter player up until 2007, where started having more consistent success outside of clay, but has never really being dominant on other surfaces. Until a few years ago, Nadal could be quite fragile on Hardcourts.
Nadal is and has been really dominant on Clay, in other surfaces he simply is not. Agassi wasn`t particularly dominant in any surface but he was outstanding in all of them.
Agassi was making US open finals in 1990, French open in the early 90's winning wimbledon in 1992. His diversification of being great is clear, what do you mean fluke ? Nadal come out as a dominant Clay courter player up until 2007, where started having more consistent success outside of clay, but has never really being dominant on other surfaces. Until a few years ago, Nadal could be quite fragile on Hardcourts.
Agassi was never a surface specialist player, never realied on any surface to build confidence or accumulate his point. He was and could be outstanding anywhere anytime. and had great spurs of being dominant on different surfaces.
As far as the discussion of Agassi vs Nadal, I still place Agassi slightly ahead, though not by much, and I am certain Nadal will soon surpass him.
bahaha your an idiot!
hes a one slam wonder...how can he be an all time list?
Did Rafa fall out of the top-2 at any point last year? I can't remember. If not, then he's been 1 or 2 for five years now.
Its too early to tell. So far it is a great career. If he ends with say 12 plus majors (with USO), 30 plus Masters, some other years at Nr. 1, a 82% percentage and say 25-10 against Federer, he could be moved alongside or above Federer.
For the open era:
1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
5. Connors
6. Mcenroe
7. Agassi
8. Nadal
One more major and I'd have Rafa above Agassi, but for now I think Agassi has accomplished more in his 20 year career than Rafa in his 8 years (which is nothing to be ashamed of).
"
Agassi's inconsistency vs consistency - any one year, amazingly inconsistent of course. But didn't he win at least one tournament every year from 86 to 05 except 1997 - that's phenomenal consistency... If Nadal plays ten more years, we'll be comparing on that score.
r.
"career grand slam is a fluke and overrated."
Yep - that's exactly why so few people have done it...
.
Crud. Logic...logic.
Yes, that's was Cyborg's point. Few people have done it, including people who were better player's than Agassi. Even Agassi would admit his FO was extremely improbable, and he was hanging by a thread at times in that tourney. Agassi deserves absolute credit, luck is part of the game, but yes, it was lucky happenstance that Agassi wound up with that. He was hardly the dominator whom we thought would have a good chance to do it. He is versatile, but besides the FO, the truth is, he was rather fortunate in circumstance to get his Wimbledon title as well, that also was hardly a given.
In any case, I simply don't put much weight on a career grand slam. Nice trivia note, nice feather in the cap. YAY. The point of a grand slam, is all 4 in a YEAR. Take that out...and "grand slam" doesn't even have meaning anymore.
In my mind, having all 4 may be worth say .5 to 1 extra slam title....which in Agassi's case, helps make up for all those AO titles in his bag (not to mention lack of #1 time). Comes out almost a wash for me.
Crud. Logic...logic.
Yes, that's was Cyborg's point. Few people have done it, including people who were better player's than Agassi. Even Agassi would admit his FO was extremely improbable, and he was hanging by a thread at times in that tourney. Agassi deserves absolute credit, luck is part of the game, but yes, it was lucky happenstance that Agassi wound up with that. He was hardly the dominator whom we thought would have a good chance to do it. He is versatile, but besides the FO, the truth is, he was rather fortunate in circumstance to get his Wimbledon title as well, that also was hardly a given.
In any case, I simply don't put much weight on a career grand slam. Nice trivia note, nice feather in the cap. YAY. The point of a grand slam, is all 4 in a YEAR. Take that out...and "grand slam" doesn't even have meaning anymore.
In my mind, having all 4 may be worth say .5 to 1 extra slam title....which in Agassi's case, helps make up for all those AO titles in his bag (not to mention lack of #1 time). Comes out almost a wash for me.