hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
When Nadal starts volleying like Mac, then we'll all have to declare him the GOAT.
Nadal on your All-Time List?
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
poofytail
Banned
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
We've already heard Johnny Mac declare Nadal is the best volleyer of his era, what more can you expect. Besides he hit every volley Mac would have hit if he came in the couple of times Nadal comes in. :twisted:
Not to mention, one of the only good things I hear from Pmac and other US commentators when I watch Nadal's matches is that he is constantly improving.
He is the world number 1. Yet, he is still improving. He could still get to Mac's level in the next couple of months
poofytail
Banned
A list that excludes clay as ever being part of tennis entirely?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
One thing's for sure, he hasn't moved up at all after today's final.
nope. he went down quite a bit for now. total choke job and mentally weak in the end against a player who was tighter then he was.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nope sorry, 17-13. Also 302 weeks at number #1 says he has been #2 more than #1 in his era.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
borg number one
Legend
Lol Rosewall. That is true. That was nice to see him get a major. He's a good player. Meanwhile, Nadal looks very likely to keep adding majors down the road. He's #1 now by a good margin and the clay season follows.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
poofytail
Banned
Agreed, he stays where for 95% of people he originally was. Third being the hands down GOAT Laver, and just behind Federer.
RF20Lennon
Legend
Nadal is tied with Sampras for me.
borg number one
Legend
Nadal is likely to one day be considered the "greatest ever" by the vast majority of people. That will last for a while, until another all time great comes along, and so it goes.
Now, Borg lost to Connors in 1978 at USO with a blister on his racket hand. Its a bit unfair, to say Nadal cannot fight injury problems. His big blister was for real, no, and to bandage your racket hand, is certainly a disadvantage, no.
But make no mistake. The result stands. Wawrinka came through a brutal match with Djokovic, a 3 time holder, and under all circumstances, Nadal would have had his hands full against Wawrinka today. Nadal looked a bit flat, maybe the combined effects of the blisters and other problems took their toll at last.
But make no mistake. The result stands. Wawrinka came through a brutal match with Djokovic, a 3 time holder, and under all circumstances, Nadal would have had his hands full against Wawrinka today. Nadal looked a bit flat, maybe the combined effects of the blisters and other problems took their toll at last.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal said he felt the injury during his warmup with Wawrinka. Clueless.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Why do you keep posting this as if it's some kind of indisputable fact?
1. He isn't "just" behind Federer, he's just behind Sampras.
2. Laver isn't the hands down GOAT, and 95% of people don't think he's the GOAT.
3. A more realistic position is 6th, behind Federer, Laver, Sampras, Gonzales and Rosewall.
kiki
Banned
correction.95% of people born from 1980.
CyBorg
Legend
Nadal didn't look like his usual self the entire tournament.
CyBorg
Legend
95% of people have never heard of Dostoevsky. So what.
Overdrive
Legend
I used C&P's Raskolnikov as an example of an archetype in literature, and no one in the class (of around 35) heard of that book. Nearly 95% of the examples used were from contemporary books and films such as "Catching Fire".. Someone even used Transformers as an example.. v.v
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Just to clarify on the semantics of my grammar: I didn't mean "95% of people don't consider Laver the GOAT", I meant "it's not true to say that 95% of people do consider Laver GOAT" - which was what NadalAgassi was claiming.
I think it's roughly a 40/40 split between Federer and Laver (with 20% picking other candidates). Probably the split is, as Kiki implied, based mainly on the age of the individuals.
CyBorg
Legend
I think that pop culture deserves attention (eg. in media studies), but in many cases what we see is downright philistinism.
I am not necessarily bothered some people's ignorance of tennis history; rather just those types who show outright contempt for anything preceding their fifth birthday.
CyBorg
Legend
Fair enough.
It's probably true that 95% or more ordinary fans do not consider Laver to be greater than Federer. A comparable number of them have probably not even heard of Laver.
But it doesn't matter. His accomplishments don't go away simply because some choose to ignore them.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Hmm, I think that's unlikely. Of all the past greats, Laver has one of the highest profiles - regularly showing up at major finals and having the main arena at the AO named after him.
If there are past greats who get short shrift, it's the likes of Ken Rosewall and, especially, Pancho Gonzales. I, for one, didn't realise how phenomenal the latter's record was until I started reading tennis forums. Because it's all about the traditional majors these days, it looks as if Gonzales did hardly anything - but the truth is obviously very different.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
borg number one
Legend
I wonder if the problems he had on serve due to the blister and tape caused him to change his swing a bit? Sometimes when you have a change like that, you can tweak something. Nadal did have that blister issue before the final. His level during the final was basically the lowest of the whole tournament though. Wawrinka would have still been tough for a 100% Nadal though with the way he was playing, but without the back tweak, I think Nadal would have taken that final in 4 sets max. So, the loss doesn't really change my opinion on Nadal's level on hard courts, but if had secured the AO title it would have been a huge boost for him. He'll take some positives away from this tournament and move forward as he seemingly does every year.
kiki
Banned
Keep in mind that Laver owned his main opponents.I would like somebody to bring up a name of somebody who has a positive record against Laver from 1961 to 1970, which were his peak years.
I agree, it all depends on what you have gone through as a tennis spectator.
poofytail
Banned
ROTFL you again confuse something that you are one of the only people who believes with reality.
Again- you confuse something that are one of the only people who believe with reality
Almost nobody considers Nadal behind Sampras, and even fewer than that almost nobody would put him as low as 6th. If you are going to speak about your frankly STUPID views in a factual truth sense, then mine which many times more people would agree with (and yes I know the Laver part isnt what 95% of people think, even though they should and in truth Laver is that much better than Federer even if many dont realize it; I was referencing the Nadal part with the 95% figure) I can certainly speak of in a factual sense.
There isnt a single tennis expert on the planet today who would have Nadal out of the top 3 or 4, or below Sampras. Quote me or reference a single expert or past champion who has implied Nadal is below Sampras at this point. Listening to Sampras's comments during the Australian Open it is plainly obvious even HE would never put himself above Nadal at this point.
In contrary to your wrong fantasies, Sampras is not even above Borg, let alone Sampras. Sampras's most important records are busted and gone (apart from the 6 year end #1s only), while Borg's still remain. A guy who was completely useless on one of the three major surfaces goes to the bottom of the list of all the guys with similar slam records and resumes, especialy when his most important records were all beaten by a better version of his type of career.
So while continuing to pedal your stupid views that 2% of people might agree with, and with no basis in reality, as truth or fact, dont you dare tell me what I can and cant trumpet as fact thank you very much.
Last edited:
urban, I agree. Nadal is better than Federer. But Roger is a very good player though: He is No.2 player of his country ;-)
kiki, Nadal was double-handicapped: by a bad back and by his hand injuries.
I think a healthy Nadal would have won the title.
NatF, I hope you never will play tennis with such injuries...
Phoenix, a more realistic list would rank Laver and Rosewall ahead of the current No.2 player of Switzerland...
kiki, It's again prove that a 97 years old does more understand of history than a 30 years old...
CyBorg
Legend
His injury was obvious. Which is not meant that it should be used as an excuse, because injuries are a part of the game. But I think Federer's decline is now demonstrable.
CyBorg
Legend
Yes, Gonzales's name is very obscure for some reason. There is one little documentary about him and not much else.
CyBorg, In Austria the young "progressive" people used to say: "Don't trust the Thirty-plus!" -until they reached the 30 mark themselves. Hope that Phoenix will get more respect for the giants of the past when he gets older...
W.B., having this hardly sensible attitude you will not beat the world...
World Beater
Hall of Fame
There wasn't any indication that nadal was carrying an injury that would significantly hamper his performance.
Only until the second set in the AuS Final, could one truly point to something that was limiting his abilities.
His blisters received much media attention, but many players carry that and play without too much physical impairment.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
Considering Nadal's history in matches that he has lost or not played well in, its actually quite a sensible post. There is a correlation between Nadal's supposed physical impairment and his losses.
Regardless, injuries are part of the game. As the great australians said and im paraphrasing " if you show up to the court, you are fit to play".
World Beater, I would have thought that a player with a great handicap is weaker than a fit player. Am I wrong?
Similar threads
